Motivation Mini Case Study: The Art of Schmoozing

As the food and beverage director at a midsize resort, Art was enjoying immediate success with his approach: “For waiters, it's all about the tips.” He explained, “I teach my wait staff how to get better tips through schmoozing. They are motivated because the more they chat up customers, use their names, ooze charm, and even touch them appropriately, the higher their tips. They see a direct cause and effect.”

This approach was working. Most of the wait staff were generating more tips. The question we need to consider is what motivational outlook Art's tactics encouraged. His focus on increased tips provided his wait staff with a sense of autonomy: If I choose to schmooze, I'll get more tips. Art's focus on specific behaviors and the immediate feedback of higher tips reinforced their success, growth, and learning—and probably a sense of competence.

While Art's approach seemed to satisfy his people's need for autonomy and competence, he was ignoring relatedness. In a people-oriented business, Art failed to encourage a connection between his wait staff and the people they were serving. Beyond earning more tips, few of his wait staff had a sense of meaning or deeper purpose to their work.

At the end of the night, a typical comment from a waiter reflected an external motivational outlook: “Wow, look at all the tips I made!” Consider the qualitative difference between that comment and one reflecting an optimal motivational outlook: “I think I may have been the only good thing that happened to that couple tonight. They came in grumpy but left laughing. It felt good to run interference for Tony when he got behind on two of his tables. We really were cranking as a team tonight—like a well-oiled machine. I had fun! I made a difference. And wow, on top of all that, I made money doing something I enjoy, am good at, and find meaningful.”

Art missed a wonderful opportunity for creating a workplace where his staff could experience the power of ARC. He could have teed up success as building relationships, improving service, or establishing repeat customers rather than earning more tips. He could have helped his staff tap into their values for service, creativity in making improvements, or enjoyment of their job. He could have showed them how satisfaction comes from making a positive difference in a person's dining experience or from their own sense of enjoyment in the work. Art could have fostered a deeper, more significant experience for his staff by helping them shift from an external motivational outlook.

Not understanding what really motivates people came back to haunt Art. His focus on an external motivational outlook was simply not sustainable. When his staff had mastered schmoozing and maximized their tips, there was nowhere else to grow. When the season slowed down, the economy slumped, and there were fewer tips to be schmoozed out of people, his people's performance slowed and slumped as well.

When his staff, and the customers they served, started to complain, turnover increased. Art's response was, “The only way I can get people to improve their performance is to pay them more money, set up recognition programs, and reward and incentivize them to work harder. And I don't have the budget for that.”

Art did what most organizations do when they don't have enough money to keep elevating pay and incentives to motivate people using traditional approaches to motivation—he pegged the role of waiter as a high turnover job. He tried to justify the increased costs of hiring and training as normal in the industry. He blamed incompetent people for the negative impact on sales and customer devotion.

Imagine if Art had understood what really motivates people. He could have encouraged autonomy, relatedness, and competence by providing more choices on how to succeed, helping the staff discover the meaning and value of serving others, and encouraging creativity and new skills. He could have generated more energy and vitality and sustained performance over the long run.

The irony was that the resort owners came to see Art as incompetent and let him go. They rationalized that the food and beverage director is a high turnover position.