We all make lots of decisions every day. Most of them are subconscious. Some are small and trivial, like whether to wear a t-shirt or a jumper. And others are less frequent but carry lots more weight. On a personal level, it could be deciding whether to buy a house. In business, they can range from priority decisions to company takeovers.

We also want to make good decisions as often as possible. Good decisions are those that lead to the desired outcome. For example, we might ponder which outfit to wear on our first date, to increase our chances of a second date. Or we try and find the best set of priorities to hit business targets.

The first step to set up a good decision is to be clear about the desired outcome. We want to aim for a single, well-articulated outcome.

Once we have our target, the obvious next step is to explore potential solutions. Most often there is more than one path we can take to achieve the goal. Our job is to decide which one gives us the best possible chance of success.

And to be able to weigh up the options, we need to identify the trade-offs.

The Tale of Redbubble’s Hiring Process

As a case study, let us talk about hiring — the most beloved topic for tech companies at the moment. And like most organisations out there, we are looking for quite a few roles, ranging from engineering to design.

To make sure we are not falling behind, we are reviewing our recruitment process regularly. During one of those reviews, we identified a problem with the number of open roles and the load it was putting on our talent team. So we decided to aim for a new outcome:

Lower the administrative overhead for our talent team.

Decent first step. We identified our desired outcome.

While there are a lot of nuances to hiring, there are only a few high-level approaches to it. We considered two of them: a pooling strategy Vs. individual roles. To illustrate, let us imagine a scenario where we are looking for 10 engineers across many teams. In a pool, all are put together in a single ad, whereas the individual approach has separate roles for each team.

Great! We got options. But what next?

Both are feasible and offer — as expected — certain advantages and disadvantages. So to make an informed decision, we started identifying the trade-offs between the two options.

A pooling approach simplifies the setup and process. Fewer people need to manage the process and we only need to worry about one group of interviewers. However, it is not clear during the process which team a candidate might join. This makes it harder to get candidates excited about specific aspects of the teams looking for people.

With an individual approach, it is a lot clearer for the candidate to understand who they’ll be working with and what the projects might look like. As a company, we can also go into a lot more detail on the role and better sell it. However, we need more hiring managers and interview panels with separate roles.

We have a goal. We have options and trade-offs. Now it is time to make the decision.

And since we have done all the hard work already, this step is straightforward. Given our aim to reduce administrative overhead we went with the pooling approach.

Trade-Offs and Buy-In

Trade-offs can also help with another aspect of decision-making: Communication and buy-in.

Bad communication around decisions can be a huge source of frustration. When someone comes to you (or your team or department) and presents a decision, you want to understand why. Nothing is worse than a decision without good reasoning behind it.

A key piece to having good communication around a decision is to share the Why behind it. ‘We’re trying to lower the administrative load on our team, so we’re moving to a pooling approach’. If the why is not shared, then people will get frustrated.

But we can do better, simply by sharing a bit about the options and trade-offs we considered. It will bring more understanding to the group on why and how the decision was made. Which increases our chance of getting full buy-in.

Trade-offs are Crucial to Good Decision Making

Making good decisions consistently is tough. And there is no guarantee that a good decision will lead to a good outcome. But having a solid process increases our chances of a good decision and a positive result:

1. Be clear about the outcome we want to achieve
2. Identify the trade-offs between the potential options
3. Communicate the decision to get buy-in

Trade-offs play a crucial part in this process. Without identifying and articulating them, our decisions will be mostly guesswork.

Trade-Offs in Decision Making was originally published in Redbubble on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The more time I spend in leadership roles, the more I reflect on what it takes to make good decisions. I have previously written about strategies for decision making and I am preparing an article on the importance of trade-offss as well.

This article is about another important aspect to it:

Be clear about the outcome we want to achieve.

Sounds like a logical first step? Certainly. But there are a couple of challenges we have to navigate along the way…

Outcome Clarity

Last year, we focused on an initiative to introduce a Tech Lead role. There were a few reasons to tackle it. And, being ambitious, we wanted the role to solve team-based technical leadership as well as department-wide decision making.

The outcome was unclear so the rollout was anything but a success. There was confusion in the group about responsibilities. On top of that people were running off in lots of different directions. It took us quite a bit of effort to adjust and bring it back to something more focused.

It all started with the initiative outcome. It was unclear what we wanted to achieve.

