In order to enable people to be effective in their jobs and find them motivating and satisfying, you need to design work right. A compelling mission and cause to work for—as important as that is—can be interfered with and even undermined if the work itself is not structured in a way that accords with how humans are designed to function.
The reason is that if certain factors are not present within the work itself, dissatisfaction and even misery result. This has been documented by the Gallup organization in their twenty-year effort to identify the characteristics of great managers and workplaces and articulated anecdotally very effectively by Patrick Lencioni.
Our aim at Next is that we not undermine the mission that we are passionate about through the structure of our jobs. Rather, our aim is not only that every job actually be meaningful, but that every job feel meaningful. We do not want the reality (meaning) to be obscured by poor structure and job design.
Hence, I am going to outline five models on designing work, and then draw a few implications for us.
Five Models on Designing Work
The Components of Motivation
In his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Daniel Pink argues that there are three factors of intrinsic motivation: autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Autonomy means having the freedom to chose and be self-directed. There are four areas of work over which you can have autonomy: what you do, when you do it, how you do it, and who you do it with. In general, the greater autonomy one has over these conditions, the more motivating the work—assuming the other two components are also met (mastery and purpose).
The opposite of autonomy is control. Whether a manager believes in increasing autonomy or increasing control reflects something about his or her view of human nature. If we believe that people do not naturally want to work, accept responsibility, and do a good job, we will tend to think people need a prod to move forward, that “absent [extrinsic] reward or punishment, we’d remain happily and inertly in place,” and that once people do get moving, they need a firm and close guide or they will wander off task.
But if we believe that people are not passive and inert by nature, but rather “wired to be active and engaged,” then people don’t need to be controlled. Rather, what they need are clear outcomes (which they also have a part in setting) so that they know what is expected of them. Along with this they need to have the knowledge and resources that they need to do their work. The role of the manager then becomes that of a supporter and source of help, making sure they are equipped in the way they need, and removing the obstacles that restrain active engagement and intrinsic motivation.
Here’s how this all comes together: control leads to compliance, whereas autonomy leads to engagement. And this relates to the second component of motivation.
Mastery is “the desire to get better at something that matters.” Only engagement, not compliance, can produce mastery.
Managers help create the conditions for mastery by creating environments where it is conducive to get into the state of flow, or “the zone” and making sure that people have “clear objectives and a way to get quick feedback.” Another crucial part of this is making sure that people are able to play to their strengths—to do what they do best every day. For the opportunity for greatest improvement and growth and mastery lies in our areas of strength.
Purpose means working for a cause that is greater than yourself. This is what leads to the deepest level of motivation. Ironically, traditional management did not recognize purpose as a motivator. Instead, it relegated it to the status of “ornament—a nice accessory if you want it, so long as it doesn’t get in the way of the important stuff.” By taking this view, it “neglects a crucial part of who we are.”
I think that Pink is right on the target with the three elements of motivation. Autonomy is one of our core guiding principles of leadership and management overall, and so it ought to be reflected in job design. Autonomy is good for the person, because it is motivating, and it is good for the organization, because when people are motivated they do better work.
Autonomy has to be combined with clarity of expectations, which we discuss in our approach in another document, and which is reflected in the other models in the “measurement” component. Measurement is one of the means of feedback on results, which is a form of accountability (but not the only form).
Mastery relates very much to our aim to focus on strengths and make sure people are able to do what they do best every day. We want to see people become better and better at what they do—and here we see that this is good for the individual and produces more effective results for the organization.
Purpose is becoming especially relevant in the modern workplace, because more and more people are realizing is essential to them in their work. People are not merely economic beings, and hence they do not work only for money. This is especially true in the nature of our work, being ministry. Our purpose as an organization is strong, and people come work here because they resonate with and want to contribute to that purpose. What we need to do is make sure that we don’t allow ourselves to become lazy on the other fronts because of this. It would be a tragedy if people were inspired by the sense of purpose in serving the kingdom, but we did not equip and empower them for effectiveness and growth in the other components that are necessary for job meaningfulness and effectiveness. In fact, as the Gallup research points out (which I discuss in the document “Employee Engagement” [link]), if people resonate with the purpose of their organization but lack some basic factors such as clear expectations and having the tools they need to do their work, they will ultimately become disengaged. So we cannot simply think in terms of the high level of purpose. We also have to serve people at the levels down lower on the mountain, at base camp.
