Motivation is a design decision

In Japan entities, the structure usually blocks autonomy and competence

Contents4

Three needs
Each one maps onto a structural decision
Checking each one
Back to the diagnosis

Series「People Don't Follow the Org Chart」 · Part 10 of 13 · Part 3 · Why people put in effort
Prologue：The people who aren't on the org chart

Two companies hire similar people. A year later, one company's staff are highly motivated and the other's are coasting. Managers usually explain it as luck, or as misjudging candidates. I think the more likely explanation is simpler. The two companies have different org charts.

Three needs

Starting in the 1970s, the psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan developed self-determination theory. It says intrinsic motivation depends on three basic psychological needs. Autonomy is feeling that what you do is your own decision. Competence is feeling that you can do it and are getting better. Relatedness is feeling genuinely connected to the people around you. When all three are there, people engage on their own. When one is missing, engagement has to be propped up by outside pressure.

The theory has been tested for forty years in education, healthcare, sport and the workplace, and is among the best-supported in motivation research. The arguments are mostly about external rewards. Early studies found that money undermines intrinsic motivation. Later meta-analyses found it depends on how the reward is given, and that under some conditions performance-contingent rewards don't undermine it. The three needs themselves are rarely in dispute.

In Japan entities, the structure usually blocks autonomy and competence

The three needs of self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan), each set against the structural decision behind it and one check question. Left: the typical Japan entity described in this article

HQ approval linesDual reporting, three approval levels, everything waits for HQ

Autonomy: reporting lines, approval levels

Name three things this role decides without asking. Can’t list three: the line is too tight

Seniority gradesPromotion comes with years, criteria nobody can explain

Competence: the grade ladder

What moves this role to the next grade, and how long on average? No answer: the ladder is decoration

Strong cohesionWith the first two missing, people lean on this one

Relatedness: team size

How many genuine working exchanges a week? More than fifteen or fewer than three deserves a look

A manager’s effort can’t patch a hole in the structure. A motivation problem is often one line on the chart.

Figure 1. Autonomy follows reporting lines, competence follows the grade ladder and relatedness follows team size, and in Japan entities HQ approval lines and seniority grades block the first two, which is why teams end up cohesive but not very motivated, so check the org chart with three questions instead of asking managers to try harder.

Each one maps onto a structural decision

Most companies read the theory as a behavior checklist for managers. Delegate more, praise more, do more team-building. None of that is wrong. But all of it uses a manager's personal effort to patch gaps in the structure. The three needs actually correspond to three organizational design decisions. Get the structure right and managers don't have to patch every day.

Autonomy maps onto reporting lines. How many bosses a person has, how many approval levels, which things they can decide alone. All of that is written on the chart, and it determines how much "I decided this" a person feels each day. Dual reporting, three-level approvals, everything going to HQ. In that structure, the most delegating manager alive can't produce autonomy. The process suffocation in the previous post damages exactly this.

Competence maps onto the grade ladder. Competence comes from "I'm getting better and I can see it." If a grade takes five years to climb, or nobody can state the criteria, there is no visible progress. The number of rungs, the criteria for each, the average time from one to the next. Those are structural decisions, and no amount of managerial encouragement can replace them.

Relatedness maps onto team size. Genuine connection needs frequent, face-to-face, reciprocal interaction, and that has a headcount ceiling (see the Dunbar post). In a team of twenty reporting to one person, relatedness can't form, however hard the manager tries.

Checking each one

When drawing or redrawing an org chart, use the three as a checklist with one concrete question each.

For autonomy, name three things a person in this role can decide without asking. If you can't list three, the reporting or approval line is too tight. For competence, ask what the criteria are for moving from this role to the next grade, and how long that takes on average. If nobody can answer, the ladder is decoration. For relatedness, ask how many people this person has genuine working exchanges with each week. More than fifteen or fewer than three deserves a look.

In Japan entities the problems concentrate in the first two. HQ approval lines push autonomy to the floor, and the traditional seniority-based grade system makes competence nearly invisible, because promotion comes with years instead of with how well you do. In an organization missing both, people lean on the third, relatedness. I think that's why Japanese teams are often highly cohesive and not very motivated.

Back to the diagnosis

The core layer of my organizational diagnosis looks at drivers, which are these three needs in different words. In a diagnosis I hold the three against the org chart and ask which one the structure is pressing down on. Most engagements that start with "our people aren't motivated" end with one of the three blocked by the structure. It's rarely a people problem. The inner two layers people actually leave over, in the exit-survey post, are these.

On your org chart, how many things can a front-line employee decide without asking?

In this series
Previous：Four kinds of relationships, and why pay design goes wrong
Next：Pay removes complaints. It doesn't create commitment.

← All articles