Incentive Intelligence

Vendor Recognition – Enlisting Additional Business Intelligence

What if you knew what the next big thing will be for your industry?  What if you could almost predict where your new market will be?  Wouldn’t it be great if you could figure out, before your competition, what your current customers (and a few non-customers) would be looking for 6 months, a year or 2 years from now?  Yeah.  That would be valuable information.

Early Warning Signals

One thing I’ve watched happen in the many different industries (including the incentive industry more than once) is that we get caught flatfooted on many changes (big and small.)  We spend so much time worrying about how we’ll make money this week, this month, this quarter – we forget to pay attention to how we will make money in 5 years or 3 years or even 2 years. 

But I know one way to help mediate this issue.

Recognize your vendors.  Yup.  Your vendors.

Outside the Wall

Employee recognition has fast become the initiative of the week.  My google alerts are constantly pinging with a new blog post or article about recognizing employees to reduce turnover, increase recruiting effectiveness, cure the common cold.  Employee recognition is now standard.  And, if you’ve paid any attention at all here on this site you know we are firmly in the “pro recognition” camp.

But many companies still ignore a critical reference point for business success.  Vendor relationships.

The Evil That Provides Insight

Vendors should be considered part of your recognition ecosystem and should be evaluated and recognized regularly. 

“But, vendors aren’t real people.  They are there for us to beat up for price concession and take advantage of when the bar bill comes around.  Why should we spend anytime recognizing them?  They’re just a necessary evil – they’re just, well, vendors.”

Vendors Are People Too – and Smart Ones

Here’s why your vendors should be part of your recognition strategy...

1. Many processes, products, sub-assemblies and services are being outsourced today.  Companies are focusing on their “core competencies” and leaving the non-value add stuff to someone else (read “vendor”.)  I’m sure you’ve got more vendors today than ever before.  Your vendor performance is as critical to your success as your employees are.  In fact – many vendors spend more time in you offices than your employees do.  Keeping them focused on your goals and objectives is too important to leave to chance.
2. Vendors work with other companies.  They see what you don’t.  They see what many others are doing.  They are an early warning system for new applications and ideas.  They are working on a variety of opportunities that are probably adjacent to what you do and can provide interesting information on what is going on the space you occupy.
3. Vendors are people too.  They will help those that help them.  Treat them like crap – they probably won’t tell you a competitor is considering a new process or procedure that could shave millions off the cost of their service.  Why should they?  You’ve been taking advantage of them and treating them like a stray dog.  They will simply let you continue to make mistakes, charge you for them and wield the specter of “out of scope” when the changes hit.
4. You spent time and money doing the due diligence to find the smartest, best vendors (or for those enlighten companies – partners) to help you be successful.  Why spend that energy to get the best and brightest working for you and then treat them like crap?  Doesn’t make sense for employees –doesn’t make sense for vendors either.
5. It’s the right thing to do.  It’s just plain good manners my friend.

I’ve probably not spent as much time on vendor recognition and reward as I should.  In fact one the largest engagements we did this year was all around how to best recognize vendors to drive future business.

Vendors Are Really Employees With W-9s Instead of W-2s

Vendors are a more important part of your business success than ever before and should be an active and important part of your recognition strategy.  They will appreciate it – and when they appreciate you – they help you.  Running an effective and visible vendor recognition and reward program will pay dividends for years to come.

So – next time when you meet with vendors for lunch or drinks – at least pick up the freakin’ tab. 

It’s the right thing to do.

 

 

Related articles

• Don't Launch Your Recognition Program If Leadership Sucks (i2i-align.com)

Where Do You Fit on the Engagement Adoption Curve?

In 1962 Everett Rogers came out with a book called Diffusion of Innovations.  In that book he outlined the process he thought governed how new ideas are adopted by a population – specifically consumers.  He also categorized people based on their “adoption” timing.  Geoffrey Moore built on this concept and applied it to businesses in his books Crossing the Chasm and Dealing with Darwin (and others - highly recommend them all!) 

