Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

How CEOs can build motivation that survives hard quarters

Build motivation through work people can understand, influence, and perform with credible support and rewards. Examine job design alongside incentives. Choose observable changes to the conditions of work instead of expecting a speech to sustain effort through a hard quarter.

Self-determination theory is an account of motivation that examines autonomy, competence and relatedness, including how people come to endorse their actions. Ryan and Deci’s 2000 synthesis of self-determination theory provides the synthesis used here. Intrinsic motivation concerns the interest or satisfaction in the activity itself; the broader theory also distinguishes ways of undertaking work for other outcomes. Do not reduce it to a rule that employees must enjoy every task.

Examine the request behind another motivational speech

Composite scenario, not a client case: You celebrate a contract at home while answering a manager who wants another motivational message. The team has already heard the purpose repeatedly. Employees still lack a clear priority when customer requests conflict, and the reward system recognizes the volume of work rather than the outcome you say matters.

Ask the manager for a recent handoff that failed and the instruction employees received. Put the operating standard beside the reward for closing requests. If those point in different directions, begin with that contradiction. A company-purpose message cannot specify which customer request takes precedence or who must accept a handoff. Make those decisions before asking the team to demonstrate more commitment to them.

Inspect work conditions without discounting compensation

Ryan and Deci’s synthesis, synthesis of self-determination theory, addresses different forms of motivation and the social conditions surrounding them. Use its distinctions to ask about discretion, capability support and connection with others. Do not conclude that pay is irrelevant, that every deadline is controlling or that all rewards damage motivation. Those blanket claims would bypass the actual task and the meaning employees attach to its requirements.

Industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, frames this as a work-design problem rather than a search for a motivational slogan. The review below is a proposed management method. It is not a validated inventory of employee motivation. Choose a defined change to a recurring task and examine what happens, including the possibility that the initial explanation was incomplete.

Select a work arrangement the company can change

The operating choice is which part of the work arrangement prevents useful effort. Distinguish unclear priorities, missing capability, limited discretion, and rewards that point toward a different behavior.

Choose an instance where effort did not produce the intended result. Ask whether the issue concerns priority, information, capability, authority or an incentive. These are questions to investigate, not labels to assign from a distance. State what the company controls and what it cannot currently change. Keep a hard business constraint explicit instead of allowing employees to mistake an unavailable option for a promise.

Describe the purpose through the task’s consequence. For a customer handoff, explain what the receiving person needs and how they confirm acceptance. Decide what takes precedence when volume and completeness conflict. Ask the team to identify where the current arrangement makes that priority difficult to follow. Use their examples to refine the work, without making enthusiasm for the proposed correction a condition of being heard.

Use the motivation work-design review

  1. Choose a concrete work pattern. Ask for a recent instance in which effort did not produce the result leadership wanted. Identify the task and who receives its output. Find the instruction and reward that applied. Avoid beginning with a judgment that the team lacks motivation. An observable work pattern gives you something the company may be able to change and a more precise question to discuss with the employees doing it.

  2. Clarify purpose and priority. Explain the task’s business consequence and decide what matters when demands compete. Use an example that forces a choice rather than announcing that everything remains equally urgent. Tell the team which earlier instruction changes. If another executive owns the conflict, obtain that decision before promising resolution. Keep the purpose statement connected to the work people must perform, not only to an abstract account of the company’s mission.

  3. Check choice and capability. Ask which decisions employees can make and what support they need to make them well. Specify the relevant information and a route for missing inputs. Examine how people learn whether the work meets its standard. If a capability gap requires development, assign that support explicitly. Do not respond to every obstacle by increasing choice, or to every request for help by withdrawing the discretion already agreed.

  4. Inspect rewards and recognition. Review the consequential signals attached to the task, including evaluations and allocation of opportunities. Compare them with the behavior you request. Ask the authorized owners to resolve a contradiction rather than expecting employees to choose between the announced standard and the behavior that earns advantage. Keep pay and contractual decisions within their proper review. The aim is coherence in the work arrangement, not a claim that incentives can be ignored.

  5. Test and review the change. Select a bounded correction with an owner and a meaningful review point. Tell employees what is changing and invite evidence of a drawback. Inspect the task’s output and whether promised support arrived. Avoid attributing every improvement to the proposal when workload or staffing also changed. Retain the correction if the evidence supports it, revise it if necessary and identify what the company still cannot resolve.

