Reading is so 2010. Listening is all the rage now with kids. You need to jump on board.
Over on TLNT.com today is a 26 minute podcast I did with Lance Haun (@theLance.) We cover the incentive industry, why HR is more interested in rewards today - why engagement is key to success and how that has affected how incentives and rewards are positioned. We hit on the "AIG Effect" - patriotism versus mercanaries - cash vs. non-cash - all the biggies.
Basically, it's a bar conversation without the bar (insert sad face here.)
Pop over - spend a few minutes and let us know what you think.
A few weeks back I posted on gamification. My intent on that post was to warn companies about turning a strategic recognition program into a "game." I also said gamification could be considered when looking at incentives. A great conversation followed in the comments. Take a look when you get a chance.
For those that don’t click over the net-net was this...
Strategic recognition isn’t a “game” and shouldn’t be positioned as such (I do, however like some of the psychological principles involved in game design and those can be part of the program.)
Making strategic recognition too much like a game takes away some of the value (IMHO – some would argue – but I think they’re wrong…)
When/How Game Mechanics Apply in an Incentive
However – I DO think game mechanics are valuable in an incentive application for a variety of reasons – shorter term, more focused on transactional behaviors not values and more esoteric things. The fact is, although we in the industry didn’t call it “gamiifcation,” we’ve included many of the elements of game mechanics in our programs for years. We just didn’t have the foresight to call it something cool.
To give you an idea of how game mechanics CAN be used in an incentive program I point you to this post (I’m gonna steal liberally from it.) It’s one of the better summaries I’ve seen on how to incorporate game mechanics in a corporate initiative to drive behavior. The author, Roan Yong, consults with companies on using these principles in the Knowlege Managment space. His post is about using game mechanics to influence behaviors to increase knowledge sharing in a company – a problem many companies have.
The Basics
The author outlines how game mechanics impact our reward center in the brain and makes us WANT to keep playing…
Showing progress through visible “progress bars.”
Including long and shorter term goals in the “game.”
Rewards for efforts – not just outcomes.
Rapid and frequent feedback – even if it is negative. Think of games where you die if you make a mistake. That is negative feedback. But we learn and continue. The key here is that the failure is safe – you’re not fired for doing something wrong. The author calls it a “safe-fail environment.” I like that a lot.
Keep them guessing by providing uncertain award – think slot machine. This is a big one for most companies – they like things to be fair so they shy away from uncertain rewards. But if you put minimal value on the award – and base it on behaviors not outcomes – you have better chance of it being accepted.
Add an element of collaboration – allow people to work together on a task/challenge. People are inspired and engaged with other people. The ability to solve a problem with a team is a reward in itself.
The author then goes on to show how to incorporate those elements to drive knowledge management activity. The recommendations are solid and I’m reprinting them in whole below so you can see how they can be incorporated into a specific objective – sharing knowledge.
Establish Points System. If someone in the organization captured her knowledge, give her some points. This gives her some sorts of reward for capturing knowledge.
Establish Hall of Fame, and ensure that it is visible throughout the organization. Hall of Fame would allow people to compare themselves against others – which would build up healthy competitive spirit. For example, the high scorers would be given ‘lofty titles’ – such as KM champions, evangelists, guardians. And the top ten in the list would be featured in the organization newsletter.
Show the Impact of KM activities. Establishing Hall of Fame is not enough, people may not see the value of outscoring each other. Unless, they are able to see the impact of KM activities to the organization, or to themselves. Consider illustrating the benefits of KM activities in terms of time saved, productivity gained, increased innovation. Better still, translate knowledge capture in terms of personal development. In gaming, this is called ‘leveling up’.
Make Types of Rewards Uncertain. An element of uncertainty is what makes people keep on going. The key here is to keep people guessing on what kind of rewards they would get. So, consider giving random rewards. It is important to avoid giving financial rewards such as salary increment, or bonus payment. Instead, tell people that they can expect either one of these: (1) Appreciation Lunch with Senior Management; (2) Time-off; (3) Employee of the Year award; (4) More training opportunities; (5) Additional points during performance review.
