"One of the most telling questions you can ask someone in any kind of leadership role is what motivates them to be a better leader. Some will say it's to enhance their personal effectiveness, or that leading is an expected part of their professional development. Others may say that they lead because of a sense of leader identity, purpose, or personal obligation to serve their organization and the people with whom they work. Many will proffer a mix of instrumental, external motivations (like pay or career progression) and more intrinsic, internal rationales (like the obligation to serve)."
"As one might predict, we found that those with internal, intrinsic motives performed better than those with external, instrumental rationales for their service — a common finding in studies of motivation. We were surprised to find, however, that those with both internal and external rationales proved to be worse investments as leaders than those with fewer, but predominantly internal, motivations. Adding external motives didn't make leaders perform better — additional motivations reduced the selection to top leadership by more than 20%. Thus, external motivations, even atop strong internal motivations, were leadership poison."
"One of the longstanding dichotomies in the field of leader development is whether to teach leadership as skills that lead to higher performance (a competency-based model that is relatively easy to metric), or to teach leadership as a complex moral relationship between the leader and the led (a values-based model that is challenging to metric). Our study demonstrates that those who lead primarily from values-based motivations, which are inherently internal, outperform those who lead with additional instrumental outcomes and rewards."
资本主义的职场是等价交换:我出钱,你出力。我给你一块钱,你出一块钱的力。
我要你在原来的基础上加倍出力,得给你两块钱。
我激励你,好好干,干好了给你两块钱。你干好了,我给你两块钱,皆大欢喜。
我激励你,好好干,干好了给你两块钱。你干好了,我给你一块钱,接着激励,为了祖国的前途,人类的理想好好干。你不傻,翅膀硬了,找八路去了。
我再找个人激励,运气好了碰到个冤大头,甘心受剥削。
所谓领导艺术,是用来忽悠人的。人活着需要理想,当领导的不忽悠人没人待见。但现实是人活着还要吃饭,穿衣,买房,供娃爬藤,当领导的光忽悠人也没人待见。
题外的话:励志是励给自己听的,如同道德,是用来约束自己的,不是给个制高点跳上去约束别人。
这个视频在前面的thread里贴了:
里面主要观点(过度简化):
对于重复劳动类的工作,钱被证明是有效的激励方法。
但对于需要创造性的工作被证明不是最有效的。不是说钱不重要。视频里的理论是,给够,让你的员工不再为生计发愁。(我的理解是略高于市场平均水平)但是在达到这个标准后,钱的激励效果就微乎其微了。
这也是为什么startup和新兴公司喜欢雇年轻人,还有激情去build career,帐还没算得太清楚 :)
我觉得这个是leadership范畴,有志于培养领导力的同学们应该多学习讨论。因为他们对工作的要求不只是钱,还有成就感,影响力和发展空间的要求。
咱们不该给管理技巧太多负面定性:洗脑,忽悠。应该鼓励坛子里的年轻人发展领导力,承担更多责任。作为一代移民,也给娃们做个好榜样。(像印度移民们一样)
政治不正确
算钱没错,而且没必要和领导力对立起来。
我觉得年轻人应该野心勃勃,有更高的自我实现目标(包括钱),领导力是必须掌握的技能。
我个人不喜欢以计较短期经济利益为理由,拒绝take initiative, ownership, responsibility(因为还没给钱就put effort in简直太傻了)。这些大概率会lead to long term gain,也是发展leadership的开始。
班长的顾虑我也理解:如果我天天motivate我的team,短期效率高了,但等他们翅膀硬了,窝不够大了就会跑(或者跟我磕,谋我的职位)。我还得费心继续培养新生代,吃力不讨好得事。还不如大家就踏踏实实把活干好,别有那么多非分之想。自己当information gate,告诉低下人how,最多what, 绝对不说why。我见过大部分manager都是这么干的。
这个问题我得到得官方答案是:我自己也得成长,把手下培养壮大我就能move up。不一定有可操作性,听着象个坑。这个我也没想清楚。有没有过来人给支招?
