I’ve been doing this blog for almost 6 years (that’s about 154 in internet years.) My goal has always been to help companies design the best influence program using incentives, recognition and rewards.
Well, not exactly. I’m providing a bit of an intro section – maybe 20 minutes or so – on the elements of good incentive program design for Virgin HealthMiles. I’ve not used them for a client, nor am I implicitly recommending them but they asked for some support – and I’ll do just about anything to get what I think is truthful and accurate information on incentive program design out to those that need it. I’ve checked out their offering and it’s solid so I feel comfortable being part of their efforts.
Still Doing It Wrong
It is still surprising to me in this day and age of “the google” that so many incentive programs are designed poorly. I have some theories (some involve conspiracies – maybe Coast to Coast AM with George Noory will call?) Hopefully, after this webinar there will be a few more folks with the proper knowledge of program design out there helping me with the cause.
So Paul, what does the webinar cover?
Thought you’d never ask. There are two parts. First, I’ll walk through what designing a good (great?) incentive program takes. The second part with be a walkthrough of how the Virgin HealthMiles platform takes advantage of the elements I described. The cool thing is that I put together my section without input or editing from Virgin HealthMiles – and their section pretty much conforms to what I know should be done– so I like that. We call that alignment folks.
Without giving too much away, I will be discussing...
Why many programs are poorly designed
What incentive planners need to think about before designing a program (and what to watch for when your “incentive expert” supplier makes a recommendation
Some examples of bad vs. good incentive goals
A pretty good summary – call it an elevator pitch – that you should print out and put on your wall to provide guidance the next time someone asks for an incentive design.
I’m looking forward to the discussion and I’m hoping a lot of you sign up and listen in and provide feedback.
I’ll probably put the slides up on slideshare once I’m done so you’ll be able to download my section. I’ll let you know when that happens.
Please tune in – it might save you some time and money at some point. And that’s a good thing, no?
But, prepping for that presentation made me think of the whole incentive program goal setting process.
Typically it goes like this...
ACME Widgets determines its sales goal for the year. Say it is 120% of last years’ sales. They go to the Sales VP and tell him/her the goal. The Sales VP calls the incentive supplier and tells them they need an incentive program to drive a 20% increase in sales. The incentive company comes back with a program design that:
A) Sets a sales target of 90% of the 120% goal (approximately 108% of last years’ sales) and awards points for each sale from 90% of the 120% and then doubles the points after that level (btw - from a design standpoint – the company actually gets an 8% increase before awarding a single point;) or
B) Rewards everyone in the sales force that hits 120% of last year with a trip to Hawaii.
Those are the two basic options. Reward incremental sales in points driving folks to the 120% number or reward everyone who achieves this years’ goal (20% more than last year.) There are variations on the theme but the net-net is the program is designed to get the sales person to strive for the +20% figure.
Paying a Premium for Your Goals
The thing that no one seems to recognize in this scenario is that what the company is really doing is paying a premium to get the sales people to focus on the “company” goals. The 20% increase is not the goal of the sales person. Nowhere in the example did the sales person articulate what they wanted. The entire program is designed around the company needs, wants, desires and goals.
This is a lazy way to do the program. In effect, what you’re saying is...
"Here’s what I want – you go look in the catalog and decide what you want. If we’re lucky – what you want will add up to a 20% increase I want. If not, too bad.”
This is a lose-lose scenario. The company didn’t get their 20% increase and the sales person didn’t get what they really wanted either.
Because the company didn’t find out what their sales people wanted they are actually (IMHO) paying a premium through higher point rewards for sales effort in order for the sales person to shift their attention away from what the individual sales person wants, to what the company wants.
What If It Was About Them?
What if we worked backward on this (and I won’t take credit for this idea... it came from someone I worked with about 5 years ago)...
Ask each sales person what they wanted to accomplish this year. It could be to take a vacation with the fam to Disney, could be a new Harley. Based on their desires, goals, dreams – the Sales VP and the sales person worked together to determine what they would have to sell/produce to get that award. If it adds up to 20% great. If not – what’s the next thing on the sales person’s “to-want” list? Add that to the mix and put that under the first thing. Between the sales person and the VP, they will come up with a personalized list of goals (not the % kind – the personal kind) that, when taken in total across the sales force, will net the company their stated 20% growth figure.
