The Puzzle of Motivation – How do you keep your team motivated?

In this day and age, companies are focusing more and more on creating a culture that will keep their employees motivated. We have a host of clients with long lists of benefits such as; additional leave, free snacks, free meals, exercise classes, additional superannuation etc and this helps to create a fantastic culture – but is this enough to retain employees and keep them engaged and productive day to day?

 

In a fascinating Ted Talk, Dan Pink speaks about the science behind motivation and how businesses can thrive by incorporating the learnings of science, rather than implementing policies and initiatives based on assumptions.

 

Dan tells us that Scientists who have been studying motivation have developed a new approach which is much more focused on intrinsic motivation rather than the traditional reward and bonus approach. It has been proven that people are motivated when they feel like they are in control and are a part of something important – Dan claims that this form of intrinsic motivation revolves around three elements; Autonomy – the urge to manage our own days/ lives, Mastery – the desire to get better and better at something and Purpose – the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than just us.

 

Rather than focusing on traditional rewards and incentives, businesses who involve their team in higher level decisions, strategy and big picture planning along with encouraging team members to manage their own day and their own workload whilst providing guidance and support as needed, will see employees thrive and grow and engage more actively with the business.

 

Here at Lotus People, as well as focusing on traditional extrinsic rewards, such as commission and incentives, we encourage staff to harness their intrinsic motivators and operate with autonomy and ownership; managing their own desks day to day on their schedule, knowing they have the support of peers and Directors as needed. The team are invested in the business (read some anonymous reviews from the team here!) whilst nurturing their own careers at the same time.

 

As Dan concludes, the secret to high performance isn’t rewards and punishment, but that unseen intrinsic drive – the drive to do things for their own sake and the drive to do things because you want to do them.

 

Watch the Ted Talk here. And find out more about Lotus People here.

You may also like...

The Ethics of Reference Checks: Are We Wasting Everyone’s Time?

By Michelle Barrett • February 25, 2026
In the ever-evolving world of talent acquisition, reference checks remain a standard practice. However, I've recently asked my network a question: Is bringing two candidates to the reference check stage a fair and ethical practice? The overwhelming consensus from HR professionals, recruiters, and hiring managers is a resounding no . While companies might justify this approach to ensure they make the best hiring decision, the practice has significant drawbacks. The Candidate’s Perspective: False Hope and Strained Relationships For candidates, reference checks often represent the final hurdle before an offer. Being asked to provide references is a hopeful moment—only to discover later that they were simply a “backup” candidate. This leads to: False hope : The process feels misleading if references are strong, but the candidate still doesn’t secure the role due to a small deciding factor. Professional risk : Candidates hesitate to repeatedly ask the same referees for endorsements, fearing it may strain professional relationships or cast doubt on their credibility. Frustration and wasted time : Candidates invest considerable effort in securing references, only to walk away empty-handed. The Referee’s Burden: A Drain on Time and Goodwill Reference checks aren’t just a candidate inconvenience; they also affect referees—often senior professionals taking time out of their busy schedules. Many commenters noted: Referees have limited patience: If a former manager is repeatedly asked for references for the same person without a job offer, they may be reluctant to vouch for them in the future. - A one-sided burden : The hiring company benefits from this additional insight, but referees get little in return other than expecting a favour. The Hiring Manager’s Responsibility: Why This Practice Undermines Decision-Making Some employers argue that reference checks help finalise a tough decision between two equally qualified candidates. However, many experts push back against this rationale: Hiring decisions should be based on direct assessment, not external opinion : As one commenter put it, “You should never put the decision of who best to hire in the hands of someone you don’t know and doesn’t work for your business.” Reference checks are not selection tools : Traditionally, references are a due diligence step , not a deciding factor between multiple candidates. It’s an outdated practice : With many companies now limiting references to basic employment verification, the value of this process is already diminished. So, What’s the Alternative? If reference checks shouldn’t be used to choose between candidates, how should they be utilised?

The Evolution of HR & Talent Acquisition: Beyond the Basics

By Michelle Barrett • February 25, 2026
After my recent post about the distinct roles of HR and Talent Acquisition, it’s clear that this topic resonates with many professionals across industries. The comments highlighted not only the passion within the HR and TA community but also the ongoing challenges we face in bridging the understanding gap with business leaders. One theme that stood out was that it’s not just about defining the differences—it’s about evolving the conversation.

Exclusivity in Recruitment: The Pros of Partnering with One Agency (and the Cons of Not)

By Michelle Barrett • February 25, 2026
In my role, my days are spent speaking with business owners, talent managers, and leaders about hiring challenges. A common question is whether to send a role to multiple agencies or work exclusively with one trusted recruitment partner. While there are benefits to both approaches, exclusivity leads to better outcomes for everyone involved.  Whether it’s the quality of candidates, the speed of placement, or protecting your employer brand, partnering exclusively with one agency creates a smoother and more effective hiring process. Here’s why:
More Posts