The motivation mixing desk – some channels are dominant

A sound engineer blends science-based technical expertise with the art of a musical director and a keen listening ear. Similarly a manager thinking about motivation of people needs the insights of experimental psychological science, the art of leading people, and a keen listening ear. Continuing my reflection that human motivation is like a mixing desk with lots of channels, it seems to me that in different situations and with different personalities there will be a few motivation factors that are dominant.

When mixing sound for a band, I always find that a few of the instruments or voices are dominant and need to be sorted out first. Often it is drums, bass, keys or lead vocals, but clearly it’s different for a string quartet. Although a mixing desk looks incredibly complex with so many channels, in fact we adjust relatively few of the faders during a performance – usually the ones that dominate. And we only adjust them a little bit.

Gain and faders: people respond differently

To take the metaphor a bit further, I need to explain why a mixing desk has two volume controls on each channel: a gain knob at the top of each column (shown red) and a fader (the slider shown white). I sometimes describe gain as the “coarse” volume control and the fader slider as the “fine” control. But why two? It’s because different microphones and instruments produce radically different sizes of signals – a guitar can easily produce 100x bigger electrical waves than a microphone. When setting up I’ll usually adjust the gain so that if everyone was playing loudly, the faders would all be at the 0dB mark (two-thirds of the way up on the picture. Then during the set it is usually only minor tweaks to the faders, up and down a wee bit, to get an overall balance of sound. I rarely touch the gain controls during the performance, just the faders.

In my situation where we have different bands each week, but the same bands come back time after time, the digital mixing desk saves and restores the gain levels for each particular band. So long as they plug into the same channel numbers each time, setup is really quick and they can get on with last-minute rehearsals.

Most of the bands have drums, bass, acoustic guitar, keyboards and a couple of vocalists. So you’d think it would be the same for them all. But if I restore the settings for the wrong band, the result is nothing short of appalling. Some channels will have a nasty distorted noise because the gain is too high. On other channels I won’t be able to hear anything no matter how high I push up the faders, because the gain is too low. Instruments and singers vary quite dramatically.

Now think about the analogy of motivation. Each person has lots of channels of motivation, but the built-in hard-to-change
gain settings are slightly different in each person. In one person a particular motivator will have an undetectable effect (low gain) whereas in another person it will have such a strong effect it actually distorts the outcome (high gain). Just think what happens in a big company when people are set personal objectives. For some it has an undetectable effect. Others get such tunnel vision on the objectives that they lose sight of the big picture to the extent that some will studiously avoid helping colleagues if it doesn’t directly support their objectives.

So playing with motivation is prone to unexpected consequences, particularly if you are working with a large group of people who will each respond differently. Continue reading

Advertisements

The motivation mixing desk: lots of channels

On one of my non-work Fridays recently, I helped install and set up a new 32-channel digital mixing desk (as you can see in the photo). Today it struck me that a sound-desk is a good analogy for the science of human motivation. In motivation we could say there are lots of ‘channels’ and lots of knobs and sliders that affect each channel. Each person’s overall output is affected in slightly different ways, just like in any venue each band needs its own setup even though the instruments may be the same. Everyone plays differently.

So in this post I’ll take a look at the science of motivation, to identify the channels on the mixing desk. The trouble is, each of the theorists has a slightly different model of what channels are important. How can they be reconciled?

I think the mixing desk metaphor is original to me, but it was sparked by a New Scientist article describing some current neuroscience research along those lines. They are trying to puzzle over why we make different decisions depending on how they are framed. Which is pretty close to understanding motivation. Continue reading

How do we make them use our system?

I wonder if we’ve all seen it, maybe even done it. There’s a big splash launch of a new system or portal. It’s been high pressure for the delivery team who have a sigh of relief and disperse to their day-jobs. Some comms happen. And then someone notices that no-one is using it. And so we ask:

How do we make them use our system?

This question is wrong on so many levels for activities like knowledge sharing or social participation.

  • “We” and “them”.
  • “Make” them.
  • IT “system” focus.

David Gurteen explains the problems with this way of thinking rather nicely in his 4-min video.

Social or Fauxial?

011015_1657_Howdowemake1.pngJane Hart makes a similar point in her recent blog by inventing a new word to rhyme with social. “Fauxial learning is about forcing people to use social media in courses – or even in the workplace – and then confusing compliance with engagement (and even worse) learning.” Continue reading