Not each sales person needs to hit 20%. Some may hit 25% growth – based on their needs/wants/desires that year. Others, may only be in the 10% range. I won’t be so Pollyanna as to say you should reward folks for below 100% (unless there is some mitigating factor – like the economy!)
But here’s the kicker... I’ll bet my reputation and my fees on this...(if someone wants to take me up on it) the overall cost of the “wish list” will be lower than the cost of points and/or trips would be from a program designed from the goal “number” backwards. Why?
It has been my experience that people will set higher goals than the company normally does (remember – a lot of the time the number they hit last year wasn’t them at 100% effort – more likely 70% - and they know it.)
When the focus of the sales person’s goal is personal (not some company derived number) it is more desirable.
When someone has a say in the goal development they are more committed – it’s their reputation – not some no-name in Sales Planning or Finance’s reputation on the line.
It’s easy to test this theory. If you have a “points” program or other program in place, go to a few sales people, ask them what they really want, work together to see what they need to do to get that and compare the cost of that to the cost of the points/trip that would (will) be rewarded if they hit that number. Go do it – I think you’ll be surprised.
Does this process eliminate a catalog solution? Nope. The process simply translates a company goal in to a personal one BEFORE you start the program. That is the key influence technique. When the program is announced, the individual is given their list of “desires” – and you track against that list. At any time during the program, the sales person can adjust and manage their “wish list.” Remember – it’s THEIR list now - not yours. That makes all the difference in the world.
Being Impersonal Is Costing You Money
So ask yourself – are you paying a premium on your reward program just so you don’t have to talk to your sales people? If you’re running a program that requires sales people to determine their goals after you’ve determined yours, you probably are.
The next few months will be a bit busy and I thought you all might like to know where you can interact with I2I either online or in person.
First off...HR.com Rewards and Recognition Virtual Workshops - March 30/31, 2011
This week on March 30 and March 31, HR.com is offering a two-day virtual workshop on rewards, incentives, and recognition. The two days are sponsored by a couple of friends of I2I (meaning companies that are doing interesting things in the incentive/recognition industry) Globoforce and i love rewards as well as Terryberry. We (meaning me) are doing a session on March 31, 2011 at 12:30 pm EDT – 1:30 pm EDT entitled: "Recognition and Incentives - Do You Know the Difference?" Surprisingly – most don’t.
A teaser for our session:
Designing programs to influence behavior in an organization are not as simple as “do x get y”, or installing a Peer-2-Peer program. Incentives and Recognition are two different animals. While recognition and incentives may be of the same family but they are as different as horses and zebras.
Strategic intent, program design, earning structure, communication and measurement, differ widely between a well-constructed incentive program and a great recognition program.
Check out all the sessions and if you want (and you know you do) listen in on our session on March 31, 2011 at 12:30 pm EDT.
#HRevolution - April 29, 2011
I’ve written about my experiences with #HRevolution before(here, here) – and I can’t say enough good things about it. The next one is set for April 29, 2011 and it is SOLD OUT. And this time it really is sold out. Initially it sold out but they had so many more requests they added a few more spaces –and they sold out as well.
It’s going to be a great experience for all attendees (including me.)
If you’re attending – I’d love to see you in the room when we host the session entitled: Designing for Influence. I’ll be talking about all the ways HR can influence behavior in an organization and how to help others in the company drive behaviors that support the company – and – support the employee.
My session runs concurrently with sessions from luminaries such as @ChinaGorman, @williamtincup and @Pasmuz (Paul Smith) - so I need all the support I can get...I know the last two #HRevolution meetings were great! This will be too.
EEA Networking Event - June 1, 2011
Scheduled for June 1, 2011 the EEA Networking event is a new type of conference focused on engagement as a top-level, holistic effort that includes customers, employees, vendors and partners. The premise is that you can be more successful as an enterprise if you look at engagement as something you need in all your business dealings – not just customer facing or just employee facing. Success will come from driving engagement with everyone who affects your business.
There will be some things I’ll be helping with from a social media standpoint but I'll also participating in a few discussions and sessions (not sure what exactly but I’ll let you know when I know.)
I really enjoyed the event last year and would expect the same in 2011. Check it out if you think engagement as an overall strategy is something you think would be helpful for your business. Stay tuned for more on this in the coming months.
