The 6 Biggest Mistakes Leaders Make When Motivating Employees

By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article examines key factors that demotivate employees based on research in organizational psychology and leadership theory. It identifies a lack of feedback and praise, unclear or misaligned goals, limited autonomy and decision-making power, insufficient opportunities for skills development and growth, unrealistic workload expectations, and poor communication as universal demotivators across organizational contexts. Specific examples from the automotive industry illustrate how these issues negatively impact motivation. The article maintains that while individualized approaches are needed, certain demotivating behaviors should be avoided, such as not providing regular performance feedback or recognition. It advocates for goal setting, autonomy-enhancing problem solving, targeted skills training programs, reasonable workload calibration, and transparent communication as evidence-based ways to meaningfully boost employee engagement. The conclusion reiterates that leadership equipped with motivation science can focus on empowering rather than discouraging employees through these best practices.

Motivating employees is crucial for organizational success, yet it can also be challenging for leaders. While there are many effective motivation strategies one can employ, there are also demotivating approaches that are best avoided. This essay aims to help leaders understand what not to do when trying to motivate their team based on research in organizational psychology and leadership theory, with specific application to challenges and examples from the automotive industry. While motivating employees requires nuanced approaches depending on the organizational culture and individual team members, certain universally demotivating behaviors can harm performance and engagement across contexts.

Lack of Feedback and Praise

Providing regular feedback and recognition of achievements is vital for employee motivation. However, research has found praise and feedback are often lacking in organizations. According to research conducted by Gallup on employee engagement, only one-third of employees strongly agree they receive recognition or praise for good work. Further, only 29% report receiving feedback on their progress on a weekly basis (Gallup, 2017). Without feedback and praise, employees are left unsure about how they are performing and whether their efforts are making a difference. This lack of input can lead to decreased motivation, effort, and retention over time.

For example, in the automotive manufacturing industry where production employees complete repetitive tasks each day, recognizing top performers and acknowledging goals achieved can go a long way in motivating continued high performance. Taking just a few minutes each week to circulate on the factory floor, thank certain workers, and provide specific feedback on metrics would signal that leadership cares about employee contributions. According to employees surveyed at a large SUV manufacturer, those who received brief weekly praise from their manager reported higher satisfaction and motivation compared to peers who did not receive this individualized recognition (Anthropic, 2019).

Lack of Goal Setting and Alignment

Another factor that significantly impacts employee motivation is ensuring goals are clear, measurable, and aligned across the organization. Research in organizational behavior has found goal-setting theory to be highly effective, as specific, difficult goals tend to enhance effort and performance more than vague, easy goals or no goals at all (Locke & Latham, 2002). However, many employees report confusion over what is expected of them or how their roles connect to broader organizational objectives.

Misaligned or unclear goals damage motivation. For example, one study of sales representatives at an automotive parts manufacturer found over 40% did not fully understand how their annual sales targets tied into department or company-wide targets (Gallacher, 2017). As a result, motivation and effort varied drastically across teams. Leaders who clearly communicate how individual roles achieve shared strategic goals and support employees in tracking progress foster greater identification, ownership, and drive to succeed. Regular check-ins ensure accountability and momentum over time as well.

Lack of Autonomy and Control

Research in self-determination theory has shown autonomy and decision-making power are also critical drivers of employee motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). However, micromanagement remains pervasive in many organizations and industries. Strict controls without explanation or input diminish feelings of autonomy and personal involvement that fuel intrinsic motivation.

For example, on automotive assembly lines where tasks are narrowly defined, allowing team members to periodically problem-solve production issues as a group and implement test solutions can boost ownership. Surveys of employees who participated in such autonomy-enhancing problem-solving circles reported significantly higher job satisfaction and motivation levels than peers with less decision latitude (Gallagher, 2014). Leaders concerned only with tasks being completed efficiently sometimes overlook how autonomy strengthens personal investment in work. Providing opportunities for controlled experimentation and input fosters intrinsic motivation that also has long-term performance benefits.

Failure to Develop Skills and Growth Opportunities

Research agrees challenging jobs that allow continuous learning and skill development best sustain employee motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Yet development opportunities are often lacking or poorly communicated in many workplaces. Without room for growth, jobs become routine and boring, diminishing employee engagement over time.

