Motivation is a Game of Inches

Vince Lombardi once said....

"Football is a game of inches and inches make a champion."

How many hail mary passes are thrown by championship teams each year (less than the number of runs or shorter slant passes)?

How many grand slams are hit by the World Series Champion each year (less than the number of singles)?

How many hole-in-ones does Mickelson have each year (less than the number of birdies)?

In other words - champions don't consistently perform because of big plays.

Motivation - or more accurately - incentive and reward programs - are the same.  Designing a great program that helps you achieve business objectives isn't a matter of big goals and big plans.  

It's an exercise in grinding out the inches.

But we don't like that.  We like the big plays.  The hail mary's, the 101 yard kick-off return.  We like the grand slam home run.  We like the hole in one.

We like big and we like flashy.

Low Probability 

Unfortunately, big and flashy are low probability plays.  But our desire to be featured on the highlight reel influences how we design incentive programs.  Too often we take this "go big or go home" attitude and apply it to our reward programs.  We offer huge awards for huge returns.  We promote the big payoff for big results.  

What we're really doing is creating a hot mess of failure and bad behaviors.  With little probability of success.

Coaching Little League

Most of us can remember a time in our past (some more distant than others) when a coach told us - "don't swing for the fences - just get a hit" - or - "three runs of 4 yards is as good as one play of 10."  We teach our kids that doing a bunch of little things well will result in success.

Somehow we lose that coaching intelligence when we hit the business world.  Maybe because few magazines or papers write about the company that just plugs along, making profits, returning shareholder value, retaining employees, adding value.  We want the headline for going big.

Programs Should Be Designed for the Little Things

When you design your next program look at the little things that add up to success and reward them.  Don't simply set a goal and attach a big trip to Hawaii to it.  Look at the steps that lead to success.  If you have a sales reward program - reward the number of calls, the number of meetings, the number of qualified proposals.  You'll be surprised how many sales will close if your people are focused on the little things.  If you have non-sales emplyees - look at the job functions and the tasks associated with success in the position - reward those tasks.  

Rewarding Big = Losing Big

Focusing on the big result forces your audience to take their eye off of the little things that truly drive success. 

Comments

[Kurt Nelson]

Paul,

Good post however I will politely point out that sometimes it is the big play that wins the game. Same in incentives, while we need the everyday small wins, companies should also look at how they are setting up the big play. Part of motivation is the aspect of visualization - envisioning oneself in Hawaii or with that new big screen television. The key is to make sure that you are not creating a program that is unachievable (or perceived unachievable). Another key aspect is the promotional impact that a big play incentive has. It captures sales or employees attention. If you think of incentives as not only reward mechanisms, but also as ways the company has of providing direction and prioritizing what is important, the big play incentives have a great deal of power to be able to do that.

I agree that companies should not focus only on these big play incentives, but that they do play a part of a comprehensive motivational strategy.

Would love to hear your thoughts!

[Paul Hebert]

I was waiting for this response. You're right - OCCASIONALLY the big play wins the game. That's our gambling instinct playing into program design. We always like to go for the risky, less likely outcome.

But...

Designed correctly - the need for a "big play" should diminish or be eliminated. Not saying you will NEVER need it but if a team executes pretty much on plan - do they need a hail mary? If Mickelson hits mostly birdies - does he need a hole in one? Should he even try for it? (I know they always try for it!)

As far as visualization goes - I don't need a trip for that or a big screen - what I need are managers that understand their teams and can convert program goals into future scenarios based on the individual's needs/wants/desires. Having a trip or "catalog" doesn't hurt (except when it does) but that is the representation of achievement not the process of setting and pursuing the goals.

I do agree with the point about "promotional" and communication angles. Those are great ways to get and keep attention. But we've all seen the program that rewards 20 people out of 2000 with a trip to Tahiti for doubling sales. Not the best way to drive performance. They are tools to help the program - not the program itself.

Too many programs focus on the big stuff when it's the little stuff that makes a difference.

I will also go out on a limb and say that most incentive companies want their clients to buy the trips and the big stuff 'cuz that's how they make money. No big trips - no big payday.

Based on my experience, most program award budgets could be reduce by 30% or more - and still get better results.

Thanks for commenting and continuing to read!

[Kurt Nelson]

Paul,

I will agree with you 100% that most incentive companies push the big trips and that most (if not all) incentive budgets are probably skewed towards the big play...having said that, I still believe that there is a role for those types of programs (caveat - if they are designed correctly). The downfall for most of these programs is if they are seen as not being achievable by the majority of participants. If the same 20 people continually win, year after year, then no, they are not effective and in in essence become a de-motivator. However, when people believe that they have a real opportunity (emphasis on real) to earn them if they do all the right small stuff, then they are more likely to do the small stuff and do it with more vigor. It also means that they are more likely to go above and beyond.

Creating "big play" programs that achieve this means most companies need to take a drastic look at how the program rules are developed, what are the measures that are used to determine success, and what is viewed as success. Developing a successful "big play" program is usually not just rewarding the top revenue generator.

The need to do the little things is constant, but often there is also that need to go above and beyond (i.e., working over the weekend on a big deal, making a dr. call at 1:00 AM because that's when the doctor can see you, etc...). While we would love to have sales people or employees who do the above and beyond things "just because", I'm not holding my breathe. Sometimes, that is when a "big play" incentive really works (imho).

