Incentives and Rewards for Who You Are? Points for Hugs?

Grank McCraken (@Grant27 ) is a smart guy.  He wrote the book “Chief Culture Officer” and it is well worth your read.  If you are in marketing, sales, HR – heck – business -you need to read about how culture is researched and leveraged.  That’s what Grant does.  (BTW – he was on #hrhappy hour a while back – link to archived show here.)

He posted today on one of the characters highlighted in an “Undercover Boss” episode – the 7-11 one.

The post deals with Dolores who has worked for 18 years at the same store.  She greets customers by name, kids with them – she even punches them.  She is “the personality” of that particular 7-11 store.  

And, as Grant adds… “The fact of the matter Dolores is creating value.”

She sure does.  

As I was thinking about Dolores and her personality – Trish ( @trishmcfarlane ) over at HRRingleader posted on hugging at work – or more accurately – bringing your “pre-school attitude to work.”  Part of what Trish highlights in her post is similar to what Grant highlights – the our individual personality traits add value to our work, our business and ultimately – our customers.

But Grant suggested something in his post that I don’t know what to think of…

Here’s the paragraph from his post:

“But that doesn't mean that "The Dolores effect," let's call it, can't be managed.  We would want to do an anthropology of the Dolores effect.  Who can do it?  How long does it take to acquire?  What is the developmental cycle here?  Then we would want to create a Dolores training regime.  Dolores is a naturally gifted social actor.  We can train those who aren't.  The next step is to figure out an incentive system.  I bet 7-11 pays Dolores what they pay other people who do her job.  This is wrong.  We don't want Dolories to simulate her bonhomie for commercial purposes, but once she has began to built a community, we should darn sure make sure she is compensated.”

Here’s what I know – the research Grant recommends is a good idea.  

Here’s what I don’t know… should Dolores be compensated or rewarded differently because of her personality?  Should Trish make more money because she’s comfortable hugging people in the office?  Should there be incentives for this specific behavior?  

My gut reaction is no.

The behaviors of both Trish and Dolores are personality things.  They are comfortable doing what they do.  It’s what makes them who they are.  

I’m not a hugger.  Maybe because of all those years sleeping in the “baby cage” (Obscure Scrubs reference) but no incentive in the world will get me to hug folks genuinely unless I know them pretty well.  And that is the key in my mind and why an incentive is probably a bad idea.

The reason both Trish and Dolores are “value add” employees is the genuine way in which they do their job.

And if what they do adds value and I owned the business I’d want more people like that to add value.

So the dilemma… 

Do you reward hugging and punching (the behaviors that are uniquely Trish and Dolores) or do you just communicate that being yourself and being genuine are good things to be at work?

I don’t’ think an incentive for hugs and punches is the way to go but I’m willing to listen.  I know Grant isn’t suggesting that but I also know that many managers will see these behaviors as what is (are?) driving sales and start to “incentivize” those behaviors.  Even when they aren’t heartfelt or real.  

What do you think?

Is it more an issue of communication or is it as Grant says something you need to reward?  

Is it a recruiting thing or a training thing?  

I think recognizing “genuine” behaviors in alignment with who you are and what the company values is important.  But I don’t think a specific incentive is the right way to go.

Okay … discuss.

Related articles

• To incentivize or not to incentivize, that is the question (blogs.constantcontact.com)
• Hurry Up - We NEED To Launch the Incentive Program January 1st! (i2i-align.com)
• Do Award Earners "Shop" for Awards? Should They? (i2i-align.com)

Comments

[OrgMotivation]

In my mind, incentivising this kind of behaviour gives the message that you don't expect the employees to do it naturally. You're saying "I want to compensate you for hugging customers" - why is it needed? Delores obviously enjoys what she does, cares about the customers, and isn't disgruntled about the wage that she receives so why would you create an environment where she feels that she has to behave like this in order to get her incentive.

The answer is that you need to create an environment where Delores feels that she is valued (money does not mean value) through a supportive manager, her needs satisfied, fair treatment and a job which stimulates her. Encourage her intrinsic motivation, don't reward her for something that she enjoys doing.

What does everyone else think?

[Drew Hawkins]

I would venture to say that it's a recruiting thing more than training. If you want to stay genuine, I can't say that a personality could be "trained." Not genuinely.

[Paul Hebert]

I agree - the personality is key - but it's not something that everyone can do. And when you try to make folks do it... that's the big fail.

Key to me is encouraging people to find "their" way and leverage it. Not copy someone else's way. Thanks for engaging! Appreciate it.

[Paul Hebert]

I think it's a recruiting thing to - if that's what your company is about. But I do think there is something to the idea of finding "your" way of manifesting the company values. That might be more along the lines of what Grant is referring to when he talks about managing this type of stuff.