If a customer commitment requires immediate coverage, assign it through the actual operating authority. Explain which temporary demand takes precedence and what other work can wait. Do not use urgency to ask for unlimited effort while leaving all previous priorities unchanged. Return to the work-design review afterward so an emergency arrangement does not silently become the company’s normal answer to every conflict.

Say what leadership will change before requesting more effort

Use this proposed statement with a specific task and confirmed support. Replace general promises about empowerment with the decision the employee will be able to make after the change.

Before we ask for more effort, we need to check the work we are asking people to do. Here is the priority, the discretion available, and the support we will provide. We will also check whether our rewards encourage the same outcome.

Ask the team to apply the priority to a request they expect this week. Listen for a dependency your proposal does not resolve. If the support is unavailable, correct the commitment before treating the new standard as operational. Invite a drawback as well as an expected benefit. A useful response may show that your proposed change merely transfers the same unresolved work to another group.

Align the completed handoff with the reward

Hypothetical application: A team is urged to improve customer handoffs while rewarded for closing requests quickly. The review makes a completed handoff part of the operating standard and checks the reward design with relevant owners. The CEO tests the change instead of adding another purpose presentation.

In the hypothetical, define acceptance of a handoff before changing the recognition or reward. Ask the receiving owner what information makes the request usable. Compare completed cases with those returned for missing context. If employees close fewer requests because the standard now includes a complete handoff, keep that scope change visible. Do not compare old and new volume counts as though the work counted were unchanged.

Compare requested behavior with consequential recognition

Kerr’s 1975 analysis of misaligned rewards describes reward arrangements that favor one behavior while another is desired. Use that lens to examine a real promotion, evaluation or recognition example. Ask what the recipient had to do to receive the advantage. If speed is rewarded while a complete handoff is requested, resolve the tradeoff with the authorized owners. A speech should not ask employees to absorb a contradiction leadership has declined to address.

Keep the operating review separate from a clinical judgment

Do not assume that pay is irrelevant or that all incentives undermine motivation. Avoid asking employees to supply enthusiasm for demands the organization has made impossible to meet. Keep clinical concerns separate from an operating assessment.

Discuss workload, available choices and missing support without diagnosing an employee’s commitment or health. If symptoms persist or affect everyday functioning, a licensed clinician is the appropriate source of help. Do not require personal disclosure before clarifying a priority or repairing a work dependency. Keep any proposed employment or compensation change within the qualified review process instead of presenting it as a psychological technique.

Review the changed task rather than the mood of the meeting

Review the chosen work pattern and whether the support and discretion promised became available. Compare the resulting behavior with the business outcome rather than with the CEO’s impression of energy.

Choose evidence from the task before introducing the change. For the handoff example, inspect whether the receiving owner can act on the supplied information. Verify that the promised access and authority arrived. Ask what still makes the task difficult. A positive team meeting can accompany an incomplete operating correction, so retain the work-level evidence even when the discussion feels more encouraging.

Look for cases that do not fit your explanation. A team may have clear priorities but still lack the necessary capability, or may receive support while the reward continues to favor another behavior. Do not force every observation into the first category selected. Change the proposal where the evidence warrants it, and explain which leadership commitment changes with it. Keep an unresolved constraint visible rather than asking the team to compensate through extra enthusiasm.

The APA’s 2023 definition of informed consent describes voluntary agreement informed by understanding a procedure and its alternatives. Its definition comes from specific research and care contexts. Do not equate ordinary employment instructions with that process. When asking employees to join optional feedback or a work-design exercise, explain what is optional and how their contribution will be used. Required work should be described honestly as required.

Keep adjacent motivation questions in their own reviews

Use low-morale diagnosis when the recurring difficulty is not yet clear. A limited compensation budget needs the choices in motivation without raises. Compare reward arrangements through intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. If pressure from your own role is shaping the demands, use the CEO pressure guide. Recovery after layoffs needs its dedicated process rather than being treated as another version of a routine motivation problem.

Build the plan around a task, an operating correction and a review of the result. State which support the company will supply and which constraint remains. Employees should be able to describe the changed work without borrowing the language of your presentation. That is the practical test of whether the plan has moved beyond another request to care more.

Sources

Steady at the Top