Rogers outlined five different adoption categories as follows: 

Innovators	Innovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation,  take risks, are the youngest, have the highest social class, are very social, have closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other innovators.
Early Adopters	This is the second fastest category of individuals who adopt an innovation and they have the ighest degree of opinion leadership among the other adopter categories, typically younger in age, have advanced education, and are more socially forward than late adopters. They also are more picky with their choice of adoption than the early adopters.
Early Majority	Individuals in this category adopt an innovation after a varying degree of time. This time of adoption is significantly longer than the innovators and early adopters.  They are waiting to see what the early adopters are doing.
Late Majority	Individuals in this category will adopt an innovation after the average member of the society. These individuals approach an innovation with a high degree of skepticism and after the majority of society has adopted the innovation.
Laggards	The last to adopt an innovation, show little to no opinion leadership, have an aversion to change-agent. Laggards typically tend to be focused on “tradition.”

For whatever reason, this idea popped into my head the other day and I started thinking about reward and recognition strategies and how we engage our employees (and channel partners for that matter.)  I realized that companies also fall into an “adoption” curve when it comes to engaging and rewarding/recognizing their employees.  Unfortunately, it’s a skewed curve – and that can be a problem not only for the employee – but for the company as well.

Technology Adoption Curve

The curve Rogers designed included what he thought was the percentage of the population that fell into each category.  He used a “normal distribution and the curve looks like this:

I looked at that curve and asked myself – what strategies and techniques currently being used by companies to engage and drive employee performance would fall into each of the categories?  In other words - which of the techniques being applied are innovative and which are old and tired.  The chart below shows what I quickly came up with (feel free to argue/add to this list in the comments.)

But when I looked at the curve it just didn’t look right.  When I think about the companies I talk to and the conversations I have with industry folks - companies are not following a normal distribution when it comes to adoption of engagement ideas. 

In fact, based on my decidedly unscientific take on the industry, I would suggest that the curve for adoption skews heavily into the late stage adoption groups like the curve below.  The red boxes show the percentage of companies I believe are in each of the categories.  Again – argue/comment below – love to get your feedback.

Why?

Now the big question – why do you think the curve skews so far to late adoption?  My take:

Too much to lose if they are wrong. 

In consumer worlds, trying a bad idea rarely breaks the bank, but in the business world a company that invests a lot in untried and new ideas runs the risk of going out of business.  Espeically in the HR world where either you can’t (or won’t) do some sort of pilot testing to see if the new idea has merit.

No Focus on Employees

Part of me thinks that too many companies just don’t get the idea that people are the new competitive advantage.  They still think great marketing, great products, opaque pricing and asymmetric information is the path to success.  Unfortunately, they forget there is no great product, great marketing, great conversations without people.  And technology has eliminated the whole asymmetric info thing... just google it.

They Aren’t Desperate Yet

Desperation makes people do amazing, scary, unbelievable things (can you say 127 Days?.)  While I don’t think any of the ideas that are “new” are scary – they are amazing – but many companies won’t change ANYTHING until they absolutely have too... and then it will be too late IMHO.

Find Yourself on the Curve

Check out the curve – check out the definitions.  Are you a laggard, early adopter, or a late majority?  Then go ask someone else.  They will tell you the truth. 

Remember – 90% of the people surveyed think they are above average – so does your company – so do you.  But I’m suggesting being average is being behind. 

Look at the left side of the graph – those are the things you should be talking about – not whether you should give Mary Employee of the Month because she hit the time-clock 19 out of 20 days on time.

Comments, ideas, thoughts? 

 

Incentives And Wellness - Always A Conundrum - Tweet Chat #co_health

Last week (March 21st to be exact) I participated in a tweet chat on how incentives can impact wellness programs/initiatives instituted by companies.  Sponsored, managed, held, whatever by #co_health (@femelmed and @chimoose) the tweet chat lasted an hour and was fast and furious.  

@chimoose does a great job of summarizing the chat here on his site "Chimoose Talks Nonsense."  I urge you to go on over and check it out.  If you've ever wanted to know what we think of wellness incentives - that's the place to go.

What You Won't See on the Chat Stream

What wasn't covered in the chat - and probably the most important thing a wellness incentive/recognition initiative should have is... wait for it... INTEGRITY.

