Listen to this article:
Abstract: Recent research in organizational behavior and leadership provides critical insights into common managerial mistakes that undermine employee motivation. The article examines four key behaviors leaders should avoid: over-relying on extrinsic rewards, prioritizing threats and consequences over empowerment, micromanaging team activities, and neglecting personal and meaningful feedback. By replacing these demotivating practices with approaches grounded in intrinsic motivation theory – such as fostering workplace purpose, granting autonomy, and offering regular personalized guidance – leaders can cultivate engaged, innovative, and high-performing teams. Though simple in principle, these scientifically-backed best practices require constant self-awareness to implement effectively, but yield dividends in employee engagement, retention, and business success.
Recent research in organizational behavior and leadership has provided critical insight into what fails to motivate employees. While simple and obvious, many managers still fall prey to behaviors that undermine their ability to inspire peak performance from their team.
Today we will examine four key things leaders should avoid when attempting to motivate their staff: relying too heavily on extrinsic rewards, focusing on threats and consequences rather than empowerment, micromanaging team activities, and neglecting personal and meaningful feedback.
Lack of Intrinsic Motivation: Over-Reliance on Extrinsic Rewards
One of the most common mistakes managers make is believing financial compensation and tangible prizes alone can sustain high morale and drive results over the long run. While extrinsic rewards certainly play a role, a wealth of studies show they often undermine intrinsic motivation - the genuine satisfaction people feel from the work itself (Amabile, 1993; Pink, 2009). Intrinsically motivated employees find purpose and meaning in their daily tasks, which fuels effort and creativity that economic incentives alone cannot match (Pink, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
For example, research at a large clothing manufacturer found assembly line workers who received financial bonuses for productivity achieved short-term gains but grew dissatisfied and disengaged within months as the "fun" faded from an otherwise mundane job (Amabile et al., 1986). In contrast, non-monetary rewards like private praise from managers led to sustained enthusiasm and improved quality of work over longer periods (Amabile, 1993). Another experiment giving cash to students for solving puzzles found it decreased interest and time spent on the activity versus praise-only conditions once payments stopped (Deci et al., 1999).
In practice, leaders must avoid over-relying on one-time bonuses, public acknowledgments of top performers, or competitive reward structures as their sole means of motivation. While short-term goals may be met, intrinsic drive and cooperative team spirit are likely to wane without a workplace culture that fosters passion for the work itself. instead, focus should be placed on selection and training employees who share the organization's mission, providing purpose and autonomy in roles, recognizing non-monetary accomplishments, and cultivating relationships built on sincere appreciation rather than financial incentives alone.
Fear and Control: Focus on Consequences over Empowerment
Another demotivating leadership approach is prioritizing threats of repercussions over enabling people to feel capable and in control of their work. Yet, decades of research confirms empowering environments where employees feel supported to take risks, learn from mistakes, and contribute new ideas are far more engaging and productive than those run primarily through fear and oversight (Amabile & Kramer, 2011; Spreitzer, 1995).
For example, a seminal 1993 study compared management styles across pairs of branches from a nationwide retail chain. Results showed units led with an authoritarian focus on procedures and consequences for errors significantly underperformed in sales, customer satisfaction, and staff turnover compared to "empowering" locations where managers coached employees, encouraged autonomy, and accepted occasional slip-ups as learning opportunities (Spreitzer, 1995). More recent findings similarly link micromanaging work environments to diminished innovation and higher employee stress and burnout (Krot & Lewicka, 2012).
In the real world, some leaders may feel tempted to crack down harder when goals are not met on schedule through punitive reviews, public accountability, and strict monitoring. However, research clearly shows such control-oriented approaches backfire in the long run by breeding resentment, risk avoidance, and disengagement from the organization's mission. To spark intrinsic drive, it is far wiser to foster an atmosphere of trust where employees grasp the "why" behind responsibilities, feel empowered to solve problems creatively, and aren't afraid to ask questions or admit errors without severe penalty. Positive morale comes from enablement, not fear.
Smothering Autonomy: Excessive Micro-Management
Closely related to relying on threats is the tendency for leaders to micromanage teams down to minute task details rather than granting autonomy appropriate for roles. This lack of trust in employees’ self-direction deprives them of a sense of ownership and control vital for sustaining motivation (Amabile & Kramer, 2011; Grant & Berry, 2011).
Research on autonomy’s importance to engagement and performance dates back decades. A seminal 1976 study gave laboratory participants autonomy over task procedures or not and found those with freedom of choice reported higher enjoyment, exerted more effort, and performed substantially better (Deci et al., 1976). More recent workplace studies confirm self-directed teams consistently outperform micro-managed counterparts across industries like software development, engineering, healthcare, and customer service (Grant & Berry, 2011; Srivastava et al., 2006). Autonomy also enhances creativity by allowing exploration of novel problems and solutions rather than narrow compliance (Amabile, 1993; Amabile & Kramer, 2011).
In application, companies risk demotivating high-potential talent and draining innovation by not delegating appropriately. For example, a technology startup saw employee burnout rise after rapid growth left little support for independent work. They addressed this by restructuring roles to provide clearer objectives but freedom in daily tasks and decision making. This simple reduction of micromanagement reignited passion, trust, and a surge in new product ideas (Amabile & Kramer, 2011). To spark intrinsic drive, managers must grant autonomy commensurate with skills while maintaining open communication and coaching support. Control should never replace empowerment as the primary management style.
Meaningless Metrics: Lack of Personal Feedback
Finally, research clearly shows that simply providing vague performance metrics and infrequent reviews does little to fuel employee engagement or improvement over time (Grant & Berry, 2011; Pink, 2009). For intrinsic motivation to flourish, people need regular, genuine, and constructive feedback directly from those in a position to help them develop strengths and address weaknesses.
Experiments giving university students performance feedback on problem-solving exercises found personalized messages led to significantly more effort and higher quality solutions versus generic positive or negative comments (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Follow-up studies revealed the most effective feedback directly addressed specific behaviors and delivered privately to nurture an improved self-image (Kluger & DeNisi, 1998). Additionally, frequent check-ins helped establish accountability without feeling like constant judgement (Pink, 2009).
For managers, this means replacing annual or quarterly reviews with brief weekly conversations focused on individual achievements, challenges, and customized guidance. Personalized interactions foster a psychologically safe space to experiment, acknowledge mistakes candidly, and find areas for growth without fearing permanent flaws in competency or worth to the company. Regular feedback also builds stronger rapport between leaders and teams.
Conclusion
While motivating employees presents challenges for any manager, an enlightened approach informed by organizational research offers distinct advantages over misguided methods relying solely on incentives, fear tactics, or sparse direction. By avoiding over-dependence on extrinsic rewards, focusing on empowerment rather than consequences, granting autonomy proportionate to roles, and providing regular personalized feedback, leaders foster intrinsic motivation through genuine care, trust, and continuous professional development. Though simple in principle, these scientifically-grounded leadership best practices require constant self-awareness to implement skillfully. But for those dedicated to honing their ability to inspire peak performance through workplace cultures where people feel purpose, value, and control over their work, the investment surely pays dividends in engagement, innovation, retention and business results.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185–201.
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work. Harvard Business Review Press.
Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 14–23.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.
Deci, E. L., Benware, C., & Landy, D. (1976). The attribution of motivation as a function of output and rewards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(5), 652–667.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a double-edged sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 67–72.
Krot, K., & Lewicka, D. (2012). The importance of trust in manager-employee relationships. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 10(3), 224-233.
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Fumbling the Baton: What Not to Do When Motivating Your Team. Human Capital Leadership Review, 18(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.18.4.5