Engagement means having an emotional connection to your work. Marcus Buckingham’s book First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently is based on a Gallup study of 80,000 about how to build an engaged workforce—that is, a strong work environment. Their findings show that a great work environment is not something that just happens randomly; rather, it is something that we have no control over.
Their most surprising finding is that the key role in creating a strong work environment is not the leadership of the company, but the managers. Your manager plays the greatest role in determining whether you will stay with a company and how effective you will be while you are there. People join companies, but leave managers.
Buckingham gives a full picture of what the management role needs to look like in order to build a strong workplace and create employee engagement. In brief, the role of the manager is not to perfect people, but rather unleash who they already are—to turn talent into performance. This is done by turning four keys: selecting for talent, motivating by focusing on strengths, setting expectations by defining the right outcomes (but no the right steps), and developing by finding the right fit.
If the managers throughout the company play this role effectively, time after time, a strong workplace is built. Further, the strength of a workplace can be measured through the 12 Questions that Gallup developed through its study. The primary role of a manager is to develop positive responses to the first six of these questions. The manager does this by carrying out the above four keys effectively.
The 12 Questions are:
- Do I know what is expected of me at work?
- Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?
- At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?
- In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?
- Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
- Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
- At work, do my opinions seem to count?
- Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel my job is important?
- Are my co-workers committed to doing quality work?
- Do I have a best friend at work?
- In the last six months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?
- This last year, have I had opportunities at work to learn and grow?
We have baked the realities that these questions measure into our management systems, including performance management, career discovery, and strengths discovery. When it comes to job design, the three biggest factors that we see at this point are: people need to have the equipment they need to do their work right, and so we ought not skimp there, and every job needs to have clearly defined outcomes, or expectations. Third, each person needs to be positioned in a way that will enable them to play to their strengths, which is not just an ambiguous ideal, but something that can be concretely measured by the question “are you able to do what you do best every day.”
3. The Non-Miserable Job
The Nature of a Miserable Jobs
Patrick Lencioni makes a distinction between miserable jobs and bad jobs. A “bad” job is often in the eye of the beholder—it’s defined by what you value and what you want your job to be like.
A miserable job is one that “saps your energy even when you’re not busy. It’s the one that makes you go home at the end of the day with less enthusiasm and more cynicism than you had when you left in the morning.”
You can have a “great” job—a professional basketball player or a CEO—and still be miserable because “being miserable has nothing to do with the actual work a job involves” (217).
Consequently, “miserable jobs are found everywhere—consulting firms, television stations, banks, schools, churches, software companies, professional football teams, amusement parks. And they exist at all levels, from the executive suite to the reception desk to the mail room.”
The Consequences of Miserable Jobs
Miserable jobs matter because they are harmful to people and cause the organization to be less effective. “Economically, productivity suffers greatly when employees are unfulfilled.”
But it is the social cost that is most significant, because miserable jobs don’t simply affect the employee himself—which is bad enough. Rather, they have ripple effects. “A miserable employee goes home at the end of the day frustrated, cynical, and weary and spreads that frustration, cynicism, and weariness to others—spouses, children, friends, strangers on the bus. Even the most emotionally mature, self-aware people cannot help but let work misery leak into the rest of their lives.”
Thus, it makes sense that we should do whatever we can to make sure we have no miserable jobs at DG, and know how to help reduce job misery in society at large. So we need to know, what makes a job miserable?
The 3 Signs of a Miserable Job
Lencioni argues that there are three characteristics of a miserable job: anonymity, irrelevance, immeasurement.
Anonymity simply means not having someone, usually at least your manager but also peers, who take an interest in you. So anonymity doesn’t mean “not widely known”—that’s not the point. It is when no one at work takes a personal interest in you.