Give Rapid and Frequent Feedback. In gaming, when you are inexperienced, your character would die often. These instances of getting killed are part of the rapid and frequent feedback mechanism. This kind of feedback system, spur people to learn. In the same way, people who are inexperienced in KM activities should be given rapid and frequent feedback. For example, they should be informed of how many people downloaded (or using a Facebook term – liked) the knowledge capture documents.
Give Autonomy. In gaming, gamers could accomplish missions in various ways. That’s why gaming is so engaging! In the KM world, people should have the freedom to capture knowledge using methods that they prefer. Rigidity kills intrinsic motivation.
Now think about your own organization goals. Which one would benefit from adding some form of game mechanics into the process? I’m thinking most of them if not all of them.
Substitute your goals/process into the above list and see if you can create a “gamified” solution.
Next Thursday, August 25, at 1:00 pm EDT (1300 EDT for you purists) I have the pleasure of being co-host with the Cynical Girl, Laurie Ruettimann for a LIVE webinar presenting the results of an I Love Rewards survey of HR professionals on the use of social media. Since you’re reading this I can only assume you are social media savvy (good for you!) But did you know a ton of others in HR are as well?
That’s right – you are not alone.
Survey Says!
I Love Rewards conducted a survey on the use of social media in the HR space and Laurie and I will be presenting the results from that survey along with information on how social networking tools reduce administrative work, how to build a brand through social networking, best practices and probably the most important discussion (at least that’s what HR folks said in the survey) how to get employee and executive buy-in.
I’ll be addressing the branding issue and how to influence your Execs to get them thinking and moving in the direction of using social media.
But I NEED Your Help
I’m asking you to click this link… register for the webinar – and then share this post with your friends and family. That’s all really. I think it will take less than 10 mouse clicks. You can do that can’t you? Of course you can.
Why am I asking?
Well, we like to win. Laurie and I want to be the #1 attended webinar and your attendance could be the one that gets us there.
‘Cuz You ARE That Kinda Person
You want to be that person don’t you? You are the kind of person who helps others out right? Isn’t that what “social” networks are about – helping? You’re part of this network – and you can help. So, go register – spend one hour, a mere 60 minutes with me and Laurie. That’s only .0005 of your working year. You will get far more out of that investment than you will meeting with the ATS vendor you’ve blown off for 6 weeks.
And who knows… based on what I heard at #HRevolution there might be a few controversial moments (if you know what I mean, wink, wink) – some stuff may be too risky to put in the downloadable version of the webinar (remember – we’re live and it’s Laurie – ‘nuff said) so the live version may be the only time you can hear it.
See you next Thursday – I am looking forward to it and I know it will be well worth your time.
In digging through some of the posts and articles I’ve starred in my reader this morning I ran into a post I put into the pile about a year ago. March 2011 to be exact. It was on the LeadFormix blog and it was entitled: “Focus on Generating Opportunities not Leads.”
You can link out to the article which isn't bad but the reason I starred it for future reference is that is made me think about how you frame an incentive activity and how that can affect the program outcome.
Leads VS Opportunities
Many lead generation incentive programs are focused on filling in blanks. Adding people to the CRM database. The rules might be something like: “10 Points for every lead that includes, company name, contact name, company size, competitor – you name it."
Each program will have its own data fields.
Overall, the goal of the program is to create a list of possible contacts that could buy your product. The company can then send a sales person to hunt them down and sell them – or put them in a marketing database for newsletter follow-ups and other e-marketing initiatives.
The point is that the goal of the program – based on the rules – is really about filling in data. It’s about filling in form fields. It’s very – tactical.
What if you changed the framing on the program rules from “lead generation” to “opportunity identification?” What if you rewarded people for similar “data” fields but also added something in there about defining how they could use the product or service you are hoping they buy?
