Incentives and Vuvuzelas – Deafening and Irritating

I’ll admit – I’ve never watched a World Cup match until this year.  Credit HRevolution, Bill Boorman, Steve Boese and twitter.

I met Bill Boorman at HRevolution – Steve and I go “way back” in twitter/internet time and the World Cup was something they were tweeting back and forth about over the last few days.  So I jumped in.  

The US played England (not UK – get it right) on Saturday in the World Cup.  While I’m not a huge fan of soccer – football – or Futbol – depending on your point of view – it was an interesting match.  Due to a rather ugly goal on the part of the US the match ended in a tie 1-1.  We live to fight another day.

But the real take away from the match was the damn vuvuzelas.  

Vuvuzela Thy Name is Insanity

I know it sounds like a Dr. Seuss word but it’s a real thing – a one-note stadium horn blown at South African football matches.  The World Cup is being held in South Africa – hence the vuvuzela.  However, if the twitter stream is any indication of the love of the vuvuzela it ranks up there with Hitler and Jon Van Der Sloot.  Not a popular thing.  Not to mention discussions on hearing loss and interfering with play on the field.

As I started to watch the match – the incessant droning of the vevuzula was simply annoying.  Then it became irritating.  Then I started pulling out what remained of my hair and began writing the number 23 on all the walls of my house.  The noise, the noise.  There is nothing as madding as the single-note cacophony of the vuvuzela.  

But... miraculously, after about 45 minutes it faded into the background.  It became invisible (or silent since we’re talking auditory not visual?)

The Top Performer Program is the Vuvuzela of the Incentive World

Now, many companies run an annual top performer program whereby the top 10% or the top 20% or the top 11.67845% (depending on the stupidity of the program) earn an award – usually a grand travel award to…South Africa (note:  don’t use vuvuzelas as room gifts – you’ll thank me later.)

Initially, these programs get everyone going.  They’re excited. They can’t wait.  They work their butts off.  But a funny thing happens about 4 months into the program.  The percentage of folks below the cutoff start to realize – they ain’t gonna earn the award.  They can’t keep up with the top 10% or the top 11.67845%.  They know they are at 12% or 15% in the rankings.  They stop competing.

But the company still sends out the communications to everyone.  Mailers about South Africa and the vuvuzela horns.  Emails about working hard and earning the travel award.  Standings reports showing the individual just how far from earning the award they are (hey boss… thanks for the reminder.)  

News Flash:  The only ones who care about these communications are the folks ABOVE the cut off.

The program becomes the incentive vuvuzela – it starts out as a annoying, then irritating, then maddening – then… nothing.  

They stop paying attention.  And they stop performing.

The sad thing is the next time you run the same program these folks will go through those same steps – only faster.  They will start out trying, and then they will see the first round of results and remember back to last year when they hear the siren call of the vuvuzela and remember the pain.  They will then go through the steps in the fastest way possible to get the point they are oblivious to the sound of the incentive vuvuzela.

Don’t do this to your folks.  

Target Not Blanket

Sure recognize your top performers – but don’t make it be the only thing you communicate to the entire audience.  Target your communications so that those that may actually have a chance of earning the trip get the big trip communications.  Structure something in the program for the other 88.32155% who won’t get the opportunity to go to South Africa (maybe ear plugs?)

Want to hear the vuvuzela?  Check out this video and be prepared to go mad!

Email readers may need to click through to the site to get the video feed…

  

Comments

[akaBruno]

Didn't Ariely write about this in his new book? If something is unpleasant stick with it, as if we took a break from it, and it arose again, we would be that much more dissatisfied. However, if something is positive, take a short break, and if we go on and continue it, our pleasure actually increases. I particularly liked his TV example, as it suggests we should watch the commercials as it has been shown to increase our enjoyment of a show.

What, then, is the implication for incentive design? Should they be more short term in nature, and repeated?

[Paul Hebert]

You are right on! I didn't make the connection until you now mention it.

And yes... I do think incentives - specifically performance and goal related ones - should be shorter with more "breaks" for the awards - increases the overall "pleasure" of the process.

I've always thought that short-term incentives are better - and Ariely provides the research now. Even recognition programs (after the fact programs) should be punctuation not paragraphs - meaning they need to be somewhat variable in their presentation. The boss that does the same "good job" every Friday at noon - becomes a caricature of him/herself at some point.

Great catch - you read the book more closely than I did. Have to go back now and reread!

[Kurt Nelson]

I don't know how many times I've said the same thing (not about Vuvuzelas but about creating incentive programs that don't just target the top 10%-20%). Powerful programs are ones that engages more people, allows for customized communications based on performance and rewards appropriately - and as mentioned by akaBruno and you - are of an appropriate length.

BTW - when I was a child I had a similar toy to the Vuvuzelas and I'm sure it annoyed my parents as much as it does people watching the world cup....

[Paul Hebert]

Agree 1000% Kurt. More is better - but more done well not just more for more's sake!

[Scott Crandall]

Paul --- Maybe the key note in the correspondence to all is how the company is doing -- hopefully as a result of the program. Hopefully, even the "unwashed 88.96543%" can get behind that. Isn't that still a valid goal, target,objective. I think many companies lose sight of what the program is FOR. IMHO.

[Paul Hebert]

Communicating how well the company is doing is a good thing. However, wrapping that in some motivational mailing about the trip that the vast majority know 2 months into the program they won't have any chance of earning is just salt in the wounds. I'm suggesting that the program be designed to allow others to earn for their contributions - not just the top 20% or so. While Pareto probably applies - the last 20% to the companies goal will probably come from those that can't earn the award - just image what can happen if we can help those 80% want to work a little harder. That is where the real growth comes from.

[Derek Irvine]

Well stated, Paul. We've long advocated against the "elitist" recognition program structure, precisely for the reasons you explain. It's flat-out demotivating to the employees who work hard, contribute to the success of that top 10%, but get no thanks or recognition for that effort.

It matters greatly from a retention standpoint, as well. As BlessingWhite research reported:

“The 29% of employees who are engaged in the typical organization, while not immune, are less likely to respond to competitive overtures. However, the 27% who are 'almost engaged' are strong performers — and they'll take the call from a search firm.”

I wrote about that research last Friday for anyone who may be interested: http://bit.ly/cI6raT

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks Derek. And those that care - any link to a post of Derek's is a good link. While Derek and I may not agree on everything - his point of view is valid and well thought-out and worth your reading time.

[Scott Crandall]

Paul --- I don't think I was clear: while the 20% get the "program" correspondence (and the "how the company is doing"), the 80% get "how the company is doing and here's what our hard work is contributing to." And after the first couple months, they don't get additional program reminders or updates. I think we're in "violent agreement."
It's not salt in the wounds; it's beginning to heal the wounds.

[Paul Hebert]

Ahhh... got it. See that's why you need good communication - in everything!