For leaders, Gilbert's Law presents a challenge: you can't *make* your employees happy. This lesson explains how managers can shift their focus from trying to be a source of joy to becoming a facilitator of it. Learn how to create an environment that empowers employees to take responsibility for their own engagement, fostering a culture of autonomy, trust, and intrinsic motivation that benefits the entire organization.
Every leader wants an engaged, energized team. We read books on motivation, attend seminars on culture, and implement programs designed to boost morale. We dangle carrots—bonuses, perks, promotions—and sometimes, we even resort to the stick. Yet, so often, the result is a fleeting bump in satisfaction, followed by a slow slide back to the status quo. We find ourselves in a constant, exhausting cycle of trying to *make* people happy, as if joy were a product we could manufacture and distribute. This is the unwinnable game. It’s the deep-seated belief that a leader’s primary role is to be the direct source of their team’s contentment. We act as if we can control the intricate, internal worlds of our employees—their passions, their fears, their sense of purpose. When our efforts fall short, we feel a sense of failure. We tried to inspire, and they remained unmoved. We offered a reward, and the effect was temporary. The problem, however, may not be with our efforts, but with our entire approach. The assumption that we can directly engineer another person’s fulfillment is where the game is lost before it even begins. What if the most powerful thing a leader could do is to stop trying to be the source of happiness and instead become a facilitator of it? This shift in perspective is at the heart of a powerful, and often misunderstood, principle in performance management. It asks us to lay down the tools of direct persuasion and pick up the blueprints of environmental design. It suggests that our true leverage lies not in manipulating motivation, but in creating the conditions for it to emerge on its own.
Before we delve deeper, we need to clear up a common point of confusion. When people speak of "Gilbert's Law," they are often referring to one of two distinct ideas, each attributed to a different Gilbert. The first comes from Gilbert Lafayette Laws, a 20th-century American politician and businessman, whose law states: “The biggest problem in work is that no one tells you what to do.” This is a powerful observation about the critical need for clarity, communication, and well-defined roles. A lack of clear expectations is a primary source of confusion and inefficiency in any organization. The second, and the one that will guide our lesson, comes from Thomas F. Gilbert, a pioneering psychologist and a founder of the field of Human Performance Technology. His work offers a more radical proposition for leaders. Gilbert argued that direct attempts to influence an employee's intrinsic motives are largely a waste of time. He believed that people are generally predisposed to care about their work and perform well. When they don't, the problem usually isn't a deficiency in their internal motivation, but a deficiency in their environment. Thomas Gilbert's perspective challenges the very foundation of traditional management. He saw the intense focus on "motivating" employees as a distraction. Instead of trying to fix the person, he urged leaders to fix the world around them. For Gilbert, the key to performance lay not in psychological engineering, but in what he called the "Behavior Engineering Model." This framework suggests that the greatest gains in performance come from ensuring that employees have clear expectations, the right tools and resources, and a supportive environment. Motivation, in his view, was a much smaller piece of the puzzle and often took care of itself when the other elements were in place. It is this second Gilbert, Thomas F. Gilbert, who offers us a new lens through which to view leadership. His work frees us from the impossible task of being our team's cheerleader-in-chief and reframes our role as something far more impactful: the architect of an environment where people can thrive.
Imagine trying to make a plant grow by pulling on its leaves. You can tug and wrench all you want, but you won't make it taller. In fact, you're far more likely to damage it. A gardener knows that their role is not to force growth, but to create the conditions for it. They provide rich soil, adequate sunlight, and the right amount of water. They remove the weeds and pests that would otherwise stifle the plant's natural tendency to grow. The growth itself is an intrinsic process, an internal drive that the gardener can only nurture, not create. This is the essence of Thomas Gilbert's philosophy applied to leadership. Trying to directly manufacture an employee's happiness or motivation is like pulling on the leaves of the plant. Team-building exercises, forced social events, and even incentive programs can feel like this kind of manipulation. They are external pressures applied in the hope of generating an internal state. While they may produce a temporary change, they rarely address the underlying conditions that are preventing engagement in the first place. The truth is, you cannot inject purpose or passion into someone. Intrinsic motivation, by its very nature, comes from within. It is the joy of solving a difficult problem, the satisfaction of mastering a new skill, or the sense of belonging to a team that is doing meaningful work. These are not things a manager can give to an employee. They are experiences that an employee has within the context of their work. The leader who insists on trying to be the source of joy often becomes a source of frustration. Their efforts can feel inauthentic or even condescending. When a manager who has failed to provide clear goals or adequate resources announces a "morale-boosting" pizza party, it is often met with cynicism. The team doesn't need pizza; they need the obstacles that are making their work a struggle to be removed. By focusing on the superficial "fix," the leader signals that they are out of touch with the real problems. Gilbert's wisdom teaches us to stop pulling on the leaves and start tending to the soil.
