Motivation Mini Case Study: Himesh's Story
On his first day back at a plant in India after an Optimal Motivation training session, Himesh encountered one of his employees with a type of low-quality motivation. This technical service executive was in the lab having a discussion with an external contractor. Himesh noticed that the technician was wearing safety glasses, but she had not followed plant procedures to ensure the contractor was also protected.
Himesh is a strict manager with a no-tolerance policy when it comes to breaking safety regulations. His normal response to this flagrant breach of policy would be to call the technician to his office and, in his words, “read her the riot act.” By the way, this is why Himesh had been in the training class. His plant's engagement scores were among the lowest in a global company that has more than fifty thousand employees.
According to Himesh's self-assessment, “I am known to blow a fuse (or two) when safety rules are flouted; however, I managed to keep my cool and decided to test my training.” He asked the technician to come to his office. He could see that she was worried about his reaction. Instead of leading with his dismay and disappointment, Himesh started by explaining that he had just received some training on motivation. He shared key concepts with her. He then asked her if she thought that the rule to wear safety glasses, even when there was no experiment going on was stupid, as there is no danger to the eyes. Did she feel imposed upon by having to wear safety glasses at all times?
Since Himesh had invited the technician to have a discussion rather than a dressing down, she was open and candid. She explained that she had a two-year-old child and was extremely concerned about lab safety, as she wanted to reach home safe every evening. To Himesh's great surprise, she also shared that in certain areas, she would prefer even more stringent safety measures, not less stringent. For example, she suggested that safety shoes should be required for lab experiments conducted at elevated temperatures. But when no experiments were being conducted, she just could not understand the rationale for wearing safety glasses. Indeed, the technician expressed her resentment about the imposed rule. She wasn't compelled to enforce it, especially with an external contractor. Himesh listened and genuinely acknowledged her feelings. He then provided his rationale behind the regulation, explaining his hope and intention that wearing glasses would become a habit that protects people's lives, just like wearing a safety belt in the car.
Himesh said, “I saw the light dawn in her eyes.”
It is important to note that Himesh did not attempt to motivate the technician. He recognized that she was already motivated—she was motivated not to follow the regulation. He challenged his natural tendencies, taking time to explore why she was motivated the way she was. By understanding the nature of her motivation, he had more options on how to lead: “I am sure if I had followed my normal instincts and given her a piece of my mind, I would have been met with a hangdog look, profuse apologies, and a promise to never do this again. And it probably would have happened again. She would have gone away from my office with feelings of resentment and being imposed upon, and I would also have had a disturbed day due to all the negative energy.”
Himesh's approach worked to shift his technician's motivation from low quality (imposed outlook) to higher quality (aligned outlook). Throughout this book we will explore some of the more subtle but powerful aspects of Himesh's motivational approach. As he reported, “Suffice it to say that in my view, my little experiment was a success. I have since shared what I learned with many of my team members and plan to have more motivational outlook conversations with them in the coming weeks.”