What I mean by that is any wellness initiative - whether supported by incentives and recognition or not - needs to spring from the company's (meaning the people in charge) desire to have healthy employees.  The initiative should be about helping and caring for the employees.  If the program/initiative is simply a way to reduce costs (which they do...) don't do it.

Employees are very sensitive BS meters.  They know when something smells wrong.  Running an incentive for wellness just to reduce costs communicates to your employees that you'd run and incentive get people to be unhealthy if that drove your bottom line.  Your wellness initiative MUST come from caring about your employees more than it does from caring about your costs.  

Don't try to cover up a financial program with a wellness initiative.  You'll lose trust and you'll have a difficult if not impossible time winning that trust back.  And that trust will be lost in all areas of your business - not just wellness.

Do the right thing for the right reasons.  Do wellness because you care.

Here's a quick tip to know if you're doing it wrong - if your CFO is the one pushing the program - you're doing it wrong.  

At the end of the day wellness programs are about taking care of people - not taking care of profits.

Check out the recap on Chimoose's site and visit the sponsors’ sites and follow them on the twitters for more information - they are lovely people!

free-range communications - @Fran Melmed

Chimoose Talks Nonsense - @chimoose (aka Greg Matthews)

 

 

Related articles

• Designing Incentive And Rewards Programs - What's the Frequency Kenneth? (i2i-align.com)
• Sometimes a $25 Incentive is Worth More Than $25 (i2i-align.com)
• Rules for Good Incentive Programs (i2i-align.com)
• Webinar - Incentive Design and Wellness April 19 Noon EDT (i2i-align.com)

Standing Next to Einstein Doesn’t Make You an Astrophysicist

I’ve said this a hundred times.  101 today.  

Designing effective incentives, rewards, recognition and influence programs is 1/3rd  Art, 2/3rds science and 1/3rd luck.

Unfortunately, many in the incentive industry believe they can pull the wool over the eyes of potential buyers by “standing next to Einstein” and hoping the buyer can’t tell the difference between them and a real thought leader.  Or in the case of this post on Incentive Magazine - standing next to B.F. Skinner.

A few weeks back Incentive Magazine (full disclosure - I've written articles for them in the past) ran an article called “Designing Employee Reinforcement” written by an Exec from one of the larger incentive suppliers.  The article states:

"We need to adjust our thinking about how we compensate and motivate our workforces. In short, we need to inspire our people in ways that are both effective and affordable. 

A good way to start is to think less about rewarding results and more about reinforcement of positive behaviors required to produce the results. This is a simple and effective methodology that, when deployed properly, can create a positive and enthusiastic work environment."

I am in 100% agreement with those two paragraphs.  Focus on behavior and look at ways to make the environment positive.

Then the author goes insane.

I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!

The article jumps from a good intro to a discussion on the concepts of operant conditioning.

Specifically, the various reinforcement schedules studied by B.F. Skinner in the late 1930’s and further refined through the 50’s and into the 70’s.  If you have spent any time reviewing Skinner’s work you know this... Skinner really did not believe in free will.  

Watch the first minute of this video on conditioning featuring an interview with Skinner.  Pay attention to the comments made 26 seconds into the video... (email/rss readers will have to click through to the post to see video.)

 

 Here's the important piece of information...

“So the pigeon isn’t acting independently.  It’s behavior is shaped by it’s environment.”

The extension of this line of thinking is: the best program design for engagement is a program where your employees aren't thinking independently.

Let me ask this simple question?  Do you really think applying operant conditioning to employees is the best way to get employees “inspired” and create a “positive and enthusiastic environment”?

Standing Next To, Isn’t Being

This article is simply a trick to make you think that because an incentive supplier quotes a famous scientist about behavior, they know what they are talking about.  Standing next to Skinner doesn’t make you right.

I quote a lot of studies and scientific stuff, and in most cases, I will admit if I’m not sure they apply to program design.  I’m always looking for ways to help companies increase the odds of influencing behavior ethically and in a way that benefits both the employee, the channel audience AND the company.  So, I bring up ideas and thoughts based on those studies.  I don't think I've ever recommended that you condition employees (can you say “A Clockwork Orange?”)  I'll be the first one to tell you that the studies are directional - not dictatorial.