Outcome Drift

Even more recently, we decided to introduce some high-level team health metrics across the engineering organisation. Mainly to ensure all teams collect some data and we get a rough idea of their situation.

Sounds like a reasonable ask and a clear, desired outcome. (So far, so good)

Unfortunately, we got side-tracked along the way. To achieve the goal, some teams invested in a new project management tool. This did not prevent us from achieving our initial goal (Consistent Health Metrics). But it shifted the desired outcome away from it, towards Better Project Management.

The drifting of outcomes is not always a bad thing. But if it happens, it needs to be a conscious choice.

Being Outcome-Focused

There are a lot of factors when it comes to making good decisions. And the definition and clarity of the desired outcome plays a big part. Following are a couple of strategies I have found helpful:

Define the outcome

Before diving into an initiative or weighing up options, step back and define the desired outcome. If possible, we want a single outcome to make sure the decision stays small and focused.

Identify outcome drift

Every so often, while we work through the initiative, it is worth checking back on whether our options are still focused on the desired outcome. If not, we have two options:

• Either our original outcome is still worth pursuing and we need to adjust our approach; or
• The goalposts have changed and it is time to adjust the desired outcome.

We often skip over the last part and miss communicating the adjustment — after all, we are on the ‘right’ path. But, a change in outcomes is as big a deal as a change in the chosen solution and needs to be shared as well.

Making good decisions takes the right mindset, approach, and — of course — a bit of luck.

And it all starts by defining the desired outcome.

Outcome-Focused Decision Making was originally published in Redbubble on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We are often drawn to people we consider Idealists. Those that embrace their core principles. Who put in the time and work towards fighting the (good) fight. Who persevere even if there are major setbacks. In tech, a famous example is Steve Jobs, who was idealistic about user experience. But this applies to pretty much all areas, from climate change to civil rights.

We all have idealistic traits, whether they show up lightly, or stronger. One of my core values is personal growth. I am putting great focus into making sure everybody in my team has goals and feels supported in their career.

Depending on your situation and role, it can be beneficial or required to show strong idealistic behaviour. Software engineering is a good example. Being a good engineer and writing high-quality code depends on sticking to some core values: Write clear and understandable code. Consider maintainability and extensibility. Understand and manage tech debt. And lots more.

It is easy to write code. It is even easier to write bad code. But to become an effective engineer, who can build and maintain a complex project, you need clear ideals and determination.

So, being an idealist is a good thing. At least most of the time…

Idealism and Management

Engineers can be idealistic because they work within the boundaries defined by others, often managers. These boundaries can take a lot of shapes, for example, time constraints, size of the team, other priorities, etc.

Looking at management roles, being idealistic can be an equally valuable trait. An example is a focus on personal growth I shared above. But it can turn into an issue if we are not careful.

An effective manager needs to be flexible. To take on new information, understand the implication, and use it to adjust the approach. Whether this is about changing priorities, trying out new processes, or mixing up the team. Strong ideals and values can get in the way of this and impact our efficiency.

If we stick to a plan no matter what, we miss out on new opportunities. For example, if we cannot let go of our desire to work asynchronously, we exclude certain members of the team. If we care too much about deadlines, we miss out on the personal growth of our team. If we only trust senior engineers to contribute to the team, we end up with a less diverse and less productive team.

Yes, we need a good set of values and ideals to be effective and to help improve the status quo. We certainly should not be dropping our core beliefs as soon as we step into a leadership role. But we need to be aware of them and understand when they might be getting in the way of our effectiveness.

In the end, all decisions we make are some kind of trade-off. Letting go of one of our ideals — even if it is only a little bit — can be a useful tactic.

Management, Idealism, and Adaptability was originally published in Redbubble on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

2020 has been an interesting year for many companies. And 2021 is shaping up to be much of the same.

Depending on where you are and what industry you are in, the impact on our work has ranged from losing jobs to working from home for long stretches. Redbubble was and is no different. To this day most of our employees work from home. Only in safe locations (like Australia), we see some people returning to the office.

But there are companies out there that have worked fully remote for a long time. They managed to spread employees across the globe and tend to have very few meetings. And they still run a successful business.

Can any company become as efficient in asynchronous working as they did in a co-located setting?

Netflix is famous for its culture. They have been very outspoken about how they run their business and what they care about. And they have been successful — whether that is due to their culture or not.

Last year, co-founder and CEO Reed Hastings released a book detailing a lot of their values and internal processes. It almost reads like a playbook to follow if you want to be like Netflix.