Frames are Small But Important
Adding the idea that we are rewarding people for identifying opportunities will change the way they approach the program. No longer are the participants just filling in fields – they are thinking about your product and service and connecting it to the data they pass onto sales and/or marketing.
While it may seem trivial – changing the framing can affect the program results. Changing the frame changes the interaction your audience has with the program.
Think about your incentives – both internal and channel – can they be reframed to drive different behaviors? Can you change how you position what it is you are really trying to do and realize greater success?
Or – you could do a lead generation program and get leads – whether they are real leads, real opportunities or just names pulled from the phone book.
What do you think? Does reframing change the program outcome or are we talking distinctions without differences?
Incentive programs provide rewards for hitting specific goals. Typically, the incentive program will announce the requirements and as you perform and hit the specified hurdles, you earn awards – points, credits, what have you.
Your points are good for merchandise, gift cards, travel, you name it.
All good in the hood right?
Maybe not.
Maybe you could enhance performance by simply asking a question before you start the program.
"Research shows that if you want to get people to do something, you should ask them to predict if they will do it. An affirmative answer greatly increases the probability that they will follow through."
The research highlighted in this article goes on to say...
Ask customers about their intent to buy your brand or product. Even this small step (mere measurement) will have a positive effect.
Get an affirmative answer. Plenty of studies show that if a person states a positive intention, they are more likely to act on it.
If possible, get a public or tangible commitment. This may not always be possible or even appropriate, but if it happens it will further increase the probability of future action.
While this post is all about consumer behaviors – getting people to “buy” – why wouldn’t the same hold true for incentive and performance programs?
Commitment and Consistency
We’ve talked about these social psychology triggers before. People like to remain consistent with their past behaviors and commitments. Prediction is a form of commitment.
So...couldn’t you increase the chances of your audience following through on program goals if you hit them with a double whammy – asking them if they will participate and hit goals – and reward them when they do?
It’s not really a new idea...
In the days before electrons we used to send out a commitment card to the participants asking them to commit to the program and complete a wish list of items they might want to redeem for out of the award catalog. We’d also offer bonus points for completing the card.
Little did we know we were ahead of the curve.
So... Now go back to the three points highligted above...Take out the words “buy your brand or product” and replace it with “participate in the program and earn and redeem points for awards.”
This doesn't have to be only for incentive and reward programs. Any performance issue you want to focus on can take advantage of our human desire to be consistent.
Before telling an employee what to do - ask them if they think they CAN do it. Ask them if they think they WILL do it. Ask them to predict outcomes. These questions can increase the odds it will happen.
I had a conversation with a reward and recognition professional the other day. They asked me “what do you think of gamification in the recognition world?” The implied addition to that sentence was, “versus the incentive world.”
My response... “Not good for recognition. Good for incentive.”
He said – “y’know – that might make a good post.”
Aaaaaannnnnnnd here we are.
What is Gamification
You’d have to be one of the actors in the GEICO commercials to not have heard about gamification. Gamification is the new black. Gamification will cure hiccups. Gamification is the new “it” girl.
The use of gameplay mechanics for non-game applications. The term also suggests the process of using game thinking to solve problems and engage audiences.
And it is expected to be big...
A recent Gartner report from April of this year suggests as much. Analysts predict that by 2015, more than 50% of organizations will gamify their innovation processes.
“By 2014, a gamified service for consumer goods marketing and customer retention will become as important as Facebook, eBay or Amazon, and more than 70% of Global 2000 organizations will have at least one gamified application,” the Gartner report concludes.
Why Incentives And Not Recognition?
If you don’t really believe or understand the difference between incentive programs and recognition programs stop reading now. The rest of this post will just confuse you and make you mad.
Or check out some posts on this subject here, here, here, and here, then come back.
Incentives+Gamification = Good
Game mechanics – Points, Badgets, Levels, Leaderboards, and Challengaes – apply many of the influence techniques and social psychology things we talk about here on the site, consistency, commitment, scarcity, social proof. They all play a role in influencing someone’s behavior and can turbo-charge an incentive program.