This is the first component of a miserable job because “people cannot be fulfilled in their work if they are not known. All human beings need to be understood and appreciated for their unique qualities by someone in a position of authority….People who see themselves as invisible, generic, or anonymous cannot love their jobs, no matter what they are doing.”
Irrelevance is when there is no clear indication that your work matters to someone. Once again, the point here is not that it needs to matter to millions of people; it just needs to matter to a few. “Everyone needs to know that their job matters, to someone. Anyone. Without seeing a connection between the work and the satisfaction of another person or group of people, an employee simply will not find lasting fulfillment.”
Immeasurement is when there is no way to gauge your progress—and do this for yourself. This brings objectivity to evaluating your performance, which is critical because people “cannot be fulfilled in their work if their success depends on the opinions or whims of another person, no matter how benevolent that person may be. Without a tangible [emphasis added] means for assessing success or failure, motivation eventually deteriorates as people see themselves as unable to control their own fate.”
Making Jobs Meaningful
To make jobs meaningful, therefore, we need to make sure that they include three factors:
- Non-Anonymity. People must be known, and not seen as invisible, generic, or anonymous.
- People must know that their job matters to someone.
- People need to be able to gauge your progress and contribution for themselves.
The Benefits of Making Jobs Meaningful
By making sure every job is meaningful, many benefits result.
First, it increases productivity. “Employees who find fulfillment in their jobs are going to work with more enthusiasm, passion, and attention to quality than their counterparts who do not, mostly because they develop a sense of ownership and pride in what they are doing.”
Second, it results in greater retention and lower costs. “Simply stated, employees hang on to fulfilling jobs as long as they can, mostly because they know their chances of finding another are relatively slim. What is more, fulfilled employees tend to attract other good employees to an organization, either by actively recruiting them or merely by telling friends about their enthusiasm for their work. The result of all this for an organization is significantly lower costs related to recruiting, hiring, retraining, and termination.”
Third, it results in sustainable cultural differentiation. “In a world of ubiquitous technology and rapid dissemination of information, it is harder and harder to establish sustainable competitive advantage through strategic and tactical decision making. Cultural differentiation, however, is more valuable than it’s ever been, because it requires courage and discipline more than creativity or intelligence.”
Fourth, it serves people. Managing for job fulfillment is not only beneficial to the organization; rather, it is right in itself because it serves people. This is how we ought to treat people, who are in the image of God. Organizations are not exempt from the Great Commandment. We ought to treat people the way they ought to be treated—the way we would want people to treat us—and that means managing our organizations in a way that seeks to maximize job fulfillment.
4. Job Enrichment
In Treat People Right, Edward Lawler gives a good summary of what researches have found regarding job design.
He writes: “job design greatly influences employee motivation, satisfaction, and performance and ultimately has a powerful influence on organizational effectiveness.” This is because “a great deal of research evidence shows that when jobs are designed to contain high levels of involvement and challenge, the result is high levels of intrinsic motivation and satisfaction.”
The Characteristics of Enriched Jobs
There are three critical characteristics of “enriched jobs”:
- The experience of meaningfulness.
- The experience of responsibility for outcomes.
- Feedback or knowledge of results.
“When all three of these conditions are present in the minds of employees, the work itself can be both motivating and satisfying. However, if any one of these conditions is not present, research suggests that people will not be motivated because they will not experience a connection—or line of sight, as we have called it—between feeling good and performing well.”
For example, without feedback, you can’t know if you’ve performed well. There is no line of site between performance and results, which comes close to the definition of futility.
Likewise, without responsibility, you don’t “own” your work. There is one single defining characteristic for responsibility: autonomy. (This is reminiscent of Daniel Pink’s research.) “Autonomy occurs when people feel they can determine their own work methods and procedures without close supervision. Autonomy is what allows people to take responsibility for how well they perform. When freedom and choice are not present, people feel that someone is controlling them so much that they literally disown the results of their own behavior.”