If a leader's job isn't to be a motivator, what is it? Thomas Gilbert would argue that a leader's primary role is to be an architect of the work environment. This means shifting your focus from the psychology of your employees to the structure of their work. An architect doesn't just design a beautiful building; they ensure it has a solid foundation, sound electrical wiring, and a logical flow between rooms. They create a space that is not only aesthetically pleasing but also highly functional—a place where people can live or work with ease. In the context of leadership, this architectural approach can be broken down into a few key areas. The first is **Clarity**. This aligns with the "other" Gilbert's Law. Do your employees have a crystal-clear understanding of what is expected of them? Do they know what success looks like for their role, for their team, and for the organization? A lack of clarity is like a building with no signs—people wander aimlessly, unsure of where they are going or why. As a leader, your job is to provide the blueprint, the signage, and the clear pathways to success. The second area is **Resources and Tools**. Do your employees have what they need to do their job well? This isn't just about physical tools like computers or software, but also about access to information, training, and support. A brilliant employee who is hampered by outdated technology or bureaucratic red tape is like a world-class chef forced to cook in a poorly equipped kitchen. They will become frustrated and disengaged, not because they lack motivation, but because the environment is actively working against them. The third, and perhaps most crucial, area is the removal of **Barriers**. What is getting in your team's way? Is it a cumbersome approval process? A lack of communication between departments? A culture of blame that discourages risk-taking? The leader-as-architect is constantly surveying the environment for these kinds of obstacles and working to dismantle them. Your role is to clear the path, not to cheer from the sidelines. When these environmental factors are in place—when employees have clarity, the right tools, and a clear path forward—something remarkable happens. The intrinsic motivation that was there all along begins to surface. People who are empowered to do their best work, and who can see the impact of their efforts, naturally become more engaged. You didn't have to "make" them happy; you simply created an environment where their happiness and engagement were the natural outcome.
Let's imagine two different teams. On Team A, the manager, Sarah, is a classic "motivator." She starts each week with an inspirational speech, offers bonuses for hitting targets, and regularly checks in to ask, "Are you happy?" Yet, her team is struggling. They are often unsure of what the top priority is, as Sarah changes her focus frequently. They have to go through a multi-step approval process for even small expenditures, and when a project fails, Sarah is quick to identify who was at fault. On Team B, the manager, David, takes a different approach. He rarely gives motivational speeches. Instead, at the beginning of each quarter, he works with the team to set a few, clear, measurable goals. He has fought for his team to have a discretionary budget, allowing them to purchase the tools they need without a lengthy approval process. When a project hits a snag, his first question is, "What can we learn from this, and what's blocking you from moving forward?" He trusts his team to manage their own time and projects, focusing his energy on securing the resources they need from the wider organization and protecting them from distractions. Which team do you think is more engaged? Which team is more likely to be doing innovative, high-quality work? David is leading with Gilbert's Law in mind. He understands that he cannot inject motivation into his team, but he can, and must, remove the things that are demotivating. By providing clarity, autonomy, and trust, he has built an environment where the team's intrinsic drive can flourish. He has shifted from being a manager of people to a manager of the system in which his people work. This is the essence of creating a culture of empowerment. It is about trusting that your employees want to do good work and then taking responsibility for building a system that allows them to do so. It means giving them the autonomy to make decisions, the resources to execute them, and the psychological safety to take risks. A leader who fosters this kind of environment doesn't need to worry about manufacturing happiness. They will see it emerge naturally, as a byproduct of a workplace where people feel respected, effective, and in control of their own success.
We began with the image of the unwinnable game—the futile effort to directly control the happiness of others. Thomas Gilbert's wisdom offers us a way out. It invites us to stop playing that game and start a new one, a game where our role is not that of a puppeteer, but of a gardener. The lesson is this: your greatest leverage as a leader is not in your ability to inspire with a rousing speech, but in your quiet, consistent effort to remove the rocks from the soil. It is in the daily work of clarifying expectations, providing the right tools, and dismantling the bureaucratic hurdles that drain energy and enthusiasm. It is in the creation of an environment where people can bring their full talents to bear on meaningful work, unencumbered by the friction of a poorly designed system. Leadership, seen through this lens, becomes an act of service. It is the humble, and yet profoundly powerful, work of tending to the ecosystem. You are not the source of the growth, but you are the steward of the conditions that make it possible. You are not there to make people happy, but to create a space where they can find their own reasons to be. So, here is a question to carry with you: What is the single biggest pebble in your team's shoe? What is the small, persistent irritant in their environment that, if you were to remove it, would make their work just a little bit smoother, a little bit easier, a little bit more joyful? Start there. Don't worry about trying to make the sun shine. Just clear away the weeds. The rest will follow.