Now – time to split hairs – but it’s important.
You can recognize achievements in an incentive program (that’s good) and levels and badges are those events. They are recognition of specific achievements.
But... they are not “recognition programs.” They are recognition events within an incentive. (Read that again -important concept time.)
RecognitionPrograms +Gamification = Bad
Recognition programs – ones that are driven from corporate culture and long-term business and personal values - do NOT lend themselves to overt gamification.
Here’s why...
First of all – they are already “gamified” – but in a more refined manner.
Think about it. Recognition programs provide levels of achievement. Recognition is already about assigning someone to a category whether that be “innovator” or “top sales” or “top service rep.” Recognition programs rest on some of the elements of the gamification foundation.
But... and this is a big but (I cannot lie,) to add a level of “gamification” to an already “gamified” platform is like – well, adding peanut butter to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It is just too much. It changes the sandwich from something good and gooey to something just gooey. Adding gamification on top of a high-level recognition program just makes it less good and more gooey.
Gamification = manipulation.
If you “gamify” a recognition program – start layering in things that take away from the core values you dilute the real intent. The real intent of a strategic recognition program is to reinforce a culture – reinforce core beliefs and tenets. Gamification, in the word itself, communicates that the system can be manipulated.
In addition, gamification is about short-term – it’s about the “next step” – not the big picture.
Strategic corporate recognition programs reward bigger issues than a simple behavior. Recognition programs – the strategic kind – not the little employee of the month parking space kind – require a more dignified approach (IMHO).
Can you use gamification in an overall recognition strategy?
Sure.
Will it communicate that you don’t take recognition seriously and you think it is a game to be played versus a business approach to be lived? Yep.
Will people be engaged? Yes.
Engaged in scamming the system to get the badges, levels, etc., not to be recognized for their connection to the mission and values of the company.
Gamification takes the focus off the outcome and places it squarely on the game. Recognition should focus squarely on the outcome and take the focus off the game.
So... if your incentive supplier wants to add gaming elements to your incentive program say “Tell me more.”
If they want to add gamification to your strategic recognition program, well, as they say in “The Holy Grail” – RUN AWAAAAAAAY....
(Video below from "The Holy Grail" - some may say NSF, but I think it's okay. Email and RSS subscribers may need to visit the post on the website here.)
I have gone on record here that the traditional players in the incentive industry really need to think about their long-term viability.
Traditional companies have seen the market get tougher and tougher as their business model get’s disintermediated squeezing margins, software vendors encroach on their space, new award options are developed by outsiders, and thought-leadership is usurped by just about everyone. All things that point to an industry resting on its laurels.
Loyal readers know I don’t recommend specific companies (our model is about program design – not fulfillment) but I’m not against highlighting companies that I think are doing good stuff. In the past, I’ve referenced, Globoforce and I Love Rewards – and now I need to add MotivAction, LLC to my list of companies to watch.
The Big Deal
MotivAction, LLC out of Minneapolis, MN recently issued a press release about a new platform for their award programs and I really like the concept. Called “The Big Deal” (might want to check with Shanter - I wouldn't want to get on the real Big Deal's bad side) – this new patent-pending technology adds a layer of game play and special access to the traditional earn and burn strategy employed by most companies.
"The Big Deal" in a nutshell...
Paraphrasing their recent press release:
Companies pick specific activity goals. Once those goals are achieved by the program participants, they “unlock” access to specific, time-sensitive deals on awards. The deals are determined by the client and are communicated via the program website, email and mobile communications.
The key here is that the “award” is not only the points that the participant would normally earn for activity in a program – but the access to deals. The participant isn’t just working to earn a “point” – he/she is now working to be one of a select few that can get behind the velvet rope and redeem their points for lower priced awards. Leveling up so to speak.
I’ve not seen the process in action but I can guess that what may be offered in the catalog for $100 in points could be offered through “The Big Deal” for say $75 in points – but only for a limited time and only if you hit specific metrics in the program.