And without a meaningful task, “people do not feel that they have done something worthwhile, and so they don’t experience a positive feeling, even if they perform well.” There are three characteristics of meaningfulness: doing a whole or complete piece of work, doing a significant task and the degree to which it requires the use of valued skills.
Most organizations are doing better at the factors of meaningfulness and feedback, but are often fail to give attention to giving more autonomy. It is for this reason that “many job enrichment efforts fail.”
Diminished Jobs: The Thinking of Scientific Management
Much of this is contrary to the school of scientific management, which dominated work design during much of the last century. Scientific management “called for standardized, specialized, simplified, and where possible, machine-paced jobs—all in the name of efficiency, productivity, and low labor costs. People were expected to add little value beyond their manual labor, and thus they could be easily hired, trained, and replaced when needed. To keep people working hard, two carrots were used: financial incentives and the threat of being fired.”
Scientific management stems from a faulty and unbiblical view of human nature. “A key assumption behind the scientific management movement was that in return for a job, people should be willing to behave like machines for eight hours a day.” Some today, in fact, still hold this. For example, in Coaching for Improved Work Performance, Ferdinand Fournies, writes that “people are hired in business to do jobs only because we don’t have a machine that can do those jobs.” Ferdinand also states that the implied agreement between the employer and employee goes something like this:
She: I will do what you tell me to do as long as you pay me with a check that doesn’t bounce.
You: I will tell you what to do, give you some tools to do it with, and try not to dismember you in the process.
What a horrible perspective! I will mention four of the core problems with it. First, it treats people as merely economic beings (note how the economic dimension is represented as the full range and purpose of the agreement: “as long as you pay me with a check that doesn’t bounce”). But people are not only stomachs; they are also resourceful, social, and spiritual. Managing people merely from the economic perspective fails to treat people as whole people. It is a truncated view of people that does not accord with truly treating them as whole persons who are in the image of God.
Second, this perspective doesn’t work. As I discuss in the document (I believe) on compensation, in a society of abundance it simply is not effective to manage with the carrot and stick approach because people’s economic needs are largely satisfied (or can easily be satisfied simply through a different job). People no longer work primarily for a paycheck, but also for the sake of higher level needs such as social relationships, performing at their peak potential, and meaning. If managers ignore these dimensions, they will have no influence.
Third, this perspective is inherently demotivating. This should be clear from what we have seen from our discussion above on motivation. As Pink argued, the three factors of motivation are autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Fournies perspective ignores all of these. He ignores autonomy: the employer says “I will tell you what to do.” He ignores purpose: the arrangement is only about getting paid “with a check that doesn’t bounce.” And he ignores mastery: the arrangement is only about “doing what you tell me” rather than what I am good at.
Now, scientific management was efficient. But that doesn’t mean it is right. We need to be concerned about more than efficiency when dealing with people. Scientific management accomplished its efficiency at the expense of people—and, ironically, the long-term result was actually very inefficient. As Lawler sums up very well:
“[Scientific management’s] use in most large organizations for decades caused low intrinsic motivation on the part of employees, high rates of turnover and absenteeism, and a strong inclination to solve workplace problems through unionization. In response to their mind-numbing repetitious jobs, employees frequently engaged in counterproductive behaviors, such as shoddy-quality work and even sabotage. Poor quality and productivity, along with constant labor-management disputes, were problems that frequently plagued U.S. car makers and for that matter most other U.S. manufacturers for decades. It was these problems that opened the door to foreign competitors.”
5. Principle-Centered Leadership
Treating People as Whole People
Principle-centered leadership, articulated by Stephen Covey, means treating individuals as whole people, rather than simply one-dimensional. In other words, people are not merely economic beings, and so work needs to provide more than just financial incentives. People are also social, talented, and spiritual. And so work must tap into these dimensions as well. Covey writes that there are four basic management paradigms and suggests that “three of them are fundamentally flawed because they are based on false assumptions about the nature of people.”