For example, Netflix has an open book policy. All financial data is shared with all employees. They also talk about big, complex situations — like a company re-organisation — in public channels.

Can any company be as transparent as Netflix and run a successful business?

Just Make It Work

For a long time, my answer to the two questions above was a resounding yes.

If we want to — and with determination, the right messaging, structure, and support — every company can be awesome at asynchronous working. And of course, we can all adopt the openness and candor of Netflix and be more transparent. Or anything else for that matter, whether it is the type of relationships we encourage or the approach to meetings.

In the early days of COVID, I was trying to make us more remote-friendly. To write down more and have fewer meetings. To be OK with not getting an answer in seconds or minutes, but letting people prioritise their day without getting interrupted. In some teams, this worked quite well. But not everybody was willing to jump in headfirst.

This frustrated me. I felt we missed an opportunity to become more efficient and open up for people working remotely.

I had a similar experience on the transparency topic. For years I have been nudging people on this and trying to figure out how we can be more open. I have even overdone it a couple of times by pushing too hard in a public forum.

And once again, I got frustrated.

Why is it so hard for us to all work remotely and be super transparent?

People Matter

A year and a bit into the pandemic, it was time to reflect on my thinking. Why is it not possible to make those things happen?

The answer to me was simple and a bit of a lightbulb moment: It is all about the people.

Yes, there are companies out there that are amazing at remote working. Some were set up this way straight from the beginning and they hired people to match their philosophy. But if we want to transition a business to be remote-first, it takes a lot of training and support. It does not happen overnight and without any struggles. And we have to be prepared to have more than a few people leave.

Same with Netflix’s transparency. Every company could open up the books and share this information in public. But not every person wants to know about these things. Some might be very uncomfortable and either get used to it or find a company that works differently.

Finding a Balance

I love the concept of balances. And once again this comes back to finding that sweet spot and being aware of the trade-offs.

Culture is not only stated and guided by the leadership, it is the behaviours employees show every day. They either get rewarded for it (by peers and leaders) or it aligns with their values and beliefs.

If the desired culture strays too far from a person’s values, either they have to adjust the behaviour or will look for a place that aligns better.

That why it is so hard to introduce these sweeping changes into an established company and workforce. And why it takes lots of time, effort, and turnover. People need to either adjust to the new direction or leave and get replaced with someone that is a better match.

Whether it is about the level of remote working or transparency.

Sometimes it is required to go big accept some fall out. But a more gentle option is to move gradually: Take small steps with the bigger picture in mind.

At Redbubble, we are opening up our offices again where it is safe. But we do not expect people to be coming in for the majority of their time. We will not be a remote-first company, but we are moving in the direction and we could iterate on this further down the track.

Another example is the way we approach giving feedback. As we changed as a company it got less manageable to have public debates about issues and topics. But we did not want to lose our culture of giving feedback and being honest with each other. So we encouraged to move the giving of feedback and debates into smaller groups.

Want to change your Company Culture? Make sure to consider the people you have was originally published in Redbubble on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Most of us are striving for growth in our careers. We are keen to get that new title, gain new responsibilities, or feel more fulfilled. (There is a massive and interesting piece on Why we want that, but let us leave that aside for now).

Early on in our careers we are following existing rules and guidelines, trying to do a good job. Later on, that is not enough. We need to shift our focus to making things better.

Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions.

It is one of those phrases that has been around for an eternity. Whether this is good or bad advice is a bit out of scope here, but as leaders, we need to solve issues.

The catch is that our desire to solve issues might be — counter to our intentions — hurtful to our career…

One of my colleagues is currently experiencing this.

They are extremely passionate about a wide range of topics. They are also motivated to improve the status quo and make things better. But in some cases, they are seen as loud and a troublemaker. This is problematic for two reasons: It is not helping to improve the situation and it is also slowing down their career progression.

You would expect to get a reaction like this when someone is complaining the whole time. But that is not the case here. No, it has to do with the result they are striving for.

Problem Solving

We commonly think of two groups when it comes to solving problems: Those that do and those that do not. And often (not always) we believe that solving problems is a good thing — hence the very popular phrase from above.

But as usual, it’s not that black and white. There is a whole problem-solving spectrum we can look at:

1. Finders — People that highlight issues, but have no solution ready or desire to help
2. Conformists — People that see issues, and try to find a solution that is in alignment with the current way things work
3. Idealists — People that see issues, and try to find a solution that is close to their ideal

Here is the tricky part. Any one of those approaches might hurt our career. Neither is ideal in all scenarios and it depends on the culture of the group we are trying to influence.

