Demotivation being cited as a reason for non-performance is common. But sometimes I wonder whether demotivation is also an alibi for non-performance? Perhaps it's like the chicken and egg story but it is important for organizations to distinguish between those who are genuinely demotivated and those who are merely pretending

Organizational performance is judged on rational and tangible criteria. Targets, operating margins, growth, share of market and the like. Achievement or the lack of it is a combination of skill and attitude. Winners combine both very well but amongst those who aren’t, it is difficult to identify the real cause. Operational excuses are common alibi for skill deficiency and demotivation for the latter. It’s important to gauge the relative weight of both. Since ego prevents genuine and honest self-introspection often the latter is touted as the bigger issue. And since there is no empirical diagnostic test to really isolate and identify demotivation it is a convenient option to pick. One can always claim to be demotivated and wait for myriad motivation tools to be deployed yet keeping the option of remaining demotivated or otherwise with oneself all the time!

Again, unlike professional managers, I rarely come across demotivated entrepreneurs. An entrepreneur either succeeds or fails. Something like a tiger in a jungle. Wonder whether there is a demotivated tiger not wanting to attack its prey when hungry

Being demotivated is a luxury and perhaps a function of choices and options one has. But whatever be the case it is important to distinguish the genuinely demotivated from those pretending. And it can be done …Helicon Consulting