Motivation And The Theory Of Everything

If you ask people "if you could be anyone who would you be?" you'll get some interesting answers.  I'm guessing a lot of people would chose someone famous, attractive, rich, pious, etc.  Most wouldn't say Michio Kaku.  But I would.  If not only for the coolness factor of being very, very, smart and being on TV on the Science Channel - but to have that great shock of gray hair ( BTW - I'd do it just for the hair.)

If I could go back in time, I'd study harder.  I'd focus more.  I wouldn't have been mean to the girl who sat next to me in 4th grade.  I'd be a physicist.  

Unfortunately, I'm not a physicist so I can't create a time machine to go back and right the wrongs of my past.  

But I have stayed at a Holiday Inn and I can play one on the internet.  And I'm as good as anyone at bending real theories and ideas into a shape that helps me make a point.

Unified Theory

In physics (and please - those that really understand this stuff don't call me out - just go with the overall flow of the logic) there is something called the Theory of Everything (TOE) and its close cousin the Grand Unification Theory (GUT.)  These theories seek to combine, under one theory, the four fundamental forces that govern our universe: the gravitational force, which keeps us from flying into outer space, the electromagnetic force, which light up our cities and energizes our lasers and our computers, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, which lights up the stars and galaxies.  

But these things don't really connect.  They explain the big stuff - black holes, planets, gravity.  They explain the little stuff - protons, neutrons, bosons, muons (really, I'm not making those names up.)  But none of the theories by themselves explain everything and the math behind them doesn't connect to each other. 

In other words we can explain what happens at a large scale and a small scale but it requires different sets of equations and assumptions.

Motivation Is EXACTLY The Same

When I peel back the onion on motivation theory and other theories that try to explain why people do things I see a similar quandary.  We can, through research, explain what a "population" will do within a distribution - meaning we can get pretty close to knowing how/why MANY people will respond to specific influences and motivational tools.  Not all - but many.  

We can also find out what an individual will do given a specific set of criteria and scenarios.  

However, these two things are disconnected and don't allow us to use one, or the other, by themselves to influence behavior.

The Big and The Small

I can, through conversations and discussions understand what will motivate an individual.  But I cannot apply that thinking to the entire group and expect the result to be positive.  There are too many variations and vagaries between individuals for these motivation keys to apply to the group.

Conversely, I can do a study and predict within a specific distribution what the majority of people will do in a given situation.  But on an individual level these predictions fall apart.

In other words we have the same problem with motivation that we have with physics.

The new "research" on motivation can be used to predict a large portion of the population - but it can't be used to motivate individual behavior.  Individual motivations can be used to motivate a specific person but it can't be used to motivate a group.

This Is Why It Is Hard

Because we have this disconnect between the rules for groups and rules for individuals it is a very difficult task to design effective incentive and motivation programs.  However, many managers take on this role not understanding that their job is to manage both theories - not just pick one and run with it.

Let Me Make It Harder

And just for fun... remember what one person does in your organization influences what others do - and therefore you not only have to know the rules that govern the population, the rules the drive the individual but you have to take into account that these things are connected and don't operate independently.

To demonstrate this idea watch the video below (email subscribers will have to click through to the post) on pendulums.  We can, through physics predict the action of a pendulum.  But add a couple more pendulums to the mix and it falls into chaos.  This is similar to your organization.  Many individuals acting on their own, and in connection with, the others in your organization.  

If you thought it was hard to manage the "big" and the "small" - now add the chaotic. 

That' what I do every day.  

Cheers.  And if we don't talk before  - and Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and have a great 2010.

Comments

[Todd Hanson]

Interesting insight, Paul. Your explanation of how everything is interconnected and interdependent makes me visualize companies as living organisms. You diagnose, make corrections, monitor, make more corrections, etc. And so it should be with any effort to improve engagement.

[Paul Hebert]

Your observation is spot on - there is good book called The Biology of Business (1999) that makes a great case for that theory. A very prescient book IMHO.

[Chris Ferdinandi - Renegade HR]

I LOVE the Michio Kaku reference - he's one of my favorite narrators on History's "The Universe."

Your analogy between motivation and the search for the Theory of Everything is spot on. Thanks Paul!

[Scott Crandall]

Paul --- This points to the everpresent complexity of reality, and why most everything is -- to one degree or another -- a crapshoot. Just because we can describe something, and measure it, and perhaps even explain it, all this effort is still just an approximation of reality. Reality is its own truth.

As leaders, we've got to work REALLY hard to know our people, care for them, know and care for the mission, and then find a way to bind all that together. And, theories and knowledge notwithstanding, we'll never know EVERYTHING it takes to get through and do it right, not all the time.

For the perfectionists among us that's frustrating (at best), and for the hyper-driven, that's simply not good enough. But the bottom line: while we're improvable, we're not perfectable. Not people, not systems, not companies. The true, everyday reality is the constant struggle: the fight to do right, to get better, and to win. That's our mission -- and our curse -- as leaders.

And Merry CHRISTmas to you and yours as well.

[Paul Hebert]

Love the guy - physicist rockstar

[Paul Hebert]

The idea that managers can actually "control" outputs is long overdue to be revisited. Too many managers still operate under the 1950's model of the definition of management. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of a business environment that was as static as that of the 1950-1980 era. Things change too fast.

Our best goal is to keep things "in bounds" and moving forward. Not unlike a runner with the football. You can't tell them to run straight and expect them to succeed. You need to zig/zag and react to the environment on the field. While staying in bounds.

[Walter]

Ouch! This is indeed a quandary. As with the mysteries of the universe, we cannot truly decipher the true nature of our minds. :-)

[Bohdan Rohbock]

Systems Theory is a useful framework for taking into account how things connect.

[simone]

Michio Kaku has become a crack pot ... Fame has made him embrace foolish notions that is fellow scientist think is gibberish ... he once did great work

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks for the recommendation and for contributing. Happy holidays!

[Paul Hebert]

Maybe - but I do wish I had his hair. Is is however, a theoretical physicist and that means he should be looking at crackpot ideas.

Remember:

“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it” --Einstein

[Wally Bock]

Gosh, I love this kind of "tie it all together" post. When I work with individual bosses, I usually suggest that two related concepts influence the difficulty of their work. First, as Bohdan suggests with his reference to systems theory, everything is connected. Second, as you increase elements arithmetically, complexity increases exponentially.

[Paul Hebert]

And that is why the call it work! Thanks wally.

[Andy Klemm]

Paul:

If you want further twists of the mind try Leadership and the New Science by Margaret Wheatley (an attempt to understand the subject through the lens of fractals) http://www.margaretwheatley.com/video.html.

And, check out the Web site for the Santa Fe Institute http://www.santafe.edu/. I have a friend who linked up with them in business strategy work while he was with one of the major consultancies.

And finally, look into Walter O'Brien (IQ 197) at http://www.scorpioncomputerservices.com/aboutthefounder.htm.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks Andy. Appreciate the links. I did post a long while back about looking at incentive and reward programs as a fractal exercise.

[Laura Schroeder]

Ah, yes! I feel smarter now... must be the physics. I think you're right!

[Paul Hebert]

I know - just using the word "physics" makes the neurons fire!