First, the scientific management paradigm saw people primarily as economic beings. This led to an authoritarian style, because if people are primarily economic, then it follows that the task of the manager is to “motivate them through the great jackass method, the carrot and the stick.” In this view, the manager is in control and is the “elite one” who knows what is best. “I will direct you where to go, and I will do it through the carrot and the stick. Of course, I must be fair with the economic rewards and the benefit package. But it’s all designed to meet the needs of one’s stomach.” The manager is fundamentally seeing themselves as “manipulating an economic reward package in order to get the behavior they want.”
Second, there is the human relations paradigm. This paradigm sees people not only as economic beings, but also social beings. Hence, it seeks to “treat people not only with fairness, but with kindness, courtesy, civility, and decency.” But “the power still lies with the manager—the shift is usually simply from being an authoritarian to being a benevolent authoritarian because we still are the elite few who know what’s best.”
Third, there is the psychological paradigm, which recognizes the economic and social components of people, as well as the need to use one’s talent and grow and contribute creatively to the accomplishment of worthwhile objectives. This paradigm cares about contribution and realizes that “people have minds in addition to stomachs and hearts.” “With this larger understanding of man’s nature, we begin to make better use of their talent, creativity, resourcefulness, ingenuity, and imagination.” In this paradigm, “managers try to create an environment in which people can contribute their full range of talents to the accomplishment of organizational goals.” This paradigm is pretty close, but is not yet reckoning with the all dimensions of human nature.
Fourth is principle-centered leadership. As mentioned above, this means treating people as whole people, which means recognizing that in addition to being economic, social, and resourceful, people are also spiritual. That is, they seek meaning, “a sense of doing something that matters.” It realizes that “people do not want to work for a cause with little meaning, even though it taps their mental capacities to the fullest. There must be purposes that lift them, ennoble them, and bring them to their highest selves.”
On this paradigm, the you manage people through principles. “These principles are the natural laws and governing social values that have characterized every great society, every responsible civilization, over the centuries. They surface in the form of values, ideas, ideals, norms, and teachings that uplift, ennoble, fulfill, empower, and inspire.” The power in this paradigm shifts away from the “elite authoritarian group—however benevolent it may be” with the result that “every person in the organization will feel more empowered.”
This enlarged view of human nature underscores the need to make work challenging and fulfilling. Principle-centered leaders try to automate routine, boring repetitive tasks and give people a chance to take pride in their jobs. They encourage participation in decision making as well as other important matters. In fact, the more important the decision, the more challenging the problem, the more they attempt to tap the talents of their human resources. They continually seek to expand the areas over which their people could exercise self-direction and self-control as they develop and demonstrate better insight and ability [emphasis added].”
So principle-centered leadership is about empowerment and meaning. Rather than seeking to control people, the manager aims to expand the areas over which people exercise self-direction and self-control. There are certain conditions that make self-direction and freedom more effective for people (and enable it to remain aligned with organizational goals), which Covey calls “the six conditions of empowerment.” These go to the heart of Covey’s thinking on how to manage people as self-governing, holistic, mature individuals who are in the image of God.
The 6 Conditions of Empowerment
Covey’s discussion on the 6 conditions of empowerment provide a helpful summary of his entire approach in a nutshell. He writes:
To motivate people to peak performance, we first must find the areas where organizational needs and goals overlap individual needs, goals, and capabilities. We can then set up win-win agreements. Once these are established, people could govern or supervise themselves in terms of that agreement. We would then serve as sources of help and establish helpful organizational systems within which self-directing, self-controlling individuals could work toward fulfilling the terms of the agreement. Employees would periodically give an accountability for their responsibilities by evaluating themselves against the criteria specified in the win-win agreement.
This paragraph brings out the first four of the six conditions of empowerment, which we will now discuss:
- Win-win agreement (which provides the clear expectations and outcomes)
- Helpful structure and systems
These four conditions of empowerment are in turn based upon the other two conditions: skills and character.
The win-win agreement is essentially “a psychological contract between manager and direct report. It represents a clear mutual understanding rand commitment regarding expectations in five areas: desired results, guidelines, resources, accountabilities, and consequences.”
