When a team's output slows, a manager's first instinct may be to ask for more effort. Before doing that, examine how the work is organized. A delayed handover, an unclear priority, or an approval that takes three days will not disappear after an energetic team meeting.

For leaders, the useful question is: What would make good work easier to do, and worth doing? The approach below combines established motivation research with practical suggestions that managers can adapt to their own teams.

Start with the work itself

Consider a hypothetical team that repeatedly misses its weekly reporting deadline. The manager assumes people are disengaged. A closer look reveals that two departments submit inputs late, the template changes frequently, and no one knows who can approve exceptions. In this situation, reminders to be more committed address only a small part of the problem.

Before deciding on a motivational intervention, hold a short conversation around three questions:

  • What result did we agree on, and is that agreement still clear?
  • Where does the work become difficult, delayed, or dependent on someone else?
  • What support or decision would help you move forward?

Write down the employee's explanation alongside the observable facts. Treat low motivation as one possible explanation to investigate. Avoid making it the default diagnosis.

Design work that supports ownership

Self-determination theory offers a useful perspective on the quality of motivation. Gagné and Deci (2005) distinguish motivation experienced as willing and personally meaningful from motivation driven mainly by pressure. Their framework emphasizes three psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

For managers, these ideas suggest three practical questions:

  • Autonomy: Where can this person make meaningful choices about how the work gets done?
  • Competence: What practice, information, or assistance would help them handle the task?
  • Relatedness: Do they feel included and able to ask colleagues for help?

Autonomy still requires boundaries. A manager can define the customer commitment, quality requirements, and deadline while inviting the employee to propose a method. Competence may require a worked example or time with an experienced colleague. Relatedness can begin with dependable, respectful interactions.

These are research-informed considerations, not a promise that any single action will improve productivity in every workplace.

Turn expectations into a workable agreement

Goal-setting research reviewed by Locke and Latham (2002) supports the value of specific, challenging goals under appropriate conditions. Commitment, feedback, ability, and task complexity affect how well goals work. For unfamiliar or complex assignments, learning how to approach the task may deserve explicit attention before demanding a higher output target.

Translate that principle into a short working agreement. Define the result, the quality standard, the resources available, and when you will review progress.

For the reporting team, a proposed agreement might be: "For the next two reporting cycles, use one agreed template, identify missing inputs by Wednesday, and complete the quality review before Friday's handover." This is an illustrative management suggestion, not a tested formula.

Also ask what should stop or move down the priority list. A new target is difficult to interpret when every existing commitment remains equally urgent.

Make feedback useful enough to act on

Try organizing feedback around an observable action, its consequence, and a next step. Keep the discussion close to the work so the employee can identify what to repeat or change.

For example: "The new checklist identified two missing inputs before review. Keep using it, and add the approval owner to the next version." This gives the employee something concrete to work with. A vague judgment about their attitude does not explain the required action.

Use the same discipline when recognizing contributions. Explain what was valuable, whether it was careful preparation, a clearer handover, or helping a colleague resolve a problem. Ask whether the person prefers recognition privately or in a team setting.

For a performance gap, invite the employee to propose the next adjustment. Record what each of you will do. A useful conversation should produce a commitment from the manager as well as the employee.

Run a small improvement cycle

The following two-week routine is a suggested starting point for managers. It is not a validated intervention or a guaranteed timetable for changing motivation.

  1. Choose one friction point. Select a specific difficulty that the team recognizes, such as late inputs or repeated rework.
  2. Agree on one change. Name the action, its owner, and the support needed. Keep the change small enough to observe.
  3. Track the result and its cost. Review an appropriate output or quality measure alongside workload and the team's experience.
  4. Discuss what happened. Ask what became easier, what stayed difficult, and whether the change created problems elsewhere.
  5. Decide what to keep. Continue, adjust, or stop the change based on the observations.

Avoid treating a short-term improvement as proof of causation. A quieter week, a different mix of assignments, or help from another department may also explain the result. Use the review to improve your next decision.

Aim for performance people can sustain

At Trova Insights, finding healthier, happier ways to work means examining both results and the conditions under which people achieve them. When reviewing a productivity gain, ask about accuracy, rework, effort, and whether the team can maintain the new approach.

For your next one-to-one, start with one question: What is getting in the way of doing your best work, and what can we change together?

Editorial note

This independently written article was inspired by Robert Walters Korea's discussion of workplace motivation. The examples and two-week routine were developed for Trova Insights. Research sources are identified above and listed below.