End of motivation – is it time for discipline?

Marta Popova is an HR professional with over 18 years of experience and a clear belief that people and their potential should be at the core of every business. Her career has included roles such as trainer, learning manager, HR business partner, HR manager, and HR director.

For Marta, leadership in Human Resources is a balance between the human approach and business logic. She believes that a successful HR leader inspires through trust, authenticity, empathy, and personal example, creating an environment where people can develop and give their best.

The topic that Marta will develop today is "The End of Motivation – Is It Time for Discipline?"

The topic of motivation, as in professional life, as well as in our personal daily lives is among the oldest and most discussed questions in human history. Motivation is not an abstract concept, but a dynamic, daily manifested reality. It influences the way we relate to our tasks, how we overcome obstacles, what stimulates us to develop or, conversely – what makes us withdraw, procrastinate or give up. In every organization, motivation is one of the key factors determining effectiveness, innovation, and engagement.

Have we replaced work discipline with motivational slogans?

My opinion is that there is such a tendency, driven by difficulties in hiring and retaining people, by generational characteristics, and by the competition among companies to be more attractive to their employees. In many companies, the culture gradually shifts from clear rules, accountability, control, to strongly energizing messages, continuous support and demonstrated positivity.

Here is the big contemporary question, which every self-respecting HR should ask themselves -  have we expanded the concept of “motivation” to such an extent that we have started to use it as a substitute for many other management functions – structure, discipline, clear rules, and realistic expectations?

As a proponent of the classical theories of Maslow and Herzberg, I believe that people are driven by different motivational factors that directly influence their work performance and we must know their driving button well to provoke them to the desired action. At the same time, however, I am also a great admirer of Locke and Latham, the founders of goal-setting, whose theory applies the principles – specificity, measurability, difficulty, feedback, and engagement.

To manage effectively, any business structure must not neglect the basic managerial functions, part of which is motivation, but also control.

As a representative of a generation raised in strict discipline, clear rules, and specific commitments, I can say that I have developed the qualities to feel comfortable in a company that has implemented a management system Management by Objectives MBO, where motivation is measured by achieved results.

People work better when they know exactly what is expected of them and can track their progress themselves.

 

How many of today’s HR practices are based on “emotional stimuli” instead of real expectations and responsibilities?

There are many practices like happy hours, team buildings, corporate games, non-monetary recognitions, aimed at making people feel better, more engaged, and more motivated, and through them to “attack” the emotional motivation of employees. The creativity of colleagues from Human Resources has reached high peaks in implementing various motivational stimuli such as surprise gifts for every occasion, personalized messages, celebrating birthdays, Friday team building in the office, drinks, fruits, foosball, table tennis, and even pajama parties during work...

All of this is not wrong in itself, but it becomes a problem if HR starts to neglect and avoid difficult topics like performance evaluation, behavior correction, consequences.

And not least, taking people out of the focus of their main activity, for which they are hired and for which they are still compensated, can lead to strong inefficiency and “spoiling,” if nothing happens.

 

Can a company rely on motivation that constantly needs to be fed?

The short answer is difficult. Motivation has cycles and is not a constant value. Models that rely on daily “injections of inspiration” lead to exhaustion of leaders and dependency in employees. This is a highly unstable system, where results are neglected, and employees are placed in false engagement. There are also many examples when people get bored just working and expect something interesting to happen today, for which they go to work?!

When the focus shifts from goals to fun, management should definitely see a red flag.

I will also note that maintaining such a model of motivation is labor-intensive, requires huge energy and considerable financial resources, whose return is questionable and immeasurable. New positions like “Happiness Manager” have even emerged, whose function, role, and effectiveness will be analyzed in the future.

Is discipline the “uncomfortable truth” that organizations avoid?

No one likes to be “breath down their neck” or to be told what to do in a preachy or authoritarian tone.

That is why it is very important to create the right expectations in employees right from the beginning of their employment commitment. They should be familiar not only with the responsibilities of the position but also with the organizational structure, internal rules, communication methods, working hours, dress code, and all principles of the Internal Labor Regulations in the organization.

The organizational structure, hierarchical relationships, and their rights and responsibilities are the backbone of every company, but are often associated with authoritarianism. Along with discipline, they imply control, standards, and consequences. This is often perceived as “unpleasant” or “unfashionable.” But discipline is what creates predictability, quality, and sustainability. Clear rules reduce chaos, uncertainty, and tension and actually improve the sense of fairness.

 

 

What yields better results: motivational bonuses or clear rules and consistency?

As an absolute fan of situational leadership, I believe that a good manager should apply an individual management style and be able to set goals that match the knowledge, skills, and abilities of each team member.

Clear rules, motivating goals, providing feedback, and consistency in actions yield strongly sustainable results. In such a model, motivation works as an accelerator,  but only if the “path” is stable. Without discipline, motivation has nowhere to “hook,” which leads to controversial and short-term results and a decline in engagement.

Does excessive motivation create dependent employees who only work under external stimulation?

This is a well-known phenomenon “Overjustification effect” and is scientifically proven that external stimuli reduce internal motivation, as external motivation pushes out internal. If the organization constantly “entertains” people, they start to expect constant external activation and lose the ability to self-regulate.

Companies that give bonuses for basic behavior “did well today” report a decline in initiative, and in turn employees start to wait for the stimulus before they have finished whatever it is.

 

Can discipline be modern, human, and supportive – without punishment and fear?

Absolutely. Modern discipline means having established clear rules, agreed expectations, transparent consequences, support in difficulties, focus on habits, not on punishments.

This creates trust and security in people, not fear.

