People are motivated by very different things. Hildebrandt and Brandi list different time zones, dimensions and archetypes. Adaptation (within the framework), adjustment (proactively changing the framework), as well as re-creation based on a revolution and re-orientation based on a proactive, fundamental change to the organization’s foundation.

We can compare them with Hein’s archetypes, in order to find out how, through change management, we can lead the employees from wage earners/slaves via pragmatists and performance trippers to prima donnas. The archetypes are about the change: competencies, system, structure and strategy, and people development: approach, mindset, values and culture. Helle Hedegaard Hein describes four: 1) Prima Donna, 2) Performance Stripper, 3) Pragmatist and 4) Employee. Archetypes are not personality models, but a basic form/degree of motivation that is one’s primary driving force arranged in a hierarchy. T

Our different motivational profiles challenge the way to lead. Especially in a valuable, charitable organization with so many prima donnas who see their work as a calling. here are primarily prima donnas with a sense of vocation in the NGO world. Social constructivism and the VUCA generation work with networks of complexity. Hein says the archetype model opens up rather than reduces complexity. But it is beyond the scope of this paper to accommodate this intriguing comparison. Here it can be a challenge to open up other ways forward, because we prima donnas tend to drum towards the goal with our wonderful zeal and calling. Empirical evidence shows that employees are clearly challenged by changes.
Many humans have an irrepressible optimism. In fact, we expect us to constantly learn from our mistakes and become better and better, better and better. The development has never been as exponential as it is now – they say. Western reincarnation thought has also evolved to always be in progression towards something better, where the original Eastern, original reincarnation includes the possibility of regression to, for example, becoming an ant.

On of Scandinavia’s leading authority on behavioral design Morten Münster completely blow that brilliant image away. Although we have created both computers, airplanes and the Internet, we think too highly of ourselves and in our naivety and arrogance are constantly at the mercy of ourselves. In reality, the two books with “Jytte from marketing” are about what motivates employees from the perspective of behavioral psychology. It is closely related to how we create trust. If there is trust, there is motivation.
Münster claims a lot in his books. In the latest one, where Jytte returns, he presents three paradoxes. His first point, on the way to creating motivation, is that we must make fewer and smaller changes, because fully booked systems destroy job satisfaction and thus trust in management. This is exactly what my empirical evidence tells me when I spout new ideas and new paths we must follow – see the last section. It stresses the employees and gives them less confidence in my management. Münster claims that there must be room for unforeseen projects and slack, and I completely agree. An overly optimistic culture is naive. The greater the complexity, the more details and wasted time arise if we don’t simplify, lower the bar and make teams smaller so we can skip some communication links. Empiricism dictates that we need to learn from the past experiences of history when establishing new estimates. It is not stupid to dare to be the devil’s advocate who dares to shoot down unrealistic strategy. It is unrealistic to think we can drum up new motivation. Münster believes that change management must be focused on riding the wave of the familiar that is already in positive flow, rather than creating something new. It challenges me a lot because I want to go over the edge. But I can follow where he wants to go, and we have just used this strategy in our recycling business, when we thought we should build a whole new branch of work. Instead, we’re picking low-hanging fruit by expanding what we’re already good at: bigger stores that bring in far more revenue.
In the second point, Münster highlights one of my pet peeves: the project fails if you don’t involve the employees in a real way. This is also what the Gallup reports conclude about employee involvement.
Münster’s third paradox of motivation is completely Mother Theresa-like: if we want to create big changes, we have to bet on the small ones. Mother Theresa said: “If you want to reach the whole world, you must start with one person” (freely interpreted). Steve Jobs said “Less is more” when he only wanted one button on the first iPhone.
We must dare to experiment – and preferably in small groups rather than huge groups. It is the idea of social constructivism that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Japan, New York will be hit by a tsunami. In the long run, we achieve much more by working on the little things. Even if we get one percent smarter this week, we can topple the world a year from now.
It is a paradox that the less we focus on, the more effective we become. During the lockdown in the corona era, I occasionally called in a few employees who accomplished incredible things in no time, because they only had to deal with the one task they were called in for, and not the big team.