As the number of people who have mental problems increases, many managers and managers think that the "motivation" of employees is an issue.
Certainly, bookstore business books are lined with titles such as "motivation management" and "motivation" along with "mental health", and for that reason, more and more companies are paying attention to "employee motivation".
However, personally, I have some doubts about targeting motivation as "management" or "control."
What motivation depends on:
I'm skeptical about targeting motivation as "management" or "control" because motivation doesn't just depend on what happens at work.
Quarrel with a partner.
lack of sleep.
Win or lose the online game you played yesterday.
Weekend drinking party.
All of this affects "work motivation."
The impact of personal life on motivation is by no means small:
In this way, a situation in which work affects one's personal life, but conversely, the situation in one's personal life that can affect one's work, is called "spillover". In short, trying to "maintain" the mental health of employees requires public and private management and control.
But not many people want the company to intervene that much. The logic of "work motivation" often ignores this "impact of personal life." In fact, your boss can't be responsible for motivating employees who aren't sleeping in the game. Even in a fight with a partner, the boss is basically powerless. On the contrary, if you interfere with it, you can say that you are out of your boss's authority.
Can it be adjusted according to the difficulty of the work?
On the other hand, some say that the boss must adjust the skill level of his subordinates and the level of work and design the work optimally so that the mentality is preserved and the motivation is increased.
Indeed, as Mihaly Csiksent Mihaly's "Flow Theory" teaches, if the level of challenge is too high, people will fall into Anxiety or Worry.
Or, conversely, if the challenge level is too low, it will result in Relaxation or Boredom. This is certainly true in theory.
The area of work that can be controlled by the boss is not wide
But look at the reality. Is the authority given to your boss such a flexible way to design your work?
Is it possible to freely adjust the demands of customers? In many workplaces, you don't have that much authority, and even if you tell your boss to "design a job," not many people have the ability to handle it. Moreover, "motivation for work" strongly depends on the subjectivity of workers.
Chiksent Mihaly, mentioned above, laments that "people with the power to influence the nature of work are very little interested in whether work is fun or not," he said.
"The expectation that if every profession is structured like a game, everyone will enjoy it is also wrong. Guarantee that people will enter the flow, even if the external conditions are the most favorable. No. Optimal experience depends on challenging opportunities and a proactive assessment of one's own abilities, so even potentially great professions often become unsatisfactory. "
In short, when you look at mental care from a "motivation" perspective, there are too many areas that your boss can't control. Therefore, in reality, the only effective means that a boss can take is a passive involvement that "does not lower the motivation of his subordinates."
Don't be rude
Do not do power harassment or sexual harassment
I keep a promise
To put it simply, move to meet "common sense as a member of society" and "legal requirements." Isn't this a general line?
How should a boss maintain the mental health of his subordinates?
Then, what kind of means should the boss try to maintain mental health for his subordinates instead of "motivation"?
In his book, Toshiyuki Minami, who deals with various cases as a depression counselor, said, "It is very mentally important to realize that you are not able to work because of your lack of ability. It is a risk".
In other words, the area where the boss should "manage" mentally is not the motivation of his subordinates, but the "results". Conversely, if you focus on that area, you can avoid mental risks to some extent.
So what exactly do subordinates need to achieve results?
Some people may ask, "Isn't it guidance?", But in reality, "guidance" does not change the performance. This is because it takes several years to improve human ability. Rather, readers are well aware of the cases were "guidance" such as "why can't you do such an easy thing?" And "you should do this" hunts down your subordinates.
Therefore, in this case, the following three are actually required in the field.
1. Evaluation criteria
What is the "result"?
What are the indicators to judge whether or not the results are being achieved?
What do you have to do specifically to achieve results?
3. Orientation / Aptitude
Whether there is an orientation/aptitude to do the work
The general pattern is that if any one of these is missing, no results will be obtained, and the mental health of subordinates will be hindered as the reprimands and guidance are repeated.
So in reality,
"Clarify what is the result"
"Put a path for what should be done"
"Transfer (relocate) according to the ability of the person"
These are the first requirements for mental health.
The most painful thing is the lack of results:
There is an anecdote in Greek mythology called "Sisyphus Rock".
Sisyphus, who was angry with the Olympian gods, suffered the eternal torture of having to keep pushing the huge rocks that roll down from the foot of the mountain every time he reached the summit after his death.
It is an anecdote that expresses how cruel torture is to "repeat endless work without results", but from the perspective of subordinates, the state of no results at all is the same "blame" as this Sisyphus rock. You can think of it as "painful".
Rather than dealing with things that are out of control and uncertain, such as "motivation," we deal with things that can be controlled, such as "results" and "actions."
Isn't that the responsibility of the manager or boss?