Motivation and the Reification Error

A widely used approach to implementing organizational change is to communicate the goal, and then motivate people to reach for that goal. Typical approaches involve incentives for people to change their behavior, sometimes combined with disincentives to deter unwanted behavior. It's your basic carrot-and-stick approach. It works on donkeys and pigeons, so, hey, it should work on people, too. Except it doesn't work so well, because people are smarter than donkeys and pigeons.

And so it is with most motivation programs. Incentives can fail because they invite people to try to earn the incentives without exhibiting the desired behavior; disincentives can fail because they invite people to evade the disincentives even if they do exhibit the unwanted behavior. And neither incentives nor disincentives address any possible obstacles in the path to the goal.

The problem is related to a common mistake humans make when dealing with anything other than real objects. We tend to use the same thought patterns for manipulating abstract constructs as we use for real objects. Sometimes it works. Often it does not. The choice to treat abstract constructs as if they were real objects is called the reification error. [Levy 1997]

For example, project managers are often called upon to report periodically the percentage of work that's complete. They do so, with the understanding that the resulting number is an estimate of a social construct — work to be done. But many of the recipients of these reports regard them as measurements of real objects, like the number of miles from here to Cleveland. They commit the reification error.

Because motivation is a construct, we risk committing the reification error when we try to motivate people. Compared to other constructs, the risk is relatively high with motivation, because it's so similar to what we do with objects. We "encourage" an object by pulling it to a desired location; we "discourage" it by pushing it away from an undesired location.

Our experiences Compared to other constructs, the
risk of making the reification error
is relatively high with motivation,
because it's so similar to
what we do with objectswith objects are deep in our psyches, dating back to infancy, even before we could speak. That might be one reason why we try to apply those early experiences when motivating people. But people don't respond to pushing and pulling the way inanimate objects do, because they are, well, not inanimate. Unlike pots, pans, and rocks, people have minds of their own. To motivate people, we must take their minds into account.

Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis provides a model that works well. [Lewin & Cartwright 1964] People tend to do what they want to do, but only if they can. Communicating the goal, and explaining incentives and disincentives, can provide helping forces relative to reaching the goal. But obstacles — hindering forces — can sometimes cancel the helping forces, resulting in stasis. The hindrances in question here are contextual, arising not from the work itself, but from trying to do the work with the resources provided, in the context provided. Before we set about motivating people, verifying that we've removed all contextual obstacles is wise. A motivation program cannot make circumventing obstacles any easier, nor can it make impossible goals possible.  Top    Next Issue

Is your organization embroiled in Change? Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or maybe even outright revolt? Read 101 Tips for Managing Change to learn how to survive, how to plan and how to execute change efforts to inspire real, passionate support. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Organizational Change:

Change How You Change

In the past two years, your life has probably changed. Do you commute over the same route you did two years ago? Same transportation? Same job? Same company? Same industry? Change is all around, and you're probably pretty skilled at it. You can become even more skilled if you change how you change.

Conventional Foolishness

Every specialization has a set of beliefs, often called "conventional wisdom." When these beliefs are so obvious that they're unquestioned and even unnoticed, there's an opportunity to leap ahead of the pack — by questioning the conventional wisdom.

Plenty of Blame to Go Around

You may have heard the phrase "plenty of blame to go around," or maybe you've even used it yourself. Although it sometimes does bring an end to immediate finger pointing, it also validates blame as a general approach. Here's how to end the blaming by looking ahead.

Changing Blaming Cultures

Culture change in organizations is always challenging, but changing a blaming culture presents special difficulties. Here are three reasons why.

Improvement Bias

When we set about improving how our organizations do things, we expose ourselves to the risk of finding opportunities for improvement that offer very little improvement, while we overlook others that could make a real difference. Cognitive biases play a role.

See also Organizational Change and Organizational Change for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info