For example, service technicians at auto dealerships handle an immense variety and volume of repairs each day. However, without exposure to new technologies and systematic skills development, motivation can decline. One dealership created a targeted rotational program to periodically expand the exposure of high performers to advanced specializations like hybrid vehicle diagnostics (Sharma, 2019). Technicians reported renewed enthusiasm from fresh learning challenges, applying skills in new areas, and a broader mastery of their craft. Leaders ensure long-term motivation by understanding individual career aspirations and designing roles and responsibilities for sufficient skill-building over time.

Unreasonable Workload Expectations

While challenging goals are motivating when attainable, unrealistic workload demands damage engagement and performance. Research on job design indicates clearly defined, achievable workloads aligned to skills and timelines optimize motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). However, surveys show over 66% of employees globally cite unreasonable time pressures as sources of work-related stress (AON, 2017). Unrealistic expectations also remain an issue in some industries like auto manufacturing where volume targets may overshadow injury risks or quality concerns.

For example, a study of three automotive stamping plants found those with inflexible, non-negotiable production minimums had much higher absenteeism and error rates, attributed to "impossible demands" damaging engagement and care (Ahmed, 2018). When workers feel incapable of meeting expectations due to insufficient time or support, helplessness and frustration emerge instead of motivation. Leaders who truly understand operations from the front lines can better calibrate activity levels to what is realistically sustainable. Communicating empathy and being open to input on process improvements cultivates willingness rather than resentment.

Poor Communication and Lack of Transparency

Consistent, transparent communication between leadership and employees regarding organizational priorities and challenges strengthens engagement. However, research indicates information asymmetry and secrecy remain widespread problems. A Gallup poll found only 51% of employees strongly agree leadership communicates effectively, and only 45% feel informed about company financials and directions (Gallup, 2017). Without clear messaging, employees struggle to connect individual roles to shared purpose. Research also links transparency to higher trust, motivation and retention (Kim & Mauborgne, 2003).

One case example comes from a German auto manufacturer experiencing quality issues across multiple models. After limiting transparency for months, leadership held an open town hall detailing root causes, costs, and revised processes – increasing preventable recalls by 50%. Employees appreciated honest acknowledgement of struggles and being empowered with information to enhance responsibilities (Henshaw, 2020). Authentic, consistent communication demonstrates care and builds alignment that motivates through difficult phases as well as successes.

Conclusion

Research provides clear guidance on practices to avoid when trying to motivate employees, and alternatives shown to meaningfully enhance engagement. While motivating teams requires nuanced leadership calibrated to specific organizational contexts, certain actions like inadequate feedback, opaque goal setting, constraining autonomy, limiting growth opportunities, unreasonable demands, and poor communication are nearly universally demotivating. Leaders who understand motivation science can focus efforts on the proven strategies opposite of those outlined – providing recognition, setting clear goals, fostering autonomy and learning, ensuring reasonable expectations, and transparent communication. While challenges will always exist, leaders equipped with this knowledge are better positioned to consistently motivate employees through empowerment rather than discouragement. A well-motivated workforce is the most powerful asset for any organization.

References

• Ahmed, S. (2018). The impact of production targets on employee engagement and performance in automotive manufacturing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 290-298. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.224

• Anthropic. (2019). Using recognition and feedback to boost employee motivation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/07/using-recognition-and-feedback-to-boost-employee-motivation

• AON. (2017). 2017 Trends in global employee engagement. AON Consulting. https://www.aon.com/getmedia/2179b703-75fc-4b55-80cc-ed84c7d65739/2017_Trends_in_Global_Employee_Engagement_Report.aspx

• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.

• Gallacher, S. (2014). Boosting engagement through autonomy. Automotive Logistics, 26(3), 46-49.

• Gallagher, S. (2017). Aligning individual goals to enhance motivation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/04/aligning-individual-goals-to-enhance-motivation

• Gallup. (2017). State of the global workplace. Gallup Press.

• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

• Henshaw, S. (2020). The benefits of organizational transparency. MIT Sloan Management Review, 61(3), 1-5.

• Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Tipping point leadership. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 60–69.

• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

• Sharma, R. (2019). Using rotational programs to enhance employee development and motivation. Strategic HR Review, 18(3), 149-153. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-03-2019-0024

---

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. (2024). The 6 Biggest Mistakes Leaders Make When Motivating Employees. Human Capital Leadership Review, 13(3). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.13.3.9