I know I’m missing a few other stops over the next few months – but those are the biggies. I hope I run into some of you at one or two of these events and please – wish me luck!
I’ve railed against some of the non-cash vs. cash discussions, stating they are red herrings designed to get you to buy one award over another in lieu of sound compensation and reward strategy. You know I believe that cash is one of the arrows within an employer’s quiver for driving behavior. You know I believe there is a place for cash. I like cash. I need cash (phone number and contact info at top of page btw...)
However, it is not always the right thing to do. Conversely – non-cash isn’t always the right thing to do either. You know I believe there are transactional and social relationships inherent in all working relationships and the proper use of cash and non-cash keeps those relationships in their place and keeps you from – as all good Ghostbusters know – crossing the streams.
And you know how I feel about “academic” studies that show a result that is then shoehorned into the real world of getting work done. Most of the time they can’t/won’t translate.
Now they just might...
Well – I ran into a study that does pretty much what I would have done had they asked me to run the study. They used a real-world situation, they tested cash, non-cash and non-cash with a “value” assigned to the award. They looked at both the behavior of the subjects in the experiment as well as their opinions via a survey (action versus intent.) The only thing they didn’t do was put it in an “incentive” context. It was more of a “recognition” context (all you Dan Pink fanboys get ready – right up your alley!) In their terms “a surprise gift.”
But let me give you the background and results and then you can go read the mind-numbing statistics yourself.
It started with this article on Slate titled: “Raises Don't Make Employees Work Harder - But pay cuts make them slack off.” The article references a study conducted to see if pay increases actually impact performance – and if pay cuts hurt performance. The study really ended up boiling down to “Is it better to cut pay or cut people to save costs.” The net-net is that pay increases only positvely affected performance for a very short period, but pay cuts hurt overall performance. They arrived at the conclusion that in order to maintain current levels of productivity it might be better to lay off workers than cut pay across the board to get the same savings.
My concern with their conclusions is that the study explicitly stated that the cuts were completely without explanation. In other words – they didn’t tell the employees why they cuts to pay were being made. That is a huge flaw in the study and one I’d keep in the back of your mind as you read the results. Context is everything. I’d take that study with a grain of salt...
but...
That’s not the good part...
The good part is they reference a study conducted in February 2010 (one of the most recent I’ve found) that talked about performance and the use of cash and non-cash in a real-life situation called “The Currency of Reciprocity - Gift-Exchange in the Workplace”.
"What determines reciprocity in employment relations? We conducted a controlled field experiment and tested the extent to which cash and non-monetary gifts affect workers' productivity. Our main finding is that the nature of the gift, not its monetary value, determines the prevalence of reciprocal reactions. A gift in-kind results in a significant and substantial increase in workers' productivity. An equivalent cash gift, on the other hand, is largely ineffective even though an additional experiment showed that workers would strongly favor the gift's cash equivalent." (emphasis mine.)
Read that again... cash was less effective even though workers preferred it. Is it Groundhog Day on the this blog?
Their premise:
"We hypothesize that, unlike a wage increase, non-monetary gifts or gifts in-kind provide a more salient signal of kind intentions and therefore represent a superior mechanism for the establishment of successful gift-exchange relations. In comparison with money, gifts in-kind are often considered to be more thoughtful and to more credibly reflect regard."
Meaning – non-cash communicates emotions and social contracts – not transactional ones. And that is double-plus good.
The Experiment...
In a nutshell they measured performance under three set ups... cash increase, gift of a thermos (wrapped as if it were a gift – that’s important) and a gift of the same thermos while communicating its monetary value (that’s for all you trophy-value folks...)
Highlighting some important quotes from the study:
"The results show that the nature of gifts crucially determines the prevalence and strength of reciprocal behavior. An increase in fixed wages has no significant impact on workers' productivity. However, a gift in-kind of equivalent monetary value has an economically and statistically significant effect on productivity. Workers provide 30 percent more output on average. Moreover, this effect remains large and significant over the course of the entire working period. In contrast to all existing labor market field experiments, the elasticity of output towards the change in fixed compensation is remarkably high with 1.54, emphasizing that productivity gains exceed the relative increase in labor costs. We replicate the results with our additional control treatment where we explicitly communicated the exact monetary value of the gift. Treatment differences thus cannot be explained by systematic overestimation of the monetary value of the gift."(emphasis mine.)
