An employee leaves shortly after receiving a raise. A team exceeds an ambitious stretch goal. A top achiever’s performance slides for no apparent reason.

Sometimes managers are surprised by these outcomes, which may be due to a mismatch between a manager’s beliefs about employee motivation and what actually motivates a particular employee. Complicating matters, what motivates one employee may not motivate another. Managers actually understanding motivations of their employees – not how they believe they are motivated but what actually motivated them – may lead to positive organizational outcomes.

Recently, researchers at the University of San Diego published a study in the Journal of Business Administration Research that developed and validated a psychological test to assess which motivational theories a manager believes in called the motivation beliefs inventory (MBI). The researchers explain that managers tend to hold erroneous beliefs about what motivates employees, overemphasizing certain factors, such as job security and compensation, and underemphasizing others, such as meaningful work and growth.

Using the MBI, managers’ beliefs can be assessed along four key motivation theories that have emerged since the early twentieth century: reinforcement theory (RT), expectancy-valence theory (EVT), achievement motivation theory (AMT), and self-determination theory (SDT).

Theories of Motivation
Reinforcement theory is based on using positive and negative reinforcements to incentivize employees to behave in a desired manner. In expectancy-valence theory, motivation can be determined by first examining the emotional desirability, attractiveness, and anticipated satisfaction of a particular outcome. A manager must then assess the likelihood of a particular course of action, such as assigning a particular project to an employee to bring about a desired result at a given time in the future.

Achievement motivation theory (AMT) purports that meeting three separate psychological needs motivate an individual: achievement, affiliation, and power. It is comprised of:

(1) socialized needs for achievement, affiliation, and power;
(2) striving to achieve something novel or record-breaking;
(3) challenge level of a goal;
(4) competing to win.

Finally, self-determination theory (SDT) posits, “individuals are naturally inclined to engage in and increase competence within their environments.” SDT suggests that the most important factor in motivating individuals is to create a positive environment that allows autonomy. In contrast to Reinforcement Theory, employees under SDT will be most successful and satisfied with their work in situations that are free of incentives and punishments.

The Three M’s
Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter of Harvard Business School discusses similar origins to motivation as the motivation beliefs inventory. She believes that mastery, membership, and meaning are the three “M”s that motivate employees. Kanter’s view intersects most with achievement motivation theory, both on mastery (achievement) and membership (affiliation). When discussing mastery, she advocates enabling people to develop deep skills and shape their future through stretch goals. In fact, behavioral economist Dan Ariely asserts that the more difficult the challenge the prouder a person feels of their achievement. This also aligns with achievement motivation theory in that the importance of the achievement is further magnified for the most challenging goals.

Kanter’s second “M,” membership, also aligns with the affiliation component of achievement motivation theory. The traditional view of affiliation focuses on pleasing others and gaining their approval. However, Kanter’s view of this sense of belonging is different. She believes that honoring individuality within the work community provides deeper connections than what she calls “superficial conformity.”

For Kanter’s third component she focuses on meaning rather than power, as in achievement motivation theory. However, these two concepts have more in common than initially meets the eye. Employees find their work meaningful when they understand the larger purpose of their daily tasks. As a manager, explaining the positive impact that an employee’s work has on the world is important. While in some industries and functions this may be more challenging than in others, an adaptation of this would be to show the positive impact that the employee’s function has on the organization itself.

Read more

By Louise Ogunseitan

Are you familiar with the saying ‘Big girls don’t cry?’ Well, according to recent research on emotion in the workplace by Anne Kreamer, author of the 2011 book, It’s Always Personal: Emotion in the workplace, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The dominant perception that crying at work is detrimental to one’s career is today being challenged by thought leaders around the world.

From the biological perspective, women are more susceptible to crying due to the prolactin hormone (the hormone that controls crying) being six times more present in our pituitary gland than men. Subsequently, crying is broadly defined as a “feminine” activity. If there is a biological argument for women showing more emotion than men, then shouldn’t this be embraced in the workplace and play a part in gender diversity discussions of a male-dominated corporate world?

In a study taken from Anne Kreamer’s book, she found that 41 percent of women and 9 percent of men reported that they had cried at work during the previous year and that it had no impact on their success. Is emotion, and indeed crying, part of a new workplace culture, making it acceptable and actually OK?

According to Kreamer, the fiction of the workplace being only about return on investment is now but a myth. Likewise, Sheryl Sandberg, Technology executive and Facebook COO, who has confessed to crying at work, said in an interview with Mint, an Indian business daily, that there is nothing to fear in crying at the office as it can actually promote close bonds and help build relationships.