The Real Win Here
While MotivAction seems to be selling the “deal” aspect (ie: lower point values on awards) I don't think that is the real win.
The real win is increased program performance. Here's my thinking...
1. Scarcity – By establishing a threshold for access to the deals you increase desire.
We all want something we can’t have. Another Cialdini principle in action! By making access limited – you increase focus and attention on the goal thereby increasing program performance and the influence the program has on results.
In addition, making the offer time-sensitive (short term) it increases the scarcity factor. Not only is access limited based on my performance (I got in and you didn’t neener, neener) but I have to redeem within a time frame creating an urgency that normally doesn’t exist in point award programs. And that means...
2. Redemption = Engagement.
Many companies see unused points as a positive thing especially if they are in the old model of bill on redemption – meaning they don’t pay until someone actually orders an award. However, unused points are really a big negative. When participants redeem they get to experience the award and the feelings that award brings them. No one ever got excited looking at a bank statement (well maybe Bill Gates does) – but put a 55 inch LED TV in the living room around SuperBowl time, and you got a party!
Redemption is the surest sign your people are engaged in the program. This new twist on the program should increase redemption – which in turn should increase engagement with the program.
3. Redemption = More Performance.
I’ve said this before – when you have big balance of points in your program bank account you don’t need to perform. Why? You can redeem any time. But as you spend down those points and experience the thrill of the new doodad or that trip – you want to do it again. But you’ll need to earn more points (positive feedback loop or vicious circle? You decide.) In either case – redemption begets earning. It’s a fact. The more I redeem, the more I like it, the more I need to earn to redeem again.
The Big Deal creates more reasons to redeem and therefore should increase the reasons I need to earn and ultimately – increase the results of the program.
4. Increased program communications.
Traditionally incentive programs have stayed on a standard schedule of one communication contact a month. It’s what we did when we printed everything and in many cases it’s what we did when we went electronic. This program creates additional program communication triggers. I would think they would communicate the “deals” when they are announced, when people are close to unlocking a level, when the time for redemption begins and ends. All events that require an increase in the amount of communication with the participant about the program. That is a good thing. The more I talk about the program – the more the participants are aware of it and incorporate the earning possibilities into their daily behaviors.
So... “The Big Deal” by MotivAction, LLC – nicely done folks. Nicely, done.
A somewhat new service is available in beta called "Scoop.it."
Scoop.it allows you to create a "newspaper" of sorts from things you find interesting on the web. I'm experimenting with the service and of course I thought of you, gentle reader.
I asked myself - "what would help my readers in their day-to-day life and business." And I answered - "a grouping of articles that someone else took the time to read and evaluate so that they can see what's hot and what's not in the incentive industry with little or no effort on their part."
That, is what Scoop.it facilitates. And that is what I'm offering to you. So, for the first (and possibly the last - but probably not) time I give you the...
I subscribe to over 350 different blogs, sites, what-have-yous on a variety of subjects from science and pyschology to how to build steam-punk watches. In addition, I monitor my twitter stream where I'm following 2,000+ people. I also get a lot via email. I have a lot of info coming in.
It's from all those input streams that I find ideas for posts on this blog, posts on the FistfulofTalent blog and posts for clients and friends. It's how I keep up with the industry and business in general.
And now you can have a subset of that firehouse, vetted and consolidated for your reading pleasure.
Many of the feeds I get are from incentive and reward companies. Some of their blogs have some interesting stuff you should be aware of. In fact - if you want to be sure you're at least included in the first pass shoot me a note and let me know where your site is and I'll take a look and add it to my reader list.
CAVEAT: If you have your feed set up to only show a "summary" or an excerpt so that I have to click through to the site - forget it. Don't bother sending me the site info. Feeds that only show a summary are simply padding their web page stats trading clicks for readers. I don't click through. I ignore the content ... period. No exceptions. A feed reader is for me to get info WITHOUT clicking out to your site. So don't suggest your site if it only offers a summary feed. (btw - none of your readers appeciate it either - it's a pain in the ass and it shows that the site is about you not them - they will remember that. Just sayin'.)