So all you gift card haters read that again – when the value of the gift was communicated it had no statistical difference in affect. For those of you on the “trophy value” side of the equation – booya! A gift card (a gift with a monetary value) is as effective (in this study) as a gift with no communicated value.
Aaaannnnddddd.....
"In addition, our results suggest that a higher share of perks in the compensation mix can be profitable for the firm because workers are more likely to reciprocate positively to the receipt of perks."
Plus... as I’ve said a million times – what we get on the survey’s isn’t what we see in behavior....
"Despite this strong preference for cash, the gift in-kind has a substantially stronger effect on workers' productivity than the cash gift. This suggests that the monetary value of the gift is of lesser importance than its signaling character."
It’s About Context
To me this signals a huge leap forward in the analysis of incentives and rewards in the workplace. It shows me that there is proof that workers will say one thing and actually behave differently.
It says that compensation establishes the transactional baseline for a job and that awards create a more social and emotional connection which drives behavior.
It also tells me that the process – how you give the award – is critical in how the employee assigns value. If you just dump it in with their pay – you stay on the transactional side of the equation and get nothing for the effort. If you separate it out and provide a “moment” where you recognize and reward – with something other than “pay” – you get a much different – and much more effective result.
Granted they do cover their butts at the end of the study (but what study doesn’t?) when they say...
"While our results show that a non-monetary gift is more likely to increase workers' productivity, it would be premature, however, to conclude that higher wages are generally not able to trigger reciprocity. Given that higher wages are communicated in a relatively neutral manner in our experiment - as well as in Gneezy and List (2006) and Kube et al. (2010) – future studies examining whether there is potential scope for increasing perceived kindness by choosing a more affective framing might be worthwhile. Such framing could render the gift-character of the wage increase salient."
I just checked – this is post 753 for our little blog. Averaging 500 words that’s 376,500 words (including this post) about incentive, rewards, recognition, influence and behavior. While that can’t compete with War and Peace (560,000 english words) or Gone With The Wind (423,575) it does double the count in the Bible (New Testament - 180,552.) That’s a lot of words.
I can't comment on the quality of my words – especially in the context of those other tomes. But I can say this with complete certainty – 99% of the words on this blog were not about selling our services.
They were about helping you understand how you can better influence your audience.
The document (a lot less words than on this blog) is a summary discussion of the input from a Delphi Panel of industry experts and research sources focused on the “evolving body of knowledge regarding the use of incentives and recognition programs to motivate today’s workforce.”
I bring this to your attention for two big reasons...
I was on the Delphi Panel and provided some input into the process (quoted on page 15 of the study by the way.)
They arrived at the same place this firm started three years ago.
And that place is...from the paper, under Conclusions...
"There is little doubt that incentive program design and implementation, including measurement and ROI, is critically important in today’s workplace environment. And while the incentive plan designer must consider the overall context, including the type of worker or team they are attempting to motivate, it is far from agreed that in designing an effective rewards program ─ even for knowledge workers ─ that one or the other of intrinsic or extrinsic, contingent rewards must be used. We are seeing the evolution of an effective blend of both, or a more inclusive approach of any appropriate reinforcer that is contingent, valued, and top of mind.
What is clear from our research, including the opinions of the great majority of our experts, is that incentive, reward and recognition programs must be more tailored today than in the past. Careful design must make allowance for the many different ways in which workers are motivated."
(emphasis mine.)
To net that down for those of you in Rio Linda – design is the key element of program success. Not the toaster, not the trip, not the gift card, not the logo-identified whizzy-whig.
The design.
And design is what we do – without regard for the award (if there is a need for one at all.)
.
Go For The Green
Therefore, to honor St. Patrick – I’m promoting our services – going for the green so to speak.
We analyze and design incentive, reward and influence programs with your goals, objectives and outcomes in mind. We do it via an unbiased approach. We don’t worry about what kind of award (again, if any) is attached to the design outcome. Pure design.
If you want the same thinking we provided the Delphi Panel applied to your organization – call, write, stop by. We’d love to help.
And by the way – overall the document is a well-researched and good summary of what you need to consider when designing an incentive/reward strategy. It gives equal time to incentives – and equal time to Dan Pink/Alfie Koh/Deci et.al. – folks that may not always agree with me. So you got that going for you.
