NAch

I've just finished a very complicated project.  Two really talented friends and I produced a seven-minute video and delivered it to the client yesterday.  Today, I went over it with the client again in preparation for them presenting it to a larger group tomorrow.

During the course of the project, the three of us talked about hundreds of things.  One of the most interesting was a brief re-cap of McClelland's theory of motivation.  McClelland theorized that we are all motivated by a combination of three basic needs: achievement, power and affiliation.  The relative strength of each of these three motives accounts for the differences we see in one another's preferences and work styles.

I have a high need for Achievement (NAch), not a very high need for Power (NPow), and a moderate need for Affiliation (NAff).  Looking around the web, I found this site's description of those of us with high NAch:

• achievement is more important than material or financial reward.
• achieving the aim or task gives greater personal satisfaction than receiving praise or recognition.
• financial reward is regarded as a measurement of success, not an end in itself.
• security is not prime motivator, nor is status.
• feedback is essential, because it enables measurement of success, not for reasons of praise or recognition (the implication here is that feedback must be reliable, quantifiable and factual).
• achievement-motivated people constantly seek improvements and ways of doing things better.
• achievement-motivated people will logically favour jobs and responsibilities that naturally satisfy their needs, i.e. offer flexibility and opportunity to set and achieve goals, eg., sales and business management, and entrepreneurial roles.

I'll tell you, this is a real good description of my motivational schema and that of just about everyone else I respect.  Wanting to produce great things for the joy of doing so is what gets the people I'm most attracted to up in the morning and keeps them going long after they've become "successful."  It's the kind of motivation that doesn't stop when you go home from "work," nor is it the kind from which you're likely to "retire." 

It doesn't matter if you're writing a book, baking bread or painting a wall, a strong NAch keeps you going for the joy of doing your best.  And, one more thing.  As you become more proficient in what you do, the NAch keeps you raising your sights.  Somehow, that doesn't feel like an impossible, masochistic exercise, but more like a recognition that there's always a little more that you can do to make youself better.

Working with these two terrific people not only enabled me to achieve something I never could have achieved on my own, but it reinforced the commitment I made years ago to try to surround myself with the most talented people I could find.

As you might be able to tell, I'm going to count today as a really good day.
 

Comments

[Connie Sartain]

Congratulations! can't wait to see it...assuming its not proprietary.

I think there's a strong relationship between achievement and truthtelling. *Power is based on too many lies. Also true of most affiliation. Truth just gets lost in groups.

*I'm referring to the corporate or government setting, where power is defined as power over other people. I think of that as positional power, not real power. The only real power is personal which is rooted in the ability to express yourself truthfully....and perhaps inspire others.

[Tom Guarriello]

Eager to show you, Connie.

Thanks for pointing out the connection between achievement and truthtelling. No doubt those who are strongly focused on achievement can't be deluded by the fog of BS; if something's lousy, calling it great doesn't make it so. Like Lyndon Johnson once said, "you can't shine shit."

[Jon Husband]

You must know all about Lyle Spencer's book "Competencies At Work". Lyle's the guy at McBer who took McLelland's work and spread it all over the place, along with Murray Dalzeil and Richard Boyatzis (via the Hay group).

I used to work with those guys. Pity, imo, that it's become so commoditized, because the fundamental work is seminal, and highly useful when applied in appropriate, intelligent and ethical ways. I remember one of Boyatzis' speeches at a linkage event, titled "Competencies Without Values Is Like Sex Without Love" ;-)

[Tom Guarriello]

Yes, Jon, I'm very familiar with Spencer's book and respect that work a great deal. As you say, however, the Hay-McBer "system" became a mechanized process that many were able to copy in the late 90s. At that point, every company's "competency model" started to look like everyone else's (I'll resist resorting to the sexual metaphor you so aptly introduced!), and the whole thing broke down. But that doesn't diminish the power of McClelland's simple system to help us understand human motivation and performance.

[Jon Husband]

Yes, I agree. McLelland's work was a major achievement, and deserves respect and care in its applications.

[Lisa Mirchin]

Tom,
Where does this need go on the McLelland scale?
"The High Need to Bring Out the Best in Others"

Which is what you do.
Every day.

[Tom Guarriello]

The previous commenter, aside from being a wonderful friend with an amazingly high NAch, (and a healthy NPow!) is an absolute joy to work with.

And, while I'm at it, I was remiss in not mentioning the fourth member of our team who joined us for this project and made it smooooth sailing. Thanks, Patti!

[Jeanne]

I beg to differ on the topic of lying/ethics and nAch. One would think that the need to meet high standards that is associated with nAch would push people to be honest with themselves and others, as I think some of you are suggesting. However, in my experience what often happens is that the drive to get results is so overwhelming and the thrill of a high score or completing a big project or making a big sale is so great that people with high nAch will go to any length to get that thrilling feeling, even if in the long run this behavior will negatively impact quality. Basically, the *rational* way for people with high nAch to fullfill their needs is to be honest with themselves and others about what they are doing, but people are not always rational.

Moreover, I think a healthy socialized nPow motive is more likely to pull for truth telling and ethical behavior. Power is not always about control, it is more generally about influencing others, and it can be about having a positive impact on others. When people are driven to have a positive impact on others, they are necessarily driven to treat them in ethically sound ways, and this will typically pull them to tell the truth ("white lies" would be an exception.)

[Tom Guarriello]

Thanks for the comment, Jeanne. I concur that a distorted achievement need can drive unethical behavior. This is where I think motivation is more complex than McClelland's model. I think it's important to add something like Adler's "social interest" into the mix to round out the picture. In that schema, the achievement need would focus not just on my personal goals, but on facilitating broader social well-being, with ethical factors being a part of the achievement calculus.

[Rory Stewart]

I have a questionnaire, which is subjectively relevant for most respondents, that takes McClelland's three needs and adds Security. Does anyone know where this comes from?