[Scott Crandall]

Paul --- There's an old saying that if the job is climbing trees, it's better to hire monkees than train dogs to do it. Ame thing here: if the critical function is connecting with customers, it would be best to hire for that.

[Elad Sherf]

Hey Paul,
As usual, fascinating post!
My take is that it is depends of what kinds of incentives you are talking about and at what point. I believe that it is more about personality and while certain behaviors can be standardized, the whole “product” losses something if it is not genuine! So, we need to build a system that takes that into account and supports that. A few leading question I would consider (and I think you would be better equipped to answer them):
1. As you say, we want people to be themselves and find their strengths… shouldn’t we incentivize them to do that?
2. We want to keep people like that in our organization at all costs – shouldn’t they be incentivized to do that? I think we need to make sure these people know that we appreciate the work they are doing and that they feel valued and recognized not only dually compensated as this will create a positive cycle of engagement – shouldn’t we use incentives to do this?
3. If it is a personality thing and we think it can’t be trained… don’t we need incentives for that as well (think of the Zappos – you should quit now incentives)? We want to attract such people into our organization… wouldn’t incentives be helpful in that?
Elad

[Clay Forsberg]

I agree with Drew wholeheartedly. It is a recruiting thing. Ultimately, your company is your employees, and those employees that are touch points to your clients have to add value beyond pushing numbers on a cash register or stocking shelves. But I don't necessarily agree with you Paul on the "if that's their thing" response. It better be their thing otherwise they're not going to be around long.

In this age of impersonal digital interaction - a company that get's a little old school and makes it a point to really know and care about their customers will take advantage of a huge whole in the competitive landscape.

[Derek Irvine, Globoforce]

Paul, your last sentence says it all: "I think recognizing “genuine” behaviors in alignment with who you are and what the company values is important. But I don’t think a specific incentive is the right way to go."

People will demonstrate those behaviors in ways as different as humanity themselves, but still be demonstrating behaviors in alignment with the company values and goals. And those should always be recognized when they are creating value. But you certainly shouldn't incent them.

[Keith Pearce]

I think Grant was kidding, right? Sarcasm? I mean, he must be. Trying to assess, study, measure and reward the soft skills is what we agonize over. I got out of it that really, we absolutely shouldn't do those things. Instead, provide an environment where Dolores and bring her gifts without being hindered.

[Paul Hebert]

Great quote. I'm sure it will end up in a future post Scott. And it is exactly right!

[Paul Hebert]

I didn't get any sarcasm in his post. I do think he's basically saying that we need to find the "genuine" in each employee and leverage that. I don't think he's suggesting we "mirror" her behavior but understand the different things she does and the results she gets - then have each employee interpret them in their own way. At least that's my hope.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks Derek - and you know we both agree on this - recognition in this case is the way to go - incentives will just screw up the whole thing.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks Clay for commenting. I don't think you can make someone do things they aren't comfortable with. If hugging and hitting customers are the best way to drive business and loyalty - then you shouldn't HAVE to do that. My point was that each person has "their" way of making customers connect to the brand. For Dolores it was more "out there" - someone else could just remember names or specific coffee choices and have it ready when they come it. That's the key - find the thing YOU do that links the company and the customer - not "do Dolores stuff" when you can't really do it.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks Elad for the great questions... my take...

1. Finding your strengths and leveraging them should be a minimum level of performance. What employee wouldn't want to use their strengths. Putting an incentive on that creates a "decision" in the employees mind. They don't have to do it since you're offering an incentive. If you position it as "we want you to be your best - let's find out what that is..." then it's just part of the job.

2. I think you're mixing incentives and recognition. Recognition - absolutely - and that's what will connect them to the company and make them want to stay. Incentives can be used to drive specific behaviors that are part of the job but not part of the personality. I'm not down on incentives to reward behaviors - just not incentives to reward behaviors "like Dolores" if I don't feel comfortable doing those things.

3. I am in agreement with the Zappos way on the "incentive to quit" and that gets back to the whole recruiting thing. If you recruit well you don't need to rely on the incentives as much (recognition however, is still required.)

There are so many nuances in this that a post and a comment don't cover it all but bottom line - don't tie incentives to someone else's behavior - tie it to mine.

[Clay Forsberg]

Thanks for the response Paul. I agree with you concerning hugging. I wasn't referring to that when I was commenting. But rather, I only meant that a company has to have people on the front line that connect with their clients - but not necessarily in a physical manner.

[Paul Hebert]

Agree - and I think Scott's comment about hiring monkeys is the best example of that!