Depending on the situation we are perceived as a person with an eye for issues or a complainer. Or in a different setting, as a troublemaker or a change for good. Even as a conformist, there will be challenging situations and topics.

Our impact on the group or company and our chances of growing in our careers are dependent on the existing culture.

But it gets even trickier.

The Integrity Trade-Off

So far, we have covered different problem-solving approaches and ways to improve the status quo. Let us bring in another, often related, aspect: personal values.

We all have them. Whether we know exactly what they are or are still figuring them out. They influence our behaviour and how we show up. This is not exclusive to problem-solving, but it often connects — as the example of my colleague shows.

When a topic is connected to our core values and we are passionate about it, we tend to push harder. We want to get to an outcome that aligns with our ideals. And if we try too hard, we can easily come across as loud or a troublemaker.

Recap

Balancing career growth with the desire to improve the status quo is hard enough. Add in our values and it can be hard to find a good approach that satisfies all aspects.

In some rare, lucky instances, all three might align. In most cases though, we will have to make trade-offs. And it is up to us to decide whether our career needs to wait or whether we compromise on our values.

Values Vs. Growth was originally published in Redbubble on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

A few years ago I had a young engineer working in my team.

He was bright, a quick learner, and made an impact. When an opportunity came up to work for a few weeks in our San Francisco office, we managed to secure a spot for him. So with another engineer, he packed his bags, and spend the next four weeks working on a short-duration, high-impact project.

And the results were great. Not only did they manage to deliver, but they also returned full of excitement and motivation.

Fast forward to this year, and we once again decided to scramble on a project at short notice. And like last time, the results were great.

We stood up two functional systems in a few days. And what is even more remarkable — some might even argue more important — is the effect it has on the people.

Bonds and friendships are created or strengthened. Everybody becomes more aligned. The purpose and impact of individuals and teams become clearer. All of that even though folks had to put in more hours and make sacrifices.

Why Scrambling Works

It feels like magic. It did for my colleague a few years ago and we experienced it again a few weeks back. Things get done. Relationships develop. Alignment is stronger.

All the company is after is the delivery of the work. But the effects are much greater — the hustle creates a ripple effect.

These short-timeframe, high-impact projects work because — if we are lucky — a lot of boxes are ticked:

• The project is the highest priority
• There is a clear purpose and reason why we are scrambling
• We are working towards a timeline that is both challenging and achievable
• The people who are part of the hustle are willing and have the required skills

These conditions are necessary to be highly motivated and passionate. Which we need for folks to put in the extra effort.

It is the situation every startup tries to get into and stay in for as long as possible. And it is also the reason why lots of people who have been part of an early startup rave about the experience.

The Dangers Of Scrambling

Sounds too good to be true. And for short sprints, it can be. But of course, there are caveats.

For one, this is not a pace anyone can keep up for long. And if we do, we burn out.

Another risk is that after the initial high in motivation, there might be a sharp drop. It happened to my colleague a few years ago. He started to compare every interaction and project to his time in San Francisco. It was impossible for him to feel satisfied again doing ‘normal’ work. Which ultimately got him to part ways with us.

Recap

Hustles are great. Getting a group of people together with a clear purpose and timeline can make things happen very quickly. When used in the right situations it can also create an all-around positive effect on the team and even the company.

The next time there is an opportunity for a quick hustle make sure to take advantage. But set the right expectations and put enough safeguards in place.

Project Hustles was originally published in Redbubble on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We get wiser as we age, because we get different and more varied experiences. And one thing I thoroughly enjoy is that it allows me to crystallise things down to underlying principles.

Almost a year ago, I shared my first life principle: Everything requires a balance.

Because for every situation, there is always a choice. Not in the binary sense, but a lot of grey in between two extremes. And more often than not, the extreme ends of the scale are not the ideal approach.

That belief held true for me. And I have been able to apply it in lots of situations — at work and at home.

And guess what… It is time for life principle number two!

Something that has been percolating in my mind for a while now. And like the balance principle, I am not inventing something novel. But I leverage it as a core belief to guide my thinking and behaviour.

Long-lasting change takes time.

Influencing change has been fascinating to me for a long time. I have touched on it a bit during the culture balances series. More recently, I have shared a couple of approaches to help with team dynamics.