That being said, I fully agree that the game of inches needs to be played and rewarded. Going back to the sports analogy, a "hail mary" is easier when you've got everything else working and its not a desperation play or the only play in your play book. By going for the hole in one, Mickelson probably gets the ball closer to the hole so he can make those birdies (if he's being smart about when and how he does it). These are also the plays that get shown on Sports Center and written up in the local paper and are often what the star players dream about at night (or the wanta be star players). I believe that it is the same with the "big play" incentives - they are easier to achieve when you are doing the game of inches right, they generate much publicity, and they keep your star players dreaming.

I appreciate the dialogue on this - fun stuff!

[Paul Hebert]

I agree with everything you've said. I do think we are (and many readers might be) confusing the "big play" - meaning a program designed solely to create a huge payoff for a few - and a "big award" which - when structured correctly (as both of us have said) is a great way to show commitment and direction to the audience you wish to influence.

I firmly agree with big award opportunities - but that is different than a program focused on a BHAG (big hairy audacious goal) that only a few will ever see. I also believe that it is very, very rare a company needs to have people who go "above and beyond." Above and beyond what? Most companies could increase performance if people just did what was necessary better, more often and with an understanding of where they fit in the big picture.

What I was trying to get to is that when designing the program - don't immediately go to the BHAG and the "end result" but look at the little things that if done more often with excellence - will get you the overall performance needed to excel. The thought in my head was you don't throw a hail mary on every pass and hope you win the game. You work the basics and if you're doing it well - you should win. If not - then you have to put the ball up and hope. I'm hoping to convince more companies to look at all the little things, reward those - and avoid the need for the hail mary.

I think we're in violent agreement on this.

And... for the record... as soon as I used the analogy of a hole in one I knew it was the wrong one - for in many, many cases, they are trying for that (par 3's and short par 4's in particular.)

[Scott Crandall]

Paul --- Good results are the by-product of solid performance of the process. Focus on working the process, and the results take care of themselves.

[Paul Hebert]

Preach! The process isn't as glamorous - but it is more productive in the long run! Thanks Scott.

[Derek Irvine, Globoforce]

You know I'll have to spin this to after-the-fact recognition. The same truth applies -- if the only achievements you recognize are the big ones, then very few will ever be recognized. That's why these are elitist programs that have no impact on company culture. Instead consistently and frequently recognizing the smaller accomplishments -- catching an employee doing something good -- encourages repetition of precisely those behaviors and actions you most need to succeed in your "big scheme."

[Paul Hebert]

Agreed. My only caveat is that the behaviors you recognized cannot be the "normal" ongoing stuff. Too often we get in the habit of rewarding EVERYTHING - sort of like getting a trophy for last place. We can do too much recognition and then it loses its value.

Thanks for commenting Derek. (Nice webinar the other day with Dan Pink - you did a nice job of connecting with your company's value prop.)

[Jason]

Paul ,

Interesting post and discussions...

I do agree with your point of views; however, I believe that the ultimate motivation within is to understand what each individual needs. Each salesperson may be motivated differently. Some may be motivated by big rewards and others may be motivated by the little stuff, but the point is we are all different.

Kurt,

I found your take on “promotional impact” quite interesting. I will also politely point out that have you considered such impact on the customers? Yes, I agree with you that big play incentive will have a promotional impact on sales or employee’s attention. But, this may eventually translate to over selling on the employee’s part to get those big rewards and an unhappy customer who is being over sold on products. Again, this is just my mere opinion.

Would love to hear back from you…

Best Regards,
Jason

[Paul Hebert]

Motivation is the ultimate individual gig. Agree wholeheartedly. Nothing motivates better than a good manager who understands what you need and want and works with you to get it.

You also hit on the big problem with the "big play" concept - if left as a single huge award opportunity you do get what you've described. I think both Kurt and I would agree - too much award is as bad as too little. The key with all of this is balance. I was riffing more on the idea that too often we ignore the things that go into being successful and focus on one thing, hoping it pays off.

Thanks for the comment Jason.

[Derek Irvine, Globoforce]

Have to disagree, Paul. I don't think you can ever get too much recognition -- at least not too much specific, actionable recognition. Sure, "Joe, you showed up today. Great job!" repeated every day would soon become worthless. But specific praise any time Joe contributed to a goal or helped the team or did something extraordinary can never become commonplace and always has value.

[Paul Hebert]

I know that recognition is good. I know that specific and authentic recognition is important. What I don't know - and probably won't ever know - is how much is too much. I think I'd err on the side of too much than to little. But if recognition becomes too common it loses it's value. It's a fine line.

A good manager knowns when the person is "doing their job" and doing something with a little kick - and deserves recognition. It's kinda like art - I know it when I see it - but I can't describe exactly what it is that makes it art.

[Derek Irvine, Globoforce]

Agreed...nice way of putting it, Paul.

[Phil Turner]

When you put motivation in to a game of inches, it would make it much easier to provide an incentive at work to keep employees and teams motivated. I must agree with you a 100%, big plays don't always occur and if we are waiting on a big play we will get left behind, instead we should focus on being consistent and gaining as many yards as we possibly can. If we reach for the short term goal it will bring us to the long term goal instead of looking directly for the big play to get us to the long term goal...Great post!!!!

Phil