back
6 comments
I think the most motivational thing a boss can do for me is to reliably provide criticism that shows they think I can improve, and that I can use to improve.

The most demotivational thing a boss can do for me is to provide criticism that indicates contradictory demands, or that they don't know what they want, or that they are unwilling to accept my limitations.

Compliments are not bad, but kind of superfluous - if I've succeeded at something, genuine recognition means being given something more challenging. And if I've failed at something, nice words are just twisting the knife if they are an attempt to obscure the fact someone has given up on me.

Later it occurred to me to rephrase the above as:

- achieving trust is the ultimate motivation

- losing trust is the end of a relationship and motivation

Criticism can be a powerful way of demonstrating trust, but it can also signify a loss of trust - it's very contextual. Being ignored, too, can indicate complete trust, or it can indicate disengagement or absence of trust.

So I shouldn’t thank or say nice things to my team, because they might see it as disingenuous? Seems better than the alternative, no?

The article got close to touching on a successful method of motivating, which is making sure individuals’ contributions are communicated throughout the organization in a clear and ideally public manner.

These are great suggestions. It reminds me of the inversion technique that James Clear wrote so well about: https://jamesclear.com/inversion

My question is, what should I do when I'm on the not-receiving-recognition end? I've tried to think of ways of maybe giving myself positive feedback, etc. but haven't really fleshed it out yet. I'm basically in a situation where I don't want to give up the fight to succeed in my role, but it feels like all that is ever visible are my and my team's failures...

"It reminds me of the inversion technique that James Clear wrote so well about: https://jamesclear.com/inversion"

This seems to be vaguer than what I thought of before clicking on the link. I generally react to any proposition that seems compelling and obvious and motivational by asking myself "what if the opposite were true and how would one determine that?" If the opposite could be defended equally well, then the original statement doesn't mean much. Sometimes it seems to me like it's most of what people talk about. Instead of debating, perhaps it's best to just put it aside as non-productive. Apparently that's a subset?

I think inversion as a problem solving technique is valuable. It's not necessarily the only tool. For example, to bring it back to OP's article, I know I want to be a good manager but that leaves me with a very huge space of possibility and ambiguity. I can reign that in by inverting the problem, "What would I have to do to be a bad manager?" This bubbles up things like low transparency, lack of follow-through, chastising directs, etc. Now I have a clear list of things I definitely should not do and maybe work on if I realize I exhibit some of those negative behaviors.