We must remember that emotion is a natural function of the body designed to help us get through physical and cognitive dangers. Therefore, emotions don’t cease to exist once we hit the office floor.

Understanding Emotion
The main reason many women fear showing emotion at work is because of the misconception that crying signifies weakness, instability and an inability to lead. In fact, crying at work is usually a manifestation of inner frustrations that have been suppressed due to workplace pressures. Peggy Drexler, Assistant professor of Psychology at Cornell University, writes in her article, “The Dos and Don’ts of Crying at Work,” that crying at work can be a powerful tool if employees learn to recognise that most emotion at work stems from frustration, and not sadness. On the other hand, crying is proven to reduce anxiety and stress and improve productivity, showing the human side of leadership.

“There is no tissue ceiling,” according to Kreamer, she goes on to add, “If you cry, you are not management material that is not true. The occasional display of empathy and emotion, not pushed under the carpet, can be healthy.”

Essentially, conveying emotion at the right time in the workplace can help to open up dialogue and bring issues to the surface. When co-workers gather to support a colleague, it can foster a working culture and environment where colleagues feel they are truly part of a team.

So, when then is it OK to cry?

Methods for managing emotions at work
The key differentiating factor between crying at work being acceptable or not rests in the word genuine. An outward display of emotion at work must be authentic because anything other than this will be considered manipulative, such as crying after receiving constructive criticism from a boss. In addition, crying in large groups or in front of clients can also create discomfort and awkwardness and is considered inappropriate as part of the executive-client relationship.

In order to avoid scenarios such as these, below are three useful methods for managing emotion at work:

Read more

By Hadley Catalano

In 2013, according to Celluloid Ceiling, women accounted for only 16 percent of behind-the-scenes employees on the top 250 (domestic) grossing films. Similar to financial services and technology, women in Hollywood lack the exposure and access to capital needed to finance their films.

Like other industries, organizations and individual content creators are working to combat and change the mindset of the traditional jobs assigned to filmmakers through pragmatic initiatives, mentor programs, and networking partnerships to promote, educate and empower women in film.

One of these organizations is Women In Film Los Angeles (WIF), a non-profit organization dedicated to helping women in media achieve their highest potential, who partnered with Sundance Institute to investigate the root of the film industry’s gender gap.

“For so long the parity for women in film has been flat-lined. Since 1998 there has been no growth,” WIF President, Cathy Schulman, explained. “So two and a half years ago we partnered with Sundance Institute to launch a Women Filmmakers Initiative to foster gender parity for women in all aspects of the global media profession.”

This partnership resulted in a study called Exploring the Barriers and Opportunities for Independent Women Filmmakers that examined gender differences for U.S. independent films at the Sundance Film Festival (SFF) from 2002-2012.

Schulman, who won an Academy Award as a co-producer for the 2005 film “Crash,” explained that while the study revealed a higher representation of female filmmakers in independent film as compared to studio films, further data points and qualitative interviews were needed to understand the fundamental cause behind Hollywood’s traditional economic model and power structure, leading to women’s low employment statistics.

The second step involved analyzing the progress of Sundance Institute women filmmakers as they advanced in their careers. The organizations established programming to address what challenges women faced, provide a Mentorship Program for selected writers, directors and producers, and form an Allied Organizations network to help support sustained careers in film and promote gender inclusivity.

The second part of the project referred to as Phase II continued to update and explore the barriers and opportunities facing women filmmakers. In 2013, a snapshot of the 1,163 content creators working behind the camera of 82 American films at SFF revealed that only 28.9 percent of filmmakers were female, with women most likely to hold the job of producer versus director, writer, cinematographer, or editor. Additionally, targeted interviews with female directors and producers, industry executives, and leaders in the film field suggested that the five biggest blockades that hindered women’s career development were: “gendered financial barriers, male-dominated industry networks, stereotyping on set, work and family balance, and exclusionary hiring decisions.”

Facing Filmmaking Obstacles
Gendered-financial barriers were identified as the leading obstruction (43 percent) facing independent women filmmakers. Schulman extrapolated, explaining that there was a commonality among the interviewed financial backers – a stereotyped uncertainty to allow female filmmakers fiscal control. The reasoning, she said, was based on “mythological factors” such as a woman’s emotional behavior and inability to handle the financial responsibility.

Schulman took this information directly to the source, addressing independent financiers, networks and studios with empirical evidence that women are economically capable, and to bust the “cultural dependency on mythological ideas.” However, Schulman stressed that this effort would be futile if women could not invest in their own rescue. In turn, WIF began intensive financing workshops for hand-selected groups of women to help drill down on financial issues to help women overcome these obstacles.

