The Incentive Test

One of my favorite images of all time (sorry PETA folks) is the cover from an old National Lampoon issue.

So what does this cover have to do with incentives?

Incentives have two poles - rewards and punishment.  I can move your behavior based on providing an incentive or I can punish you for non-performance.  The magazine cover demonstrates this very vividly.  If you don't do what I want - there will be negative consequences.

I was wondering if this idea of opposing sides to incentives could be used to test the validity of an incentive and reward structure?  What if we re-frame the rules using the negative - and see if it still makes sense? 

If you wouldn't punish someone for missing a goal then maybe you shouldn't reward the same goal.

As an example:

"Make a sale this week and get an reward" would become "Make a sale this week or you're fired." 

Would anyone think that was a good idea?  There are so many things outside a persons control that affect that outcome.  Would anyone think this is fair, equitable, right, moral?  Doubtful.  We know sales performance is the result of a lot of other things - some under our control and some not. 

You could say make 10 cold calls (that's a behavior) or your fired.  The person could make 10 calls - that is totally under their control.  You wouldn't think that was unreasonable at all. 

I think when you frame the program rules within the context of negative reinforcement it highlights the disconnect.

Anyone care to weigh in?