And the connection between lasting, persistent change and time has become very clear.

Short- Vs. Long-term

Yes, I understand that we would love to get things done and fixed right away. We are all short on time and we do not want to worry about it for days, weeks, or even months.

In some situations, a quick turnaround is not only desired but also necessary. In a crisis or emergency, it is all about acting quickly and making sure everybody does the right thing.

But most change we are trying to influence is not during a crisis. It is geared towards the long-term. To improve a process, culture, or relationship. Not only for tomorrow and the day after, but also next month and in a year from now.

Long-lasting Change

If we want to have a profound impact, we need to achieve two things:

1. Get ourselves and/or others to change their behaviour
2. Get ourselves and/or others to believe in said change

(1) is the natural go-to task. It is what we worry about first when change is required. Behaviour change can be achieved in a lot of ways — some of which lead to quick results. For example, someone in authority tells us what we need to do. But, chances are this will not stick.

For it to stick, we need part (2) — which is often a lot trickier and takes more time and effort. Yes, we can tell someone what to do, but there is no guarantee they believe it is the right decision.

Let us look at a couple of examples, one about changing our own behaviour and one focused on a group of people.

There are countless concepts on the topic of changing our own behaviours.

Two of the more popular approaches are goal setting and habits. Especially habits have become the preferred method today, with lots of great books being available on the topic. What these books describe are ideas on how to make certain behaviours a habit. Or get rid of behaviours that are no longer desired.

And even though books describe in great detail how to get it done, it still takes time.

It takes time to decide what behaviour is worth changing. It takes time to be sure enough to invest energy into it. It takes time to set up our plan and routines. It takes time to reflect and adjust our approach. Most authors agree that it takes on average 2 months or more for a habit to manifest.

Yes, going to the gym once is easy. Long-lasting change however takes time.

It is similar when it comes to influencing the behaviour of a group. We still need to come up with a plan. We still need to reflect and adjust as we go along.

What is more challenging in this scenario are the first two steps of our approach: Decide what behaviour is worth changing and be sure enough to invest energy into it. While this is comparatively simple when it comes to ourselves, we now have to make it work for the whole group.

For a group to believe in change — and make it long-lasting — it has to come from within. In other words, the ideas have to come from the members of the group. Which — you guessed it — takes time.

Recap

Most of the change we want to influence is meant for the long term. Long-lasting change requires two aspects: Changing the behaviour and believing in said change.

Neither of those happens overnight. It takes time to bring about a new behaviour and it takes even more time to get others to believe in it.

Life Principle: Long-lasting Change was originally published in Redbubble on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

I love it when a single article ‘accidentally’ turns into a mini-series. And since three is a great number, let me add one more piece to the team health collection.

So far we have talked about indicators for team health, as well as an approach to influencing change.

This article is once again about influencing, but a different kind. Whereas part 2 focused on the individual, this time I will cover groups. The need for this distinction became clear to me the more I thought about this topic.

So the target audience is different, but most of the foundations remain the same:

• The goal is still to affect and improve behaviour within the team to increase its effectiveness
• The core principle to our approach remains the same: Not being directive, but encourage change from within

Before diving into the approach, let us once more set the scene.

We are the manager or lead of a team. As part of our role, we are responsible to establish and maintain decent performance. We keep an eye out for signals that require tweaking and we have been observing the group for a little while.

One thing we notice is the high amount of solo work and a lack of context sharing. Everybody goes off on their own. No one knows what the others are doing. And the team members cannot cover for each other.

Clearly, we got a little way to go to establish an efficient structure.

Group Influencing Done Right

A straightforward and sometimes necessary approach is to tell folks what to do. “We’re not doing enough sharing, so from here on out, you need to more of it. Why? Because I tell you to!”

That might work, but chances are high it will not last for a long time. People do not like to be told what to do and think. It also puts a high dependency on us. We need to keep monitoring the situation going forward and reminding everybody about the new rule.

A better approach is to help the team understand and see opportunities, which enables us to encourage the change from within. Here is my basic playbook:

1. Surface opportunities. The suggestions, pain points, or ideas need to come from members of the team, not from yourself. But you can play a critical role facilitating and guiding, for example by setting up a themed retro or running a team workshop.
2. Team commitment. Once issues or opportunities are out in the open, the team needs to agree on the areas they want to improve on. Focus on two or three areas. Do not try and fix everything at once.
3. Iterate. After the team commits to a problem area, it is time for a game plan. And once again, it should be up to the team to find solutions.