在一个发展上升中的公司里,大家都一心往上爬,人走了,会有新来的一点都不差甚至更好的人顶上。manager一定要找好可以接自己班的人,然后才能往上升啊,毕竟grow talents是manager的最主要职责之一
不要混着,还每天不满,觉得工资低都是老板的错,那就是自己找不开心了。
因为老板自己可能也在恨没能涨工资,但还得强作笑脸来motivate你呢
能想清楚自己的战略就是明白人
除了钱以外,还要有别的motivation 技能
job satisfaction, knowing what you are doing,甜言蜜语必不可少,你本事对专业知识掌握得怎样,具体说起来有很多
组员,同事。想想你自己被人夸奖,但其实并没有收到钱的时候的感受,是不是很开心,是不是很愿意继续做下去![](https://bbs.wenxuecity.com/include/editor/ckeditor/plugins/smiley/images/wxc/002.gif)
就会知道,除了钱,工作还有别的价值。
我观察过我的老美同事,有些人的职位好多年都没变,甚至还有要退休的,都一直有很高的工作热情。钱并不是他们唯一追求的。
当然这些并不完全是领导的功劳。但是好的领导能保证一个好的工作环境,给员工分配有意思,有挑战的工作,也属于领导艺术的范畴。当然根据工作绩效,提职,加薪也要跟上,但钱不是唯一的激励。
那manager如果都批准,其实是对其他组员的不公平。同理,如果允许有人不好好工作,还拿同样的评语,涨同样的工资,那也是对组里其他人的不公平。
但是对于不好好干的,也必须要不鼓励。因为给表现好的多了,表现差的就会少。这才是公平,对吧
当然如果你们公司的整体工资水平就是不高,而你最看重的就是钱,那你的manager也没法给你更多,这是事实。
那种时候,我一般的鼓励就是,还是要努力学新的知识,长进到下一个level,找到新的工作我会支持
就会知道,工作的价值就是钱。
好像逻辑有点儿不通。
可能有工作不为钱的,当小概率忽略。
除了钱,有的人还追求成就感,成长空间,职业发展等等(长线变现率其实更高)。就好像有人喜欢花时间研究投资,美食,园艺,DIY啥的。都是个人选择,不用互相judge。
我开始想说的是,这个坛子对领导力定位有点负面。
有志在职场发展的同学们应该互相鼓励,讨论如何提高领导力。
咱坛子的ID多是中年往上的一代移民。价值观,生活观已经定型,也不想瞎折腾。这类话题不受欢迎也不意外。
我只是回答你的问题。建议你换工作,不知道为什么是攻击
除了工作环境,还有公司是做什么的,有什么社会意义,和自己本人追求的人生价值与发展,是否匹配。不是能简单地用钱能衡量的。
其实在资本主义的所谓的拜金主义下,我发现更多的人是为理想而工作,从普通人到名人,有太多的例子了。
要不然我也不会回答你
不是光讨论如何提高领导力的问题,是要先想清楚为什么要当领导。
贴一篇文章: https://hbr.org/2014/07/why-you-lead-determines-how-well-you-lead
节选几段我认为的重点:
"One of the most telling questions you can ask someone in any kind of leadership role is what motivates them to be a better leader. Some will say it's to enhance their personal effectiveness, or that leading is an expected part of their professional development. Others may say that they lead because of a sense of leader identity, purpose, or personal obligation to serve their organization and the people with whom they work. Many will proffer a mix of instrumental, external motivations (like pay or career progression) and more intrinsic, internal rationales (like the obligation to serve)."
"As one might predict, we found that those with internal, intrinsic motives performed better than those with external, instrumental rationales for their service — a common finding in studies of motivation. We were surprised to find, however, that those with both internal and external rationales proved to be worse investments as leaders than those with fewer, but predominantly internal, motivations. Adding external motives didn't make leaders perform better — additional motivations reduced the selection to top leadership by more than 20%. Thus, external motivations, even atop strong internal motivations, were leadership poison."
"One of the longstanding dichotomies in the field of leader development is whether to teach leadership as skills that lead to higher performance (a competency-based model that is relatively easy to metric), or to teach leadership as a complex moral relationship between the leader and the led (a values-based model that is challenging to metric). Our study demonstrates that those who lead primarily from values-based motivations, which are inherently internal, outperform those who lead with additional instrumental outcomes and rewards."
https://www.westpoint.edu/about/history-of-west-point/notable-graduates
我不是为了external motivations。当时和老板谈,我说是为了做更大的项目有更大的impact。自己能做的毕竟有限,带着队伍才能scale。后来放弃lead position主要是项目前景不好(很鸡肋),又没有机会接手更多的项目,和我的初衷相悖。最近一直在反思,如果需要再次管人应该注意什么。
公司组织了leadership training,给新升职的一线manager办的。每个月半天,办了一年。我一直抱怨培训机构有拉长时间骗钱嫌疑,但收获还是很多。
观察其他参加培训的new managers: 共同特点是take initiative和ownership。此外都天生比较强势,对事情发展方向有控制欲。Communication好。
里面关于leadership的一些breakdown对我有帮助:
强调coaching的重要性。Leader的重要工作是观察组员处在不同的学习阶段,给不同的任务和帮助。这个对我有用。当时一个junior组员完成不了任务又没积极性,通过这套方法论,发现他是需要更多手把手的指导,适合与人交流的工作。
Motivation和innovation:这个对我当时的组很重要,我们对innovation要求高。培训中我问了很多问题,分享了很多实例,提了好多建议。最后培训人私下和我说:你是真心关心motivation和innovation,很多manager只是做做表面工作。这个feedback引起我的思考,做这些其实对我自己的job security没什么好处。组里的孩子们个个争先的创新和争visibility,就像多多描述的场面一样。做为lead我的日子并不好过。但内心我又觉得着是正确的事,很矛盾。
Psychological safety:营造互相信任,容忍错误(focus on how to prevent bad thing happen)。这方面我天生做的好,做的太好了。。。离开后组里最亲信的孩子和我说:你应该更严厉一些。
这是西点军校的人和一般人的区别
这样想正常,但固步自封在了打工者的级别难以寸进。而且负面思维容易影响到人的日常言行,长期对保饭票的底线也没有积极意义。
小河试图讨论leadership为职场进阶服务,属于比较积极入世的态度。我觉得需要支持。咱们的社区很缺乏类似的态度。
但是搞明白工作和自身除了钱以外的意义的这个过程,也不容易,对于每个人也不一样。而且我们以前接受的教育,都是口号教育,缺少了self-discovery这一块。
就是最后一点,你所说的Psychological safety,一开始当领导这样做挺好。但还是要对出的错误进行就事论事的讨论,就像你说的,避免以后同样的错误再发生。
还有对于员工负面的反馈,也要勇于和他私底下当面说。当然要有说话的技巧,如果你让员工明白你是在帮助他,他会接受得更好。