Incentives Shouldn’t Be Your Default Setting

If you’ve been around computers at all you’re familiar with the phrase “default setting.”  

Most of us have at one point or another changed the default setting on some hardware or software.  The default setting is the setting that comes with the thing.  It is what someone else thinks is the best setting for you.  Sometimes it is.  Sometimes it isn’t.

Default settings are also the state that something will go back to after being “reset.”  Most Windows owners know what “resetting” is.  When you reset you need to start over and change any default settings you had changed prior to the reset.

I started thinking about motivation and incentives in the context of what we “traditionally” do.  In other words – the default setting.

When a person (whether that be an HR manager or a Sales Manager) looks at people performance and decides they need to influence behavior in order to get a different result, the default setting is always “run an incentive” or “increase commission” (which is an incentive – merely a cash one) or run a recognition trip.

Incentives are default settings.  And they shouldn’t be.

Attribution Bias

Attribution bias is a cognitive bias that affects the way we determine who or what was responsible for an event or action.  We “attribute” success or failure to different things based on our point of view.  There are a bunch of different ways in which our decisions are skewed by biases but I think that the “self-serving” bias (a form of attribution bias) is the reason that too often incentives are the default setting for influencing behavior.

Self-Serving Bias

The self-serving bias makes that case that anything that goes right is attributed to our skills and abilities.  Anything that goes wrong is attributed to something (or someone else.)

When determining what to do to improve performance I think we apply this bias and say –

“I’m doing everything right but not getting the results I want therefore it must be them.  They need the intervention.  They need something to change their behavior.  They are the issue and need motivation.”

The reality is... wait for it... that could be backward.  

Start at the Wall

I've said it before and I’ll say it again.  When diagnosing a problem (computer or person) start at the wall.  What I mean is as you diagnose, say a computer issue, start at where the power comes into the computer and work your way to the thing that is furthest from the wall.  This ensures you’re addressing the most critical, important – and many times – simplest problem before tackling the more difficult issues.

In the performance improvement world – starting at the wall means starting with yourself.

What are you doing?  What are you communicating?  What are you currently rewarding and recognizing?

Don’t assume that because a result isn’t occurring that the problem is with them.  It could be (and has a higher probably of being) the problem is something you are doing.  

Your default setting shouldn’t be incentives and rewards.  

Your default setting for performance should start with your efforts and work your way out to the audience you’re trying to influence.  It is much easier to affect something you are doing than it is to affect the behavior of 100 sales people or 50 customer service agents or 1,000 distributors.

Incentives should not be your default setting.  But I might be biased.

 

Comments

[Drew Hawkins]

The hardest thing to do when implementing change is look at ourselves. The straight incentives route, indirectly, shifts blame on other people because they NEED incentives. While incentives can be beneficial, if there's a root problem not being addressed, no recognition program in the world can make things better.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks for the comment Drew... you're right... I'm a big fan of using incentives CORRECTLY - it just seems to me when I talk with folks it's their first line of offense so to speak. Root cause is the right term - that is where you need to look.

[OrgMotivation]

Absolutely true. If an employee isn't doing what you want them to do the majority of the time it isn't because they are willfully underperforming, it is often because they are up against other constraints. Even if the under performance is with them reward and punishment is rarely the reason for this. I have rarely (if ever) come across a member of staff who isn't performing because they feel as though they aren't getting enough money.

Talk to them, give them some honest, open and information rish feedback and find out what they need and you're much more likely to get positive results.

[Paul Hebert]

You got it... step one - talk to people. Step 2 - talk some more - Step 3 - now think about other options. Thanks for commenting! Appreciate it.

[Roy Saunderson]

Great blog post Paul...and I attribute that to your good, clear thinking and expertise.

I often speak of recognition practices and recognition programs.

I like to think of incentives as one of the many tools in the tool box to make a solution or fix a problem. Tools help people "practice" recognition better. The secret is to start at the wall, as you say, know what the need/probelm is, know the tools in your tool box, and then use them properly.

Keep up the great work, Paul.

Roy

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks Roy for engaging here. Funny thing though.. recognition is one of those things that SHOULD probably be a default setting. I don't believe that honest feedback and validation for the work we do is ever a bad thing (unless it is pandering) but incentives are much more tactical and targeted and that is where I think we start to see problems when we try that first.

As I've said far too many times (and I know you agree) incentives and recognition are two completely different things and need to be applied differently.

[Scott Crandall]

Paul --- I liked your comment above about recognition being the default.
I wonder though if the problem isn't that the wall (the manager) is a highly self-managing person, who can do very well without feedback and recognition, so their default is: "I don't need it, therefore it isn't needed."
It's back to the same old-same old: dealing with others is not about me. What do THEY need, and what do I need to do to make sure they get it? I'm afraid that thought process happens too infrequently. Or maybe it's just me . . .

[Paul Hebert]

Point well made - both from "it must be them" and "i don't therefore they don't"

It's an issue of how people think about management - servant leadership is the only real leadership IMHO - and that would change the mindset considerably.

[Wally Bock]

If you are getting wheat but you want corn, do not simply pray for corn or motivate the wheat. Instead do something different: plant corn.

[Paul Hebert]

Great - my 487 word post in 25. That's why you are the GREAT Wally Bock. Thanks for weighing in my friend.

[Les Mottosky]

Another great post Paul. It's official: I'm hooked on your blog!

This post speaks directly to personal responsibility, and while the context of your message is about enabling change in the workplace, I recognize a macro perspective in it also:

'When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.'

Thanks for sharing your perspective. As mentioned, you've turned me into a fan!