As with influencing change in individuals, this can take some time. But by putting the team in the driver’s seat, long-term change is more likely.

Following is a quick example to show how the different steps could work.

To get a read on what the team thinks, we run a themed retro, using Tuckman’s tried and tested stages of group development. The goal is to surface potential issues and opportunities. Our setup is simple:

1. List out the four (five) stages
2. Every team member picks the stage they think the team is in
3. For each of the four phases, get folks to list examples of matching behaviour

As it turns out, the remainder of the team agrees to our gut feeling. No one thinks the team is in performing, and most believe it is more of a storming situation. Great! Here is our chance to influence change.

Firstly, we need to agree as a group that we want to be in performing.

Then we kick off another conversation: What can we do to get into norming and performing? Once ideas are voiced and vetted you can then move into implementation.

Recap

Keeping a team healthy and running like a well-oiled machine takes constant focus and investment. It all starts with the ability to identify how well our team is going.

But even more important is the ability to influence change. Influencing a group might feel more intimidating than working with a single person, but it follows the same basic rules.

Do not be directive, but enable the change to happen from within. Only then will the change be long-lasting.

Team Health Part 3 was originally published in Redbubble on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Living through a restructure is a fascinating time. Especially if you are into observing people and understanding what drives them.

One of the things that often happens in a restructure is the shuffling of folks. Some will end up in different roles. Some in new teams. A few will have more responsibilities. Others have to understand what their place is going forward.

This — of course — leads to a lot of emotions, ranging from excitement to frustration. It also gives an insight into the underlying motivation and satisfaction factors of individuals.

When we talk about motivation, two terms are well known and accepted: intrinsic and extrinsic:

Intrinsic motivation involves doing something because it’s personally rewarding to you. Extrinsic motivation involves doing something because you want to earn a reward or avoid punishment.

We are all capable of and use both kinds of motivation, dependent on the situation. For example, I do the dishes because I feel better having a clean kitchen. But I only clean the toilets when we have visitors coming.

Another dimension — which I was not able to articulate until recently — focuses on the recipient of our actions. The person, organisation, or system we are trying to influence. Defining the two extremes, we have our ego on the one end and the greater good on the other.

Being motivated by our ego is straightforward to explain. We do things to advance ourselves — be it financially, in regards to status or fame. As an example, someone works hard to get a fancy new title at the next round of promotions.

Moving to the opposite end— focusing on the greater good — we want to advance something else. That could be our immediate family, the company we work for, or the environment. For example, someone works hard to give their company the best possible chance of a good financial result.

Let me provide another example to put a bit more nuance. Imagine we are part of a restructure and we have to move into a ‘less senior’ role.

If we are motivated to advance the greater good, we will be happy to contribute in whatever way we can. Even if it means doing something that seems less important than before. We do not mind because we care about the company as a whole, not our title and status.

Or — if we are driven by our ego — we struggle. The title and role was an important aspect of our motivation. Doing something that feels like a demotion is a problem.

Motivation & Satisfaction Quadrants

Combining the two dimensions gives us a classic four-quadrant diagram:

To make things a bit more tangible, I will share an example for each cell. And to make it more comparable, we will be basing the examples on the following desired outcomes for each dimension:

• Intrinsic — Feeling happy and satisfied
• Extrinsic — Receiving more money
• Ego — Pursuing a fancy new title
• Greater Good — Helping the company achieve its goals

These are only examples. Not every extrinsic motivation focuses on money and not everyone who cares about the greater good is channeling it to help a company. But they allow us to see how these types of motivation show up in real life.

Starting in the bottom left corner, with the quadrant that most of us would label the worst combination. Here, folks are motivated by a reward to advance themselves. Using the drivers from above, we can picture a person that is keen to get a new title to be able to earn more money.

Top left is a person that is ego-centric, but intrinsically motivated. That would be someone who wants to receive a new title to feel good about themselves.

Moving to the bottom right, we have someone supporting a bigger cause, so they can benefit in the end. This person helps the company however they can, so they can earn more money. For example through a bonus or equity system.

Top right, the sweet spot. The combination we aspire for — intrinsically motivated towards the greater good. A person supports the company in lots of different ways, to see it prosper and thrive and therefore feel happy.

Reading through these examples — and I must admit they are written to create that bias — we assume that top right is good and bottom left is bad. But it is not that easy.