Covey’s approach here is consistent with the principle of autonomy, and is in fact built on it:
These five features of a win-win agreement basically cover what a person needs to understand before undertaking a job. We clarify the desired results, the guidelines to work within, the resources to draw upon, the means of accountability, and the consequences of on-the-job performance. But we do not deal with methods. Win-win is a human resource principle that recognizes that people are capable of self-direction and self-control and can govern themselves to do whatever is necessary within the guidelines to achieve the desired results.
Win-win agreements, in turn, enable self-supervision—which is a model of freedom and autonomy (within a structure) rather than command and control. “Once a win-win agreement is established, people can then supervise themselves in terms of that agreement.” What, then, is the role of the manager? “Managers may then serve as sources of help and establish helpful organizational structures and systems upon which self-directing, self-controlling individuals can draw to fulfill the win-win agreement.”
Helpful Structure and Systems
The role of organizational systems is important, as they help “facilitate the fulfillment of win-win agreements.” The systems might include things like “strategic planning, company structure, job design, communication, budgeting, compensation, information, recruitment, selection, placement, training, and development. In a helpful system people receive information about their performance directly, and they use it to make necessary corrections.”
Accountability happens through a routine of conversations and quarterly performance reviews. We introduce our process for this below, and then link to the documents that give the more complete details.
Skills and Character
The other two conditions of empowerment are skills and character. “Character is what a person is; skills are what a person can do. These are the human competencies required to establish and maintain the other four. Hence they are really preconditions to the establishment of trusting relationships, win-win agreements, helpful systems, and employee self-supervision and self-evaluation.”
And all of this is based on trust. “In a low-trust culture, it is difficult to establish good win-win agreement or allow self-supervision and evaluation. Instead, there would be a need for control systems and for external supervision and evaluation.”
So trust is at the foundation of everything, and the foundation of trust is trustworthiness.
Everything that we have looked at in the above models is important for how we design and think of jobs at Next. This comes together into an integrated picture for us through mindsets and systems.
- Manage in a way that maximizes autonomy—what to do, when to do it, how to do it.
- Yet also complement autonomy with accountability for results by making sure that outcomes are clear (while leaving the way to the outcomes up to the employee), providing feedback, and being a source of help.
- Position your people so that each of them is able to more and more do what they do best every day.
- Make sure your people always have the tools and equipment they need to do their work right.
- Praise good work routinely and highlight how it makes a difference.
- Proactively seek to develop your people in line with their strengths by suggesting training and other opportunities that will add to their strengths, and helping them find the right fit as they look to their next steps.
- Lead and direct primarily through values and principles rather than rules.
- Make sure that there are ways for people to count, rank, and measure their own results.
- Focus on your strengths. This means adjust your role if necessary so that you are called upon to do what you do best every day, and when you seek out training do so not mainly to shore up weaknesses, but rather build your strengths further.
- Supervise yourself in terms of the win-win performance agreement and utilize your manager as a source of help and coach.
- Do great work and make things happen!
Mindsets are significant all on their own, but become even more effective when they are also reinforced through specific systems that concretely keep them in motion. Here are some specific systems that embody the above principles and mindsets, with links to the specific documents where we describe them in more detail.
- Strengths-based hiring. [link]
- Win-win agreements [link] (job profiles) that are established at the beginning of each hiring relationship or change in job. See the link for components.
- Quarterly performance planning. [link]
- Annual strengths interview. [link] (This is just done after someone is initially hired, and then integrated into the first quarterly performance planning meeting for each year after.)
- Annual career discovery. [link] (This is also integrated into one of the performance planning meetings.)
- Role tweaking. [link]
- Organization-wide talent profile. [link]
 See the book First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman, pp. 21-49.
 See his 3 Signs of a Miserable Job.
 There is a role for extrinsic motivation, but it is very secondary. Pink shows how extrinsic motivation often backfires and reduces commitment to a job or task. Further, I’m not interested in using motivational theory to shape people’s behavior; rather, the point is to make sure we aren’t creating conditions that get in the way of what people are naturally motivated to do.
 Note that “autonomy” is not identical to “independence.” Autonomy means acting with choice, not being a rugged individualist, like a Cowboy. Hence, Pink points out that “we can be both autonomous and happily interdependent with others” (90).
