Superstar Treats and What Cool Hand Luke Knew...

Frank Roche over at the iFractal blog "KnowHR" (go, subscribe, be educated and entertained) posted on Jan 10 about his dog Snickers.  

Frank takes Snickers for a walk each morning and when they arrive back at the house Snickers gets a treat.  The cat Benny, seeing the treat event, jumps into the picture and wants one too.  But Benny didn't go for a walk.  Benny didn't stay close.  Benny didn't do any of the stuff that Snickers the Wonder Dog did.  Yet Benny wants a treat.

Frank – or probably more accurately Benny - asks the question most of you HR folks have heard – “If Snickers gets a treat why can’t I?”

Well... here’s why.

Benny - you didn't do the work.  You didn't do the extra sumptin, sumptin that separates the best from the rest.

 

Communicate, Communicate, Communicate – Then Validate

Now, Benny is a cat, so we can’t expect too much from him other than licking himself and coughing up hairballs, and he doesn’t understand the difference between average performance (or poor performance for that matter) and exceeding expectations.  Not that Snickers does either – he’s a dog but at least he’s doing the work.

The point being, if someone in your organization is asking about the “fairness doctrine” associated with your reward programs there is probably a communication issue.  It’s probably not a program structure issue.

 

Change the Talk Not the Walk

Often when working with clients on their program design I’ll hear that they want to change the program because they are hearing that it’s not a “fair” program.  My question at that point...

“Who is saying it’s unfair?  Top performers, average performers, or also-rans?"

If it is the top performers saying the program is unfair I typically go to structure and design.

If it is the average and also-rans complaining then I look to communication.

Why?

 

Top Performers “KNOW” They’re Top Performers

Simple.  Most top performers work hard, do the stuff and do it without too much influence from the reward program (not saying they don’t value it... just saying it ain’t #1 on their list.)  However, when they complain it means that someone is getting rewarded in a way that is discounting their work.  They don’t mind other top performers getting rewarded.  But when non-starters are getting recognition it puts poor performance in the same category as their exceptional work.  That is a cardinal sin for top performers.  

Don’t reward me – cool – I like what I’m doing so I’ll probably keep doing it.  Make what I do less valuable – not cool.

 

Average Performers “THINK” They’re Top Performers

If the average or low performers are complaining it means they don’t know what good/exceptional performance is.  They are Benny the cat.  They don’t know what you’re rewarding.  Most people are from Lake Wobengone (where all children are above average) they assume they ARE performing at a high level but just not getting recognized.  That’s why it’s unfair in their minds.  (Studies show ALL people believe they are above average.)

The reality is they are not performing and don’t know it.  And that’s not a structure problem, that’s a communication problem.

Check how you communicate the reward program.  Are you specific?  Are award criteria subjective/objective?  Who makes the decision?  How often do you communicate performance in the program against the criteria – in total and individually?  Do you provide examples of what “top performance” looks like?  

Don’t expect people to understand what “exceeds” really means – they don’t.  Trust me.

Before you go changing the program check your communication plan.  

The structure may be fine – but you could have a “failure to communicate.”

 

Comments

[Frank Roche]

"Now, Benny is a cat, so we can’t expect too much from him other than licking himself and coughing up hairballs...." So true, Paul, so true. I love your question about who thinks an incentive plan is unfair...that's the heart of it.

Thanks for the shoutout to Snickers the Wonder Dog and Benny J. Cat. They're both still getting treats each morning.

[Paul Hebert]

Rarely, will top performers complain if top performers are being recognized. Just #fact. Always the other way - bottom performers don't like to have it pointed out that there is another level of performance and they ain't it.

Give both Benny and Snickers a pat for me! Thanks for engaging here Frank. And thanks for the thought starter.

[Derek Irvine, Globoforce]

Very interesting post. I agree -- everyone thinks they are top performers. That's why our approach works so well -- make it clear and specific (and public as often as appropriate) precisely why someone is being recognized for their work and tie this to a common "language" all employees can understand (preferably your company values). Now, every recognition that happens also serves as an educational moment on what it takes to be recognized.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks Derek - and you're right - and a point that companies overlook a lot - recognition is a teaching moment - teaching others what is valuable in an organization. Thanks for commenting.

[Scott Crandall]

Paul --- Excellent blog (as usual)!

One of the other problems with average (and lower) performers: they often confuse activity with productivity. Because talented people can get more done with less (or similar) input, the lower performers compare their activity and think: "I'm working as hard as him. It's not fair." (It's also bad grammar.) Plus, they don't see themselves able to work any harder, so the frustration and discouragement adds to the suspicion of unfairness.

Too many managers -- for lazy reasons, for PC reasons, probably for others -- don't make (nor enforce) the proper distinctions, and thus reinforce the prejudice in favor of activity. Plus, THEY don't see any way of getting more out of their current team. Any surprise that so many organizations accept mediocre (or worse) performance?

[Brandon Jones]

Paul,
This is a great post. One of the biggest challenges in creating a good system is being able to effectively reward the top performers without rewarding those that are not. An effective system is one in which the communication is done so that no one can misunderstand what is required to be a top performer. Both of the examples you stated were examples of poor systems because top performance was not properly communicated to the participants. Thanks, Brandon

[Christianfey]

Great post Paul!

It's so true that people choose to see themselves in the best possible light, and without clearly defined and COMMUNICATED expectations of exceptional performance, you can't do much to encourage them to believe otherwise.

Thank you!
Christian

[Nandini G]

This is an interesting post. The issue seems to be a very common one. Rewarding the right people is essential. But communicating effectively what exactly you are rewarding is equally essential. Only then can others strive towards excellence. Having proper metrics in place to evaluate performance may help?

Thank you.
Nandini.