Of course, it is a good aspiration to be intrinsically motivated to help others. And when asked, most of us would claim that they are in the Zen quadrant a lot. But there are many examples and situations where this is untrue and unrealistic.

For example, we are after more money so we can afford a nice family home. Or we could be eyeing off a new title so we can apply for that dream job.

All four combinations have their place.

The key is to understand where you and others sit. Only then will you be able to pull the right motivation-levers and help yourself and your team stay engaged and happy.

Motivation And Satisfaction was originally published in Redbubble on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In the first part of this mini-series I shared some pitfalls we can encounter as managers — especially when joining a new team:

A lot is going on in a managerial role. More responsibilities. More things to keep an eye on. More context switching.

The first focus for new managers is usually delivery. How can I make sure my team is performing? We worry about delivery because we will be evaluated against it.

And that is understandable — it is a big part of leading a team. The question is how to achieve it.

I would argue that anyone can enable quick sprints of high productivity. Creating a deadline. Directing people down to the smallest detail. Exerting pressure and instilling urgency.

But it is not sustainable. Once the deadline has passed, the urgency goes away. Or, if we are trying to get it going for too long, people burn out.

If we want to have a consistently high performing team, urgency and motivation need to come from within. As managers, we need to lay the foundations by creating a healthy team.

I then went over some areas that require attention before worrying about the team’s output:

• Safety and Trust
• Structure
• Autonomy

And that is where the previous article stopped. Just short of explaining what to do when things are not going as well as hoped. So let us pick things up right where we left off.

Imagine we have been working with a new team for a few weeks now. One eye on the team health list, one eye closely watching everything happening in and around the group. And, surprise surprise, we notice something not so great!

While everybody is getting along well enough, there is a clear split between those that participate in discussions and those that do not. And if the ‘quiet’ people say something, it is often not considered.

An obvious problem in the safety and trust category.

But what to do?

Influencing

Of course, we want to fix this. And if possible fast. So we take the most direct approach: introduce new rules or processes.

For example, we can introduce a meeting rule that gives more reserved folks the first word. Or we can personally call out who should speak next. Or we can put weight behind the contributions of those that are usually not heard.

Those are awesome things to do. They have their place and there is a reason why they come up all the time in articles about inclusiveness and allyship.

But in our example, there are a couple of issues with this approach. While we care about fixing this issue, we should not make it our problem. Rules and processes are fine, however, we are taking some autonomy and freedom away from the team. We also do not address the root of the problem — that some team members are dominating — but are trying to contain it.

And while the rules and processes we introduce might work for a little while, there is no guarantee it will be a long-term solution. If we are unlucky things might even get worse, for example when people are fed up and frustrated with too many of them.

Influencing Done Right

Being direct has its place, but we need to be careful when to use it. And we need to be aware of the long-term effects.

Let us come back to our problem statement: Some folks in the team are dominating discussions and decisions. One of the outcomes is that others are not participating and not listened to.

So, instead of trying to limit the impact of offending behaviour, we can try and change the behaviour.

Sounds simple — but it is not. We do not want to tell the offenders what to do. We want to get them to change their behaviour themselves. We need them to understand what impact they have on others. Subtle difference, but an important one.

What does that mean for us managers? We need to become mentors and coaches.

Those are huge areas and I will not be able to cover these areas in any detail here. But I will share the approach I am working through when I am faced with a situation like this:

1. Build a trusting relationship. Surprise! Well hopefully not. If you do not have good relationships with all the people on your team, this where you have to start.
2. Understand their point of view. Once people trust you, they will open up. And you can take time and listen to them. Their ideas, their goals, their motivations.
3. Share the impact of their actions. Now we are getting somewhere. It is time to come back to the issue at hand and get our offenders to see what effect they have on others. Not to tell them off, but to get them to see what you see.
4. Action plan and feedback. After they know what is going on, it is time to figure out a plan (together) and check-in on a regular basis. And when required, give some feedback to adjust the course.

Yes, this takes longer than setting up a process or rule. Yes, it is more effort. But we are investing in the long-term health of the team. And that long-term health is not dependent on us being there and ensuring rules exist and processes are followed.

Joining a new team or becoming a new manager is (still) daunting and stressful. Even when we know what things to look out for, we have to find a way to influence change.

We could be directive and set up new processes and rules. But to ensure long-term impact, we have to focus on mentoring and coaching others so the behaviour changes from within.

Team Health Part 2 was originally published in Redbubble on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.