 Pink, p. 88.
 These two views on human nature were first articulated best by Douglas McGregor in The Human Side of Enterprise. Note that, while human nature is fallen, the fall has not wiped out the desire to be active and engaged and productive. While the fall wiped out the moral image of God in mankind, it did not totally wipe out the natural image of God. Those who think that people are naturally lazy and wanting to avoid work, and thus need to be controlled, are at odds with the fact that fallen man remains in the image of God. The image of God in man implies not only the principle of respect for the individual, but also recognition that people are full of potential and the ability to achieve. Both of these principles, together, thus imply that the right way to treat people in a workplace is to be continually seeking to increase autonomy rather than seeking to increase control. It is not that “control” is all bad; the issue is what is our default direction and which are we seeking to maximize.
 Note also that autonomy is not at odds with accountability. Accountability is critical and, along with autonomy, is necessary for empowerment. An individual who has autonomy but not accountability is not empowered—lack of accountability is de-motivating because it makes it seem as though one’s work doesn’t matter (since no one is seeking to provide accountability, they must not care) and because it undermines the ability to have clear outcomes (with no accountability for outcomes, it begins to become unclear what the expectations really are). Pink elaborates on this well: “Encouraging autonomy doesn’t mean discouraging accountability. Whatever operating system is in place, people must be accountable for their work. But there are different ways to achieve this end, each built on different assumptions about who we are deep down. Motivation 2.0 assumed that if people had freedom, they would shirk—and that autonomy was a way to bypass accountability. Motivation 3.0 begins with a different assumption. It presumes that people want to be accountable—and that making sure they have control over their task, their time, their technique, and their team is a pathway to that destination” (106-107).
 The biblical view of people is that, as adults, we are to be mature, wise, and capable of increasing responsibility. We are to be servants, but we are not to need to be closely managed. Our aim, therefore, should not to be to turn people into increasingly compliant individuals who do what they are told but don’t take initiative; rather, it is to act in line with the fact that people are to become increasingly responsible and mature—and thus engaged and taking initiative, not merely following directions.
 Pink, 111.
 See Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s book Flow: The State of Optimal Experience.
 Pink, 117.
 This is one of Marcus Buckingham’s main points. See his First, Break All the Rules or Now, Discover Your Strengths.
 Pink, 134.
 Patrick Lencioni, The 3 Signs of a Miserable Job, p. 217.
 Likewise, you can have a “bad” job and not be miserable.
 Lencioni, p. 217.
 Lencioni, 219. Further, this can actually be measured, as Matthew Kelly shows in his book The Dream Manager.
 Lencioni, 221.
 Lencioni, 222.
 Lencioni, 224.
 Lencioni, 225.
 Lencioni, 225.
 Lencioni points out that, ironically, when managers work to reduce these three signs, there is an unexpected side effect that creates a virtuous spiral: “employees themselves begin to take a greater interest in their colleagues, help them find meaning and relevance in their work, and find better ways to gauge their own success, and they do all of this without specific direction from their bosses. In essence, they take some responsibility for keeping the three signs of a miserable job at bay. Ironically, this gives them yet a greater sense of meaning while creating a sustainable cultural advantage that competitors will envy but find difficult to duplicate” (225).
 Edward Lawler, Treat People Right, p. 139.
 Treat People Right, 139.
 Treat People Right, 141.
 Treat People Right, 142.
 Treat People Right, 140.
 Treat People Right, 143.
 Treat People Right, 140.
 Ferdinand Dournies, Coaching for Improved Work Performance. Fournies is also author of Why Employees Don’t Do What They Should –the title of which alone is a dead give away on his point of view, betraying a perspective of control and compliance rather than autonomy and empowerment.
 Coaching for Improved Work Performance, p. 49.
 Treat People Right, ” 140.
 Stephen Covey, Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 176.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 176.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 176.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 177.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 178.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 179.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 180.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, pp. 191-192.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 192.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 194.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 195.
 Principle-Centered Leadership, p. 196.