Motivating employees: What helps?

Start with observable situations. ‘The team is not getting on board’ is an interpretation. ‘No one put forward their own proposed solutions in the last few discussions’ describes behaviour. Even that does not establish a cause. Perhaps suggestions have repeatedly been overlooked in the past. Perhaps people lack time, information or confidence that they are allowed to make decisions themselves.

Separate observation from explanation. For one specific example, write down what happened, how it affected the work and what you are only assuming so far. Then ask the people involved for their perspective. One useful way to put it is: ‘I notice that we are waiting for decisions more often. What is making it difficult to move forward yourselves at the moment?’

Avoid a survey with a diagnosis built in. ‘Why are you so unmotivated?’ already assumes that attitude is the problem. Questions about the conditions in which people work are more useful. If you are seeing many changes at once, start by narrowing the focus to one specific work situation.

Five areas offer a useful starting point. They are a practical framework for review, not a complete model explaining human motivation.

In its guidance on workplace climate, AOK identifies participation, appreciation and good working conditions, among other things, as starting points. This does not amount to a recipe that works the same way in every team. What matters for you is which obstacle is actually present in your everyday work.

Add conditions to the framework that you cannot change on your own. For example, a manager should not try to talk away a pay problem by offering more recognition. State what you can decide, what you need to escalate and what you currently have no influence over.

Have a conversation about the work without defining the person by a single trait. Describe what you have observed, explain the practical effect and leave room for a different explanation. Listen first before suggesting an action.

A fictional example: a colleague hardly takes part in project decisions any more. The manager assumes she has lost interest. The conversation reveals that she regularly has to prepare her suggestions, but decisions are later made again without her. Another call for more initiative would not change the obstacle. A clear decision-making process, however, could be a useful experiment.

Keep confidential personal information confidential. Not every issue belongs in a team discussion or questionnaire. If someone mentions pressures in their private life, you do not need to make a diagnosis. Clarify what support is possible in the work context and which relevant services might be able to help. A team check-in replaces neither personal care nor work on specific conflicts.

Choose a change with a clear connection to the suspected obstacle. If direction is missing, clarifying priorities each week may help. Where overload keeps recurring, an additional discussion alone is not enough: you also need to decide what will be dropped or organised differently.

When authority is unclear, a list of actual decisions is more useful than a general statement such as ‘You are allowed to take responsibility’. Record what the team decides itself, when consultation is needed and who decides if there is a conflict. Where recognition is missing, describe specific contributions and why they matter instead of addressing employees with generic motivational phrases.

Consider side effects too. More discussion can improve direction while reducing focused working time. New responsibility can ease pressure or overwhelm people if support is missing. Every action should therefore include an assumption: ‘We are changing X because we expect it to make Y easier.’ You can review that assumption later.

Be open about your observations and constraints. Ask not only what people would like, but also which obstacle currently makes their work most difficult. People's wishes can differ widely. That is a reason to understand the differences, not to dismiss the feedback as contradictory.

Collect a small number of specific suggestions. Assess whether they fit the problem, are within your influence and can actually be tried in everyday work. A small, reviewable change is often a more manageable starting point than a broad programme with no clear responsibility.

Then make the decision visible. Who is responsible for what? What will change? When will you review it? Even a rejected idea needs an understandable explanation. Participation loses its purpose when suggestions are collected but the decision remains open indefinitely.

The article Running a team feedback session provides a specific structure for this kind of review. The session is a way to prepare and review changes.

Bring together three perspectives: Was the action actually implemented? Does the team experience the relevant situation differently? Is the observed work problem changing? Answer these questions separately.

For an action to clarify priorities, a question you write yourself might be: ‘I know which tasks take priority this week.’ You can also observe whether there are fewer unresolved conflicts between objectives. A general satisfaction question would be less closely connected to this particular action.

Compare the same questions using the same reference period and response format. Consider who was able to respond at all and whether the team's composition has changed. A better average after a quiet week is not proof that your action caused the change. Measuring employee satisfaction offers more detailed guidance.

First, set aside time to clarify the problem. Choose a recurring situation and note its effects. Then gather the team's perspective without already trying to sell a preferred solution.

Agree on an experiment with clear responsibility. One possible task is: ‘At the beginning of the week, we clarify the three most important priorities and explicitly name what can wait.’ The number is a freely chosen limit here, not a scientific standard. What matters is that the change fits your everyday work.

Agree on a review before you start. At that review, first check whether the agreed change actually took place. If it did not, improve implementation before judging its effect. If it did take place but the obstacle remains, the action may not be a good enough fit. Then revise your assumption and your next experiment.

EngageBeat makes regular team feedback visible. With EngageBeat Fokus, you can revisit your own questions about a specific change over time; implementation and clarifying the causes remain your responsibility. The employee survey for teams and sample questions show whether it fits your needs. Try it for 28 days: after that, your chosen paid subscription begins unless you cancel in time.