I will give a few examples in support of the above:

Deloitte calls this “Human-centered performance management“: clear boundaries + honest feedback + support.
Netflix has one of the strictest cultures “freedom with responsibility,” but it is communicated openly and employees accept it as fair, not punitive.

I will return again to situational leadership, where the authoritarian approach to employees is applied only if the employee's maturity level is low.

Unfortunately, in Bulgaria and typically for the Balkans, most executive directors and senior managers have a distinct directive management style, which creates fear in people of failure.

 

Which types of employees perform better under discipline than under motivational techniques? And conversely – for whom is motivation more effective?

MBTI and Big Five profiles show that analytical and highly conscientious people prefer clear structure, rules, and discipline. Extroverted, creative, and “openness” types prefer external motivation and autonomy.

For example, departments like Operations, Production, Finance have a need for routine and strict standards. New employees also need discipline and control, as they have not yet adapted and are just getting to know the processes in the organization.

On the other hand, creative teams, marketing, product designers have a need for freedom and inspiration. People with an entrepreneurial style, innovative thinking, and high variability are strongly motivated by external motivational approaches.

From practice, I can share that for a leadership policy to be truly effective, the best approach is to use combined motivational models tailored to the specifics of the team. I also recommend the application of psychological tests and profiling tools that provide a deep analysis of individual characteristics, work styles, and motivating factors of employees.

Is it realistic to expect people to always be motivated? And what do we do in the “phases of demotivation”?

According to data from a study I recently came across, only 15% of people globally are constantly engaged. Motivation is a cyclical and dynamic process. It depends on personal life, energy, context. In periods of low motivation, structure and discipline keep the organization stable and this approach protects against sharp declines in engagement.

Phases of demotivation in the life of every person are completely natural and inevitable, as with individual employees, so at the team level. A decline in motivation can be caused by a personal problem such as divorce, death of a loved one, unrequited love, and even daily work relationships like business sarcasm, neglect of a problem, a rougher tone, team ignoring... Along with these factors, dissatisfaction with pay and/or unfair evaluation, overload with tasks, poorly structured processes can also intervene.

The first and most important action is HR to clarify the main reason, the one with which the employee will not be able to compromise. To have an open conversation in which to outline possibilities for overcoming the crisis.

Our goal as leaders is to refocus on tasks – clear goals with small steps and encouragement from results, because motivation often returns after the action, not before it. We must show the employee that we support them in this difficult moment, so they feel internal security and stability in their workplace.

Often, the drop in motivation is the reason a given employee is identified as underperforming, even though they were recently key to the team.

Less experienced managers, motivated solely by quick results, might make the decision to part ways with such an employee instead of exploring the reason.

 

Are we replacing performance management with “good mood”? Is the focus on emotions shifting conversations about results.

This is a question that deeply concerns me. One of the biggest fears of most managers is to face a team member and give them real and objective feedback. I would rank this fear as number 3, alongside the fear of spiders and the fear of speaking in front of an audience.

And although it may seem strange at first glance, this fear is completely real, because it creates tension, avoidance, procrastination and ultimately sabotages the quality of leadership. Real feedback requires courage, clarity, stability, and emotional maturity – qualities that are not always developed, but without which effective management simply cannot exist.

According to a study, over 40% of managers “soften” evaluations to avoid ruining the good atmosphere, which leads to lower quality of work, unclear expectations, lack of accountability, and overall reduced performance.

Often, managers are more motivated to be perceived as “the nice boss” than to be fair, with a focus on development, because feedback develops both sides.

What happens to the team when the leader stops “inspiring” every day? How sustainable is productivity in such a system?

In my opinion, a team can suddenly become unproductive, if the organization within the team is built on the leadership charisma of one person. Imagine what would happen if that person for some reason leaves and another comes in their place, oriented towards results, processes, and rules?

It is risky for a leader to be a source of inspiration every day, because the leader is just a regular person, not an eternal generator of energy. Therefore, sustainable teams are those that possess self-discipline, established habits, autonomy, and can take responsibility on their own. These qualities and behaviors in a team can be built by a truly good leader.

At the same time, leadership charisma is a very valuable tool and an important factor for the success of a manager, along with their ability to be a good storyteller that truly inspires.

 

Where is the balance between autonomy and control?

Balance is achieved when in an organization there are clear frameworks and expectations and sufficient freedom of actions within them.
A good approach, which I believe works, is to set the direction and what needs to be achieved,  what the rules will be, but to let them think, to develop, to choose how to execute it in the best and most effective way for themselves. Control should not be in micromanagement, but in trust that the team is sufficiently motivated to act responsibly and independently.

Micromanagement destroys initiative and internal motivation. And complete freedom creates chaos, uneven standards, and lack of accountability.

For the best effectiveness with lasting results and constant motivation, it is necessary to create a structure that allows and stimulates creativity and individual thinking.

 

Is it necessary to rethink the role of HR from “motivators” to “structurers of the environment”?

Motivation is the inspiring part of the role of the colleagues from Human Resources, but not the main one. The main role is to provide conditions in the organization under which good performance is easier to achieve than poor.

Modern HR should not  just “spark the flame” , but to build the context in which the spark can burn long, stably and create conditions under which success is not a coincidence, but a consequence.

This is a very difficult task and for many an impossible role, especially if it meets resistance from management.

The right path for HR is in the balanced transition from initiators of positive campaigns to true designers of the organization and the overall experience within it. To create an environment that brings more clarity and less chaos, more responsibility and fewer excuses, more resilience and fewer emotional peaks and troughs.

Something like HR architect and for this to be the most inspiring, most meaningful, and most influential role that the profession has ever had.

And to not forget that work can still be fun.