“Women are not used to being demanding. Young girls are taught to be philanthropic with money,” she said, noting that there is a correlation between the amount of women working in gate keeping positions and the transactional value of the film. “In these workshops, we teach women the business of transactions so that they can gain access to the limited resources, and to know how to ask for and be chosen for the allocation of funds.”

Research behind stereotyping on set revealed that a majority of internal job referrals and socialization was being typically confined within well-established male networks, and skills, jobs, and careers on set were based on society-formed gender roles.

“This is why you’ll see more women producers,” Schulman said. “Statistically it is about gender association, and women are associated with qualities that fit the description of the job, ‘problem-solvers, multi-taskers, nurturing,’ where men are associated with roles that match the director ideal, with words such as ‘strong, fierce, and boss’.”

A Call-To-Arms
Creating a dialogue around women’s films, leadership on sets, and creative contributions is a rare conversation, and pursuing traditional forms of networking has been a struggle for women in the industry. Schulman suggested that the stigma of competitiveness is hindering women from establishing the networking channels needed to retain employment numbers for fellow filmmakers.

“We have to be more supportive of each other,” said the Mandalay producer, who through WIF has established networking programs and breakfast series events. “The more women that are in gate keeping positions, the more women will get jobs on sets.”

An Independent Woman
Documentary film director, Cynthia Wade, has first-hand experience with both the struggles and empowerment of working in independent film. She has faced monetary blockades and gender stereotyping, but she has also contributed and networked to gain the employment of majority woman crews, and has encouraged and supported female moviemakers.

Wade currently represents a thriving statistic in the growth of women storytellers, as she is one of an increasing number of female documentary filmmakers. In her short film, “Selfie,” for Dove’s #BeautyIs campaign, Wade redefines the image of beauty, one of the many motion picture examples of the way she’s changing the content and nature of independent films.

“As a female documentary filmmaker, I present women’s issues, and because of the sensitive nature of the films I pursue, it caters to working with female dominated crews,” said Wade, whose “Selfie” film employed about 75 percent women behind the camera, and quickly went viral. “But, all the guys on my crew are ‘honorary women,’ they are sensitive, communicative, and attentive to women’s stories and perspectives.”

Wade, who won the 2008 Academy Award for her short film “Freeheld,” explained gender bias is still a controlling factor for women crewmembers.

“I was trained at Stanford in cinematography and became a strong handheld documentary cameraperson. I worked for all the broadcast outlets. When I was being considered for a job that required travel, I was almost always asked who was taking care of my children at home. When my husband traveled, a prospective employer never asked him who was taking care of the children,” said Wade, who feels compelled to support her fellow female co-workers.

She continued, “I’m more likely to hire women, accept female interns, and share war stories. I feel an obligation, an investment in our young generation. I say things to these women that I wish someone had told me at 23.”

Access and Funding
However, Wade is constantly working to overcome the two biggest statistical obstacles in show business: access to the right people and access to funding. She is continuously networking. As a result of a screening of her Oscar-nominated film, “Mondays at Racine,” at a Financial Women’s Association event, Wade was introduced to well-networked women and through them pursued new contacts.

Wade’s experience is a prime example of how networking with the right people can be a useful career advancement tool regardless of your industry. Furthermore, it supports a model of cross-industry networking in order to bring women with different backgrounds together to share ideas, experiences, advice and support for each other’s endeavors.

“It was a detective game. I’d always ask people who they knew whom I might like to know, and who might like to know me,” Wade said, explaining that these efforts, through several generations of networking, allowed her to connect with Michael Crook, a leading female photographer. She subsequently hired Crook to appear in “Selfie” and now considers the photographer a valuable asset to her growing women’s network.

While “Selfie” was corporately sponsored, the majority of Wade’s additional free time is spent fundraising, applying for grants, and pushing for advancement.

“I’m fighting to move my career forward. I’m pushing commercial work, fiction work. I’m teaching master’s classes at universities. I am a keynote speaker at corporate events, where I speak about women’s stories and perspectives. We’re still not at a place in our society where people don’t stop and look twice at a woman director,” said the wife and mother of two. “I wish that every decision I made about a film wasn’t entirely based on whether or not I can find funding, or if my backers will find this topic important enough to fund.”

While stagnant employment numbers and stereotypical disparities are still preventing women from finding equality in the film industry, small initiative-based interventions and cultural shifts are starting to break through gender barriers. Inspirational documentary filmmakers like Wade, dedicated organizers like Schulman, and outspoken women filmmaking initiatives are creating awareness around Hollywood’s skewed representation in front of and behind the camera.

There is equal value in women’s contributions, leadership, and vision to the film industry and women are succeeding in shaping the way movies are written, filmed, directed, and produced.