As we saw in the chapter on the intrinsic motivation paradox, intrinsic motivation is certainly very useful in the mobilizing effect that work can have on an individual, but it cannot be the responsibility of the company or its management.
Our attraction and motivation for certain activities are closely linked to our temperament and upbringing. The search for this intrinsic motivation is therefore the sole responsibility of the employee.
Extrinsic motivation, and more specifically stimulation, is to a large extent linked to the environment and the type of management proposed by the company. This responsibility therefore lies partly with the organization.
Over and above the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of motivation, it's a question of self-determination. The possibility is given to each individual to take responsibility and assume the consequences.
On this subject, which is akin to shared responsibility, the MMS model is more interested in the idea of shared responsibility. This implies that the error or success of one team member is to be credited to the team as a whole. Here again, the idea is that the team is at the heart of the model and should be considered as an entity in its own right. Each team member shares responsibility with his or her teammates and reaps both the benefits and the losses.
This vision of the team also greatly modifies the management style, since the manager no longer has to consider the individuals in his team as independent elements, but as parts of a whole to which they belong. The manager's job is to ensure the balance and cohesion of this organized, independent, and autonomous system.
As I like to say: the team is a living being, with its own nature, strengths and personality. To alter its structure or organization is to alter its substance and abilities.
The departure of a team member must be experienced as the loss of a limb and the arrival of a new one as a transplant.
This analogy is fundamental. It has repercussions on several levels.
Firstly, employees are no longer assessed individually. The manager evaluates the work of a team, and it's up to the team to find solutions among its members. This applies not only to behavior and organizational methods, but also to useful skills, roles and functions.
Instead of creating trust between individuals, individual performance evaluation would be at odds with the community ideal (Tönnies, 1922, quoted by Boussard, 2009), reinforcing de facto mechanisms of work control. Thus, it is important to note that the sum of individual performance is not indicative of collective performance. For example, a team of individuals who perform extremely well on an individual basis may routinely deliver disappointing collective performance 1
Secondly, incentives are no longer distributed to an individual but to a team. Depending on its value, it will either be used by the whole team or redistributed to one or another, according to an internal, sociocratic decision.
Finally, promotions to managerial titles will no longer be awarded by management but will be discussed within the team following the organization's proposal. The aim is not to prevent a person from acquiring a new status but rather to ensure that the whole team is able to deal with the loss of a member or to see one of its members take on a different hierarchical position. This consensus is essential to maintain the social and political balance within the extended group.
- 1
NILS, F., TASKIN, L., & BOUCHAT, P. - L’évaluation de la performance Rapport théorique — UCL – Institut des Sciences du Travail & Louvain School of Management Research Institute - 2013