Studies and theories are simply jumping off points to help you determine how to best align your goals and your employees.

If you buy the idea that the best way to engage employees is through rote behavioral conditioning than you deserve the program you get – and you deserve the long-term employee problems you will experience.

Engagement Isn’t Conditioning

This article is not only demeaning to employees, it’s demeaning to buyers of incentive programs and frankly – continues to position those in the industry as snake oil sales people that will do anything to sell a toaster or a trip.

Quality influence programs signal the behaviors your company values.  Quality programs reward and recognize behaviors that reinforce your company values, mission and culture.  Properly designed incentive programs communicate direction and allow employees to choose to play and be rewarded.

Operant conditioning can and will drive a behavior.  And that’s great if you want the dog to stay in the yard or get your employees to turn off their computers.  However, if you want thinking, engaged, challenging, happy, innovative and ethical employees - this ain't the right path.  

Forget the “conditioning” and worry about the “conditions”

Spend time finding out what is needed to get employees to WANT to contribute versus listening to this garbage about conditioning your employees like pigeons and rats.  The last thing most companies need is a bunch of drones – pecking away at a dot in order to get a morsel of food or another crystal vase.  

I don’t believe operant condition – no matter if it is effective or not – is a strategy you should NEVER consider.  And frankly – I don’t think it will work anyway.  We have free will, we have the ability to understand context and we can tell (usually) when we’re being manipulated.  And when we smell manipulation – we start looking for a way out of that rat’s maze.

Don’t assume because someone is standing next to Einstein they are as smart as him.

Just approach employees ethically and honestly.  That’s what they really want.

 

Related articles

• Designing Incentive And Rewards Programs - What's the Frequency Kenneth? (i2i-align.com)
• A Great Example of A Bad Incentive (i2i-align.com)

Designing Incentive And Rewards Programs – What’s the Frequency Kenneth?

Probably the hardest thing I do on a daily basis is explaining why there isn’t a foolproof answer to the questions my clients ask.

“What works?”  

“How do I motivate my people?”  

“What’s the best way to craft a recognition program?”

“Who should be involved in the program?”  

“What are the best practices in incentive design?”

 

“What’s The Frequency Kenneth?”

My goal when starting this company was to provide honest, unbiased, untainted by award, quality incentive and reward program design services.  I wanted to give my clients what they weren’t getting – and combat what I saw as malpractice by many incentive and reward companies hell-bent for leather to sell you a toaster, a trip, a debit card. (btw - interesting connection to motivation and the REM song - check it here...)

Unfortunately, as Michael Corleone says in the Godfather Part III,

“Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.”

I keep getting the same questions – questions that allow my clients to feel comfortable they are following a plan, a model, a formula.  Formulas make us feel comfortable.  Formulas give us a “foundation”, no matter how weak, for our decisions.  My clients want an answer.  And, unfortunately, the answer many times is “it depends.”  No pat answer

2/3rds Science - 1/3rd Art - 1/3rd Stuff I can’t Control

My canvas is people.  And, as I’ve said at many seminars, webinars, and meetings – people are infinitely variable and therefore don’t fit formulas perfectly.  There are guidelines, generalities – things you can do to increase the odds of achieving your objectives, but there are no rules.  Rules are for physics.  Rules are for children.  Rules won’t work when trying to guide behaviors and drive engagement.  People are just too...different.

The best you can hope for is to know enough about what drives decision-making and leverage as many potential triggers as possible – and even then expect some interesting and unpredictable results.

Frameworks As Security Blankets

Dan Ariely – professor, author of “Predictably Irrational”, and “The Upside of Irrationality” (highly recommend both BTW) – has very interesting video on his blog – I’ve embedded below (email and RSS subscribers may need to click through to see the video.)  I briefly describe the video below so if you want to watch first – go now – about 5 minutes.

 

 

It struck me that like the marketing Execs discussed in the video, many of my clients are looking for “THE MODEL” – the rule book.  But as Ariely says – there aren’t