Hope you find it interesting and helpful. Let me know what you think in the comments. Continue or cut? Your call.
I get frustrated some times as I peruse the google alerts I’ve set up for incentives, rewards, recognition and other topics related to designing and delivering great influence programs. Mostly because I continue to see bad advice being doled out over and over again.
Specifically, I see incentive “professionals” telling potential clients that good incentive design requires that awards be tied to results. How else can you prove and ROI?, they state. While developing an ROI model is difficult when the outcomes from the incentive are not tied to specific metrics, like say, increased sales... it is not impossible.
If all you focus on is the “result” you will have bad program. #Fact.
I’ll let you read the full article here... but the points from his post that I think are critical to remember are:
"But having this single measure for performance placed so saliently in front of them, and knowing it’s just as important for their school and their students as it is for their own reputation and career, most likely motivates some teachers to look the other way when they have a chance to artificially improve those numbers."
And...
"The notion that we take something as broad as education and reduce it to a simple measurement, and then base teacher pay primarily on it, has a lot of negative consequences. And, sadly, I suspect that fudging test scores is relatively minor compared with the damage that this emphasis on tests scores has had on the educational system as a whole."
Now think about the various things in your own company that you have incentives layered upon (or you are planning to layer in an incentive ) – are they not complex?
Do the outcomes you want require people to do multiple activities and be skilled at multiple behaviors in order for those outcomes to be realized or improved?
Selecting a single measure – or a single outcome – influences people to put way too much emphasis on that outcome – the “what” – and not enough attention on the “how” and “why.”
The “what” becomes the goal - then come hell or high water your participants will achieve that outcome.
Ethics be damned.
Focusing more on behaviors means that your audience will be learning and practicing the things that will eventually lead to the outcomes you want. And those behaviors will begin to be internalized – reducing your need to run the incentive in the future.
And you’ll worry less that someone will go rogue in the organization in order to hit their “numbers.”
And... by the way... this issue is compounded when the award value is too rich for the behavior/outcome you're targeting.
Today I received the following email from Sonar6 (See image below.) Their tag line... "performance reviews that don't suck." Gotta love it.
Full disclosure - I met the principals a couple years back and had dinner with them and fellow FOT'ers @Kris_Dunn and @jessica_lee ... the Sonar6 team were great guys with a great approach to HR software. I am a non-attorney spokesperson and no compensation was provided.
The Email
Here's an image of the email I received... (click image to go to the video.)
Why I like this...
First...
Like they say in the email - creating the video was a great team-building activity. I'm sure they had discussions around what was important, what should be included, how to present that information. If you think about it - that's a great way to garner alignment and agreement on your business proposition. At the end of the day - their 3-minute video was what every employee should know and believe about their company. What a great way to ensure alignment. Wouldn't it be cool if they did a series of these vignettes - each around a different value they bring to the table - create a library of who they are and what they bring to their clients - great engagement... great training asset.
Second...
This is also a customer engagement tool. They are sending out to their customer base a real picture of who they are and what they do. Real faces, real voices, real stuff. Not edited and committee-written emails, brochures, website links, etc. This is who they are. (okay - some editing - would have been better with an outtakes trailer... )
One Email - Two Results
In my mind this is a great way to kill two engagement objectives with one stone. Engaging employees with the company mission, values, proposition - and the customer with a real connection to the people who they may just end up working with. What a great way to pull people into your "tribe."
One more thing...
Could they have assigned different teams with the same task and done some sort of incentive with awards for best video?
Possibly - but I think the idea of doing the video and knowing it would be used to help the company is reward and recognition enough. This IS one of the places where incentives may keep employee teams from being authentic and real - forcing them to worry more about technique and style - ultimately, defeating the purpose of the exercise.
Check it out... and ask yourself - what's your video?
Recent Comments