2.3.2.8 The “Wonder Weapon” Motivation
Sprenger asserts that “motivating” has become quite synonymous with leadership,
and is a top demand placed on managers. In general, it is understood that “produc-
ing, increasing, and receiving the behavior (motivation) results from incentives
by management” (Sprenger 1999, p. 22). Therefore, motivating means moving
employees to action, and managers are called upon to get the best out of their
employees.
Most managers understand the task of motivating based on the old perception
that employees do not voluntarily give their best, are inherently idle and unwilling
to perform, that they save their energy for their leisure time and keep good ideas to
themselves. Therefore, they must be motivated by pushing and pulling. To me, this
very much smacks of the X theory. For Sprenger, “motivating” is essentially a form
of external control, a more or less secret form of manipulation designed to influence
behavior systematically. He differentiates between motivating and (true) “motiva-
tion,” which involves the internal drive of the individual, controllable by the
individual (Sprenger 1999, p. 24).
Optimal motivation is intended to combat the specter of inner resignation that
haunts our companies, e.g. in the form of early retirement, which can even spread to
the top management. Staggering figures on employees who have fully or partially
internally “quit” have prompted companies to search frantically for increasingly
sophisticated incentive systems.
Thus, in 2004 the market research firm Gallup examined the “internal commit-
ment” of employees in Germany. The figures had not improved over those of the
previous year: 87% claimed they felt no real commitment to their work. Sixty-nine
percent of the employees simply followed company policy (and gave nothing more),
and 18 claimed to have given up caring once and for all. The overall economic
damage resulting from this low level of commitment in Germany amounts to
roughly 245 billion Euros due to high absence rates and low productivity. Gallup
accurately sees the cause of this problem less in the employees and more in the bad
leadership in German companies, where, the firm also noted, praise and recognition
were in short supply (see Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, November 14, 2004.
Read more atwww.gallup.de).
The only response most companies have to these figures is the individualization
of the reward mechanism – a contradiction in terms. But no one comes up with the
idea to seek the causes for the leisure orientation of so many employees precisely in
company’s efforts to motivate them, even though, according to Sprenger, this is
where they are to be found. We now know with sufficient certainty that motivation
itself has not diminished, and that only the opportunities companies provide to
implement values have failed to keep pace with employees’ changed understanding
of values in the modern working world. Money and status do not necessarily attract
the new generation; work that is fun is just as important as a high income for
employees in today’s world, and tasks that are meaningful are more important than
career status. These days, individuals expect the opportunity to invest their entire
2.3 The Relationship Between Leader and Led 85