Execs Tell Employees Motivation is a "You" Problem

One of the presentations at my company's SKO two weeks ago really rubbed me the wrong way. I've been waiting to write about until I had the time to do it "right". I'm not sure if or when that time will come, so I'm just going to write it now.

The issue at hand is the question, "How do you motivate employees?" And the presentation from our execs and a board member drew heavily upon the work of organizational psychologist Dan Pink. I first encountered Dan Pink's work about 12 years ago. At the time I found it revelatory.

Pink's critical point was that, in professional work, money beyond a good base salary is not a huge motivator. He contrasted with traditional wisdom in Corporate America that the way to increase employee performance is to link pay to performance. Like, "Hit this target and we'll give you a bonus, hit this even more ambitious target and we'll give you an even bigger bonus." Pink's work is occasionally lumped in with the canard "Money doesn't buy happiness" though that's a gross oversimplification. What really set Pink apart from canard-ists was that he completed the thought: If money doesn't buy happiness (or motivate higher performance), then what does? Pink's answer, in a corporate environment is that it's three things: Mastery, Self-Determination, and Purpose.

It's crucial to note that these three items, Mastery, Self-Determination, and Purpose, are things that employers provide to employees in the form of working conditions and corporate culture. Or at least they were, 12 years ago. What I'm seeing now is that Pink's work is being reinterpreted— and even Pink himself is giving a different slant on it— that employees are responsible for their own motivation. OMG, it's like Pink has become a sellout to corporate execs who pay his speaking fees.

The message now, in 2025, is that motivation is a "you" issue. Employers are off the hook because cash doesn't buy it. Those other three things Pink talked about? Execs have excused themselves from responsibility for those; employees have to bring it to the table themselves. Thus, for employers, motivation becomes a hiring issue. "Is this employee motivated enough to go above and beyond?" If not, then the "smart" employer in 2025 either doesn't hire them or, if they're already working in the company, is left on a track to be managed out.

Better Call Saul: I'm at Peace with the Pace

As I dove into the first several episodes of Better Call Saul recently I was frustrated with the slow pace of the story. I lamented the slow pace after watching the first 3 episodes and then again after watching episodes 4-5-6. Especially after the first trio of episodes I felt like I wouldn't keep watching the series except that I knew it had to get better because it became a huge hit and was praised by people who liked Breaking Bad, which I also liked. After thinking about it a few more days, though, I'm good with the pace.

One thing that prompted my reconsideration was reading what others have said on social media about Better Call Saul. When the spinoff was announced a lot of people were skeptical that it would be succeed. Yes, people enjoyed Bob Odenkirk's portrayal of Saul Goodman the criminal lawyer in Breaking Bad. Saul was a great supporting character in that series, always providing a spot of comic relief while advancing the dramatic narrative. But would telling Saul's back-story be enough to sustain a series on its own?

The dustbin of TV history is frankly full of fun-supporting-character spinoffs that were not able to sustain their own series. I even mentioned one of them in bashing BCS for turning to another character to make things interesting in episode 1.06. I wrote there about the plight of the Star Wars spinoff The Book of Boba Fett, where the writers largely gave up on Fett as the main character after just four episodes and made Din Djarin, titular character of The Mandalorian, the focus of the story.

What does it take to make a supporting character spinoff successful? IMO it takes being able to draw more than just simple, straight lines to or from the original story. The Book of Boba Fett failed because the writers were only able to come up with two simple ideas for what their character did after his role in the original movie trilogy. To make Better Call Saul successful the writers had to do more than just show, in quick fashion, how Saul got tied up with crime in Albuquerque. Of course, they could do it quickly— but then it'd just be a short, single-season series, or better yet a feature film prequel similar to how El Camino was a feature-film sequel, rather than a series that could run for multiple seasons.

I see now that the new characters and the plot arcs they drive are not distractions but are part of what will make Better Call Saul successful. Saul being known by his original name, Jimmy McGill, for a good long while? Fine. Let him build up to the change. Episodes showing Jimmy working with cheesy con men and flashbacks to his own cheesy con-man past? Those set the foundation for how Jimmy/Saul has always struggled with staying legit. Jimmy caring for his older brother who was afflicted with a mental illness two years earlier? That's part of what humanizes him, making clear he's not just a con-man/criminal lawyer. Ditto his ambiguous relationship with attractive young lawyer Kim Wexler. At first I wondered, are they exes or future romantic partners? The longer that stays ambiguous the clearer it becomes they're just friends— and that Jimmy is a decent guy who actually has friends.