I’ve posted a few times on service anniversaries and if you’re a regular reader you know I’m not a big fan. I think they represent the Henry Ford era of recognition and should be unceremoniously relegated to the dust bin of HR practices.
Some folks disagree with me. (Can you believe that?)
Rather than bury this disagreement in a two-year old post I’m bringing it to the forefront here for further discussion.
Below is the comment on a post I did January 1, 2008. I provided my responses “in line” below each of the commenter’s, well, comments. (I apologize, but for some reason some of the links in the original post are no longer valid and the Magazine article I reference is no longer on their servers. But I repurposed the article here so feel free to download and take a look...)
On to the comment:
“Wow, is this anything like saying to your wife or significant other, "Honey, since most marriages end in divorce, I have decided to not give you any anniversary gifts. And since everyone eventually dies, let's forgo birthday celebrations too. Instead whenever you meet arbitrary goals I set for you, I will take you to a concert, or even better give you a $25.00 gift card to some random store at the mall."
No... I’m not saying that at all. I am saying that if you treat your wife like crap for 364 days each year handing them a gift on the 365th day is a worthless and demeaning gesture. I will say that most marriages might end in divorce BECAUSE they think an anniversary present is the MAXIMUM one should do to celebrate a marriage.
Really, is that how you see service awards? Has it ever occurred to you that a lot of younger generation workers aren't staying with companies because of the lack of appreciation!?!
Yep... they are leaving because a lack of appreciation – on each and every one of the 364 days they don’t get feedback, validation, recognition, direction, guidance and support. So, yes, you are right – but you are totally wrong. That one event every 364 days is not what they are looking for. The lack of one event every other day is why they are leaving and simply lumping them all into one small event every year doesn’t make up for the dearth of recognition the rest of the year.
I am not saying the service award program is the end all, be all. BUT it is an important part of any organizations tools of appreciation.
No. It’s not. It is A tool. And not that important a part. I’d suggest of all the reward options available to company to recognize employees it is the weakest. It is in reality – the easiest award to earn. Think about it. To stay with most companies you need to keep your head below the log and hope you don’t get noticed – either for good performance or bad. People who stir the pot and look for ways to change the company are many times seen as disturbers and they need to be removed. Those that work below the minimum – they get bounced too. What’s left are those that stay firmly in the middle of the pack. Neither great nor good. That’s what most service anniversary program reward.
The key to any successful program is how it is presented and the meaningfulness of the award. Companies can find out what is important to their most valuable asset by giving them a choice of what they would like. Including a token that is representative of the company helps tie that accomplishment to the organization.
Yeah... keep making the choice for your employees and see how many really, really, really like that crystal vase or lapel pin (lapels – what are they again?) And what is the value of that choice each year? Typically it is determined based on the IRS tax code for the maximum allowable deduction - not the value of the contribution. Check it out - you'll see. Most companies determine the award value based on what they can write off. That's recognition at its finest.
These are parts that help create a culture of appreciation.
Thank you.
You're welcome and yes they are part of a culture of recognition. Unfortunately, the worst part.
If the commenter had really read my post carefully (or not so carefully) he would have seen I recommended that service anniversaries be augmented to include growth along with time. I wasn’t ignoring time with a company – I was simply saying that time isn’t good enough anymore.
Time and growth are the criteria. Combine getting better not just getting older.
Okay, maybe adding Charlie Sheen to the headline was a bit of SEO, but in reality, it does have a bearing on this post.
I’ve been doing this incentive and reward stuff for a while and a huge hole in the process for most clients is measuring program effectiveness and measuring what is going on in their incentives applications.
Don’t get me wrong – most incentive companies measure/track sales, apply reward calculations and spit back the points earned and redeemed. They can tell you how many ipods were redeemed and they can tell you how long their customer service hold time was. They can tell you average earnings by person/division/group if you gave them that information. And that’s nice.
But that’s really a report on THEIR business... not a report on YOUR business.
How often do you get reporting from your incentive and reward company that truly affects how you might structure the program? Not often is my guess. Yet doesn’t your incentive company have the data that could provide you better information about your business? They know each person in the program (should probably know where they work, live, and potentially if they are male/female.) They might know who they report too (if you’ve given them an overall feed of employees from HR or in the case of a distributor program, from accounting.) The amount of data an incentive company may have on your target audience could be astounding. But only if you’re asking about it and looking for it.
Charlie Sheen – Top Performer
I bring this up because of a post I saw today on a blog I follow from a company called “Juice Analytics.” They took data on the pay of TV stars in different genres, networks, etc. and created a very interesting visual representation of that data. It’s not too important for this discussion what that data is (although it is interesting) – but what is important is that once the data is turned into a visual – it provides some interesting viewing. I’ve embedded the video below (feed readers and email subscribers may have to click through to see the video.)
Imagine The Discussion...
What if... and this is a what if... you could take this same approach with your performance metrics? Would you make different decisions based on it? Probably. Think about how you might want to review sales performance...
Average by gender (like the video)
Average by channel (in our case it could be distributors, jobbers, dealers, VARs, etc.)
Median by channel and gender? (I like medians more than averages – a better representation of what is really going on IMHO.)
By Product
By Time
Since more programs simply spit out the “normal” stuff – you can only design your programs for “normal” stuff, making it boring. But if you could see your performance information in a different light – it might spark some interesting discussions such as...
If females are redeeming more than males is your award mix skewed?
Are certain areas of the country selling more of Product A but not earning awards? Is there a communication problem?
Do you see any movement in the bubbles when you jump from product to product? Are some people excelling in one area? Can we leverage their expertise in training others?
Did rewards increase during a specific period? Why?
In other words – you could create data charts that show you where you may be missing performance stars that don’t show up on your “average reports.”
Make It Interesting
Charlie Sheen may be a nut ball (although up until this week a very highly paid one – and that is a post of different color) but he is interesting. And being interesting is getting him a lot of attention right now.
Now imagine if you could make your data more interesting (and deeper – c’mon – stop settling for “average” reports from your incentive company – you’re not spending “average” amounts of money on your programs are you?) And if you could make your data interesting would you pay more attention to it? Would you use it more? Would you do different things if you could see information in three or four dimensions versus numbers in an excel spreadsheet or in an Excel-generated pie chart? Probably.
Make the data interesting and you might make some interesting changes in your incentive and reward programs.
A recent article from strategy+business (magazine by booz&co) added another generation to the already crowded room that includes Gen Y, Gen X, Generation Jones, Boomers, and Gen Z.
They are coining the term Gen "C."
Gen C is (to steal shamelessly from the article):
"We call them Generation C — connected, communicating, content-centric, computerized, community-oriented, always clicking. As a rule, they were born after 1990 and lived their adolescent years after 2000. In the developed world, Generation C encompasses everyone in this age group; in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), they are primarily urban and suburban. By 2020, they will make up 40 percent of the population in the U.S., Europe, and the BRIC countries, and 10 percent of the rest of the world — and by then, they will constitute the largest single cohort of consumers worldwide.
This is the first generation that has never known any reality other than that defined and enabled by the Internet, mobile devices, and social networking. They have owned various handheld devices all their lives, so they are intimately familiar with them and use them for as much as six hours a day. They all have mobile phones, yet they prefer sending text messages to talking with people. More than 95 percent of them have computers, and more than half use instant messaging to communicate, have Facebook pages, and watch videos on YouTube. Their familiarity with technology; reliance on mobile communications; and desire to remain in contact with large networks of family members, friends, business contacts, and people with common interests will transform how we work and how we consume."
So there you have it... a new generation, a new problem, a new opportunity.
The s+b article goes on to highlight the various impacts Gen C will have on the world but they left out the most important impact IMHO – the impact they might have on incentive and reward programs.
So here’s my prediction (and please remember – predictions are tough, especially about the future):
Impact of Gen C on Incentive and Reward Programs
Go Mobile or Go Home:
By 2020 80% of the world will be on mobile phones. Running an incentive and reward program – better have a mobile format ready to go. Or an app. You choose, but yesterday’s big, slow, lumbering website won’t cut it.
Travel Awards Become More Valuable:
As we connect more and more on the wires, face to face will be more and more scarce. The increasing costs of travel will also make it less attractive than virtual meetings. When things get scarce they get desireable.
Awards with No Internet:
Travel awards featuring internet disconnect may be popular. Since Gen C will always be connected, time spent unconnected will also be scarce. Awards that provide a disconnected experience may be more important to Gen C.
Award Redemption will Need to Mirror Retail Activity:
From the article... “Ubiquitous connectivity will continue to transform the retail industry, seamlessly integrating the online and offline worlds, and ultimately leading to a form of augmented reality that allows a more elaborate presentation of retail goods.”
Will your reward options be ubiquitous? Will the fit the expectations Gen C has of their “shopping” experience requirements? If you are 2000 and they are 2020 – will they even stop by your store?
Recognition and Reward Networks Go Social:
The article states that ... "Even within the family, the need for physical proximity will be reduced through increased digital interaction. Just as Facebook’s “Connect” buttons are already distributed across 80,000 websites and devices, social networks will accompany people throughout their daily activities.”
How are you integrating your reward and recognition efforts into your participant’s ever-expanding social web? (for a sneak peak check out my webinar tomorrow on Recognition 3.0)
More Digital Information:
As our participants interact more and more online, with and through the channels incentive companies create, what will you do with that information? How will you use that information to design better programs with better results with more connection to the individual? If you’re not thinking about the information that exists in your programs you’ll be thinking about closing your doors.
Less Hierarchy – More Virtual Teams:
Designing incentives for teams has always been difficult. But if the future is close to what the articles says it is – team-based will be the predominate form for incentives ... “As 24/7 connectivity, social networking, and increased demands for personal freedom further penetrate the walls of the corporation, corporate life will continue to move away from traditional hierarchical structures. Instead, workers, mixing business and personal matters over the course of the day, will self-organize into agile communities of interest. By 2020, more than half of all employees at large corporations will work in virtual project groups.”
Not to mention that top-down objectives may go the way of a screaming AOL connection if the teams are setting their own goals and objectives. How do you design for that?
I do know this... it will be different and incentives and reward programs will need to adapt... to pull the closing paragraph from the article:
“Executives must begin now to develop an agenda that includes an analysis of the capabilities and workforces they will need in the next decade and beyond. A critical step will be to make sure that the organization as a whole understands the coming changes, and that there are already people within the organization who are living these changes now, who don’t perceive them as a threat, and who can help integrate them into the organization’s business plan.”
I agree – start asking people how to do this stuff and be prepared.
If a trophy falls on your head in the forest and there’s no one there to see it, were you recognized?
Recognition Is Social
At its heart – recognition is a social event - and the definition of social is changing. That is what we will be talking about on Tuesday, March 1st at 1:00 pm EST.
Opinions are like...(insert your favorite body part)
I know it will come as a shock to many of you readers, but I have opinions. I also don’t mind sharing them. Come to think of it – social media is kinda like crack for us blowhards isn’t it? But I digress.
A few weeks back a Toronto and Boston based recognition company, I Love Rewards, called and asked me about the future of recognition. I told them. They asked would I be willing to go on record with my opinions and of course, I said yes.
A few more chats, a whitepaper and viola – a webinar is born.
Recognition 3.0
When we chat on Tuesday you’ll get a quick overview of where we’ve been with recognition and where I see going in the future. But be prepared – that future isn’t 20 years hence – it’s like next week.
Drawing parallels from the changes businesses have dealt with since the beginning of the industrial revolution (yeah – I go back that far) – to business webs and co-opetition – we’ll talk about how your recognition efforts need to follow that same arc of evolution. I know I found it interesting to put together – and I think you’re find it interesting to be a participant.
I Love Rewards
Now, I don’t recommend one company over another, and I’ve not used I Love Rewards – but their approach to recognition is refreshing and interesting enough to get me to play along with them on this webinar. They are based in Toronto with offices in Boston. I first met them at the HR Technology Conference in Chicago a few years back when that conference overlapped the Motivation Show. I remembered them because I thought it was interesting they eschewed the Motivation Show 100 yards away for space at Bill Kutik’s fete. They do think differently and I think you will find their approach a bit different than a lot of other recognition companies.
Pulling Out My Influence Powers
I want a lot of folks on the webinar Tuesday so I’m going to use my influence super-powers to say this...
Many, many, many people have already registered (in excess of 300) – if that many people think it’s cool don’t you think you should do it too? (Social Proof)
Your Mom told me you should do it. So did Pres. Obama. (Authority)
You like me – right? That’s reason enough. (Liking)
I give and I give here at the site weekly. Post after post, blood on my keyboard from raw fingers – isn’t that worth spending an hour with me on Tuesday? (Reciprocity)
You have always been a forward HR and incentive/reward thinker – that’s why you read this blog. You must remain consistent with that history and tune in to hear about Recognition 3.0. (Commitment and Consistency)
Once it’s over – it’s over. Never to be heard again – kinda like the Beatles performance on the studio rooftop in 1970. Well... not exactly – there will probably be an archived version. (Scarcity)
And to really reinforce it and make you feel bad for not signing up...
5 out of 6?
Sign up - Please...
I have a magic number in my head that I want to hit. When we have that many listeners on the webinar money will start falling from the sky (but only for those that are on the webinar 30 minutes after it starts.) Looking forward to hearing from you all on Tuesday!
A critical element in most incentive, reward and recognition program is communication. I’ll go out on a limb and say 90% of programs in 90% of companies who run them do a poor job by today’s communication standards. Don’t get me wrong – I think they do a good job by 1990 standards.
Some Background
Incentive and reward programs have pretty much always had a communication element to them. The traditional (pre-internet era) communication schedule looked something like this:
Mail Announcement Piece: Four-color, splashy tri-fold with program rules, regulations, legal disclaimers in small print on the back page, highlights of the award options.
Mail Catalog: Sometimes mailed with the announcement, sometimes as a follow up – depending if the award provider had their act together and the new catalog was available at the beginning of the year (most programs were calendar year Jan-Dec.)
Monthly (February through October): mailings to the home, one per month. If you had a client with big budgets this was four color too. Otherwise, probably two-color with some exciting copy designed to get participants to think about the program and the award opportunities.
Quarterly – if you had a really aggressive incentive company they might send a special mailing each quarter designed to get participants into the catalog with wish lists, “find the item” contents, updates and changes.
Monthly (Feb – Jan of the following year): Monthly performance statements showing participant earnings and possible standings relative to other participants.That’s the communication schedule.
Performance Isn’t Calendar Bound
First off- as I’ve posted before, performance isn’t bound by a calendar so communication shouldn’t be bound by a calendar. Why is monthly such a great thing? Could communications be sent based on performance milestones? Send something at 10%, 40%, 50% goal achievement. Or send something when someone does something spectacular. Why wait 30 days to talk about a great performance.
Electronic communication removes the need to do monthly – or calendar-based communication. If your incentive company is still recommending monthly print communications with a few emails thrown in check and see if they have an .aol email address and a “bag phone.”
Communication Isn’t Passive Anymore
The biggest thing to think about is that communicating with your audience in a reward and recognition program is no longer a passive activity for participants. Old school thinking is that the incentive company or the sponsor “owns” communication. They set the schedule, format and content.
They don’t.Today’s communication reality is that the participants own the communication. All they need are the tools to enable that communication. Oh, wait – they have them. Facebook, Linkedin, twitter, Yammer, google – all tools designed for communication and all available to your participants.
What they don’t have is a program sponsor or incentive company that has figured out the best communication is communication driven by participants.
Smart incentive companies and sponsors could really amp up communication by:
Creating hashtags for participants to use on twitter. Monitor those hashtags and create lists to follow, updates and summaries back to the participant audience.
Create a video upload channel for the program – youtube, vimeo, home-brewed. Doesn’t matter. Where can a participant upload their “unboxing” of their award? Right now in most programs – no where. Why not send 100 flip video cameras out randomly at the program onset and ask folks to video recognition events and upload to program site? Ask them to rotate the cameras through the participants base during the program? Hold a contest for best award video and let them keep the camera?
Does your program have a wiki/blog? Is there anywhere were participants can put up their award experiences?
What about group travel programs? Do you let participants upload to flickr? Do award earners share their photos from their group travel award program? Why not?
All Your Communications Belong To Us
The fact of the matter is that communication about programs should be crowd-sourced (with a healthy dose of monitoring and management from the sponsor and incentive company.)
Think differently about how you would like your program talked about and reported within your audience.
Would your program get better results if some nameless “Program Headquarters” sends out a monthly postcard or if Mark and Mary in Accounts Receivable does a hilarious mashup about their reward experience using footage from work and the most recent Grammy awards show (legal of course.)Communication is an active process.
Recent Comments