I’ve had a lot of conversations about recognition and rewards programs over the years. Invariably, I’ll run across a company that runs reward programs focused on what I would consider “must have behaviors.”
What is a “must have" behavior for an organization? Here are some examples:
- No stealing (and yes that includes inflating your expense reports)
- No lying (and yes that includes calling in sick when you’re not)
- No discrimination (unless they play Justin Beiber at 11 all day in their cube –I think we can all get behind that one)
- Taking Credit where credit isn’t due (unfortunately, poor managers are most likely to practice this one)
In general – “must have” behaviors are minimum standards of performance. Things that are non-negotiable (at least they should be in a quality, values-run organization.) Don’t run reward programs for those activities.
Promotion VS Prevention
What made me think of this was this post on the HBR Working Knowledge site, “The Importance of ‘Don’t’ In Ethical Employee Behavior.” The question they attempt to answer is:
“If employees are generally focused on the benefits of getting things done, will they be attentive to messages about what not to do?”
In order to answer the question they devised an experiment...
Let me try to paraphrase it...
- Two groups given anagrams to solve in 90 seconds – six rounds.
- They score themselves on success (knew this at the onset.)
- Were told they would be rewarded for performance.
- They could track cheating via a planted series of letters in the anagrams.
- After completing the anagrams but before scoring, groups given a maze to complete – one maze showed mouse getting reward for cheese. The other maze showed mouse trying to complete maze before owl ate him (achieve goal versus prevent from getting eaten.)
Results?
“The results showed that the students who completed the cheese maze were far more likely to overstate their results, and to reward themselves accordingly, than those who completed the maze with the scary owl—82 percent (37 out of 45 participants) and 39 percent (16 out of 41 participants), respectively.”
Weird huh? The addition of the maze with a reward vs. prevention spin, changed results.
Simple Wording Can Be A Factor
They then changed the experiment slightly and instead of the maze, they framed the experiment differently by changing the instructions. One group was told, "This research project is being conducted to advance the ideals and aspirations pursued by applied social science." (reward/promotion.)The other group was presented with this: “Statement of Research Code of Conduct—This research project is being conducted with strict adherence to the standards and obligations required of applied social science." (prevention/compliance)
And again the results showed that those presented with a “reward” scenario were more likely to cheat than those with the compliance/prevention scenario.They also did a version that gave students the opportunity to donate some of their earnings to National Public Radio. Those that were given the promotional instructions – donated more than those in the prevention/compliance group. The researchers saw that as assuaging guilt from earning a reward (and/or cheating.)
So... WTF does all this mean?
I don’t really know. :-)
The experiment is a bit squishy when you try to think of how this would play out in real business life. Which is a problem with all this behavioral stuff done at universities with students (really – who cares if I cheat on an anagram test? But ask Madoff who cares if you cheat in business – the consequences and magnitude are very different – and that affects behavior.)
Here’s what I do know...
Incentives are really choice architectures – when you present an incentive you are asking people to choose to perform – that means they believe the choice is theirs. If you set up a program to reward people for telling the truth – the real deeper meaning is, “tell the truth and earn – but if you don’t want to, that’s fine, you just don’t get a reward.”
Focusing incentives on behavior versus outcomes reduces the “cheating effect” since you are not asking people to focus on a goal per se – but what they do to get to the goal. When you focus on the goal, you communicate "here’s what I want – now go do it (and BTW – you decide how to get there, I’m just worried about the end result.)”
While not perfect, university studies such as this do provide a point of view to consider.
Check your own communications – are you coming at the “must have” behaviors from a “promotion” mind-set – rewarding people? Or are you looking at your “must have” behaviors from a prevention/compliance point of view? How are your programs and/or guidelines worded?
You may inadvertently be giving your employees permission to be unethical.
I read an article last week that gave the idea of having a random day where employees who showed up to work on time got a reward. The days occured whenever the Manager chose and could be once a week or not for months at a time. I didn't think about what that was really rewarding until now though.
Programs like that really are saying, show up on time, which you should do anyways, and you'll get a reward, if you show up late, you won't but you also won't be punished. It really is important to give the right reward and reward the right behavior too.
Posted by: Matt | March 07, 2011 at 12:04 AM
Thanks for your comment Matt. That type of program is exactly what I mean. It communicates that being on time is something you need an "extra" bit of award for - not what our minimum standard of performance is. Bad form.
I know they were trying to be clever using random, unexpected reward (kinda like classic rat conditioning) but it won't work on humans - we figure that stuff out and then try to time it. I'll bet over time, people were later more often than before they started the program. It become a game to figure out when to be late and when to be on time. I'll bet that program took a small problem, best handled by reinforcing the fact that being on time was a minimum standard of performance, and turned it into a much bigger problem.
Posted by: Paul Hebert | March 07, 2011 at 06:18 AM
A great article - It is important for managers to consider what types of signals they are sending to salespeople as it relates to performance. Performance at any cost (in my opinion) can weaken the integrity of the company which will eventually result in a more dissatisfied (or at the very least less trustworthy) customers. Customers want to be aligned with companies that "do the right thing" and if salespeople are doing unethical things to achieve goals - or if this trend affects the selection of salespeople with accommodating behaviors - the customer will take notice.
Posted by: Mike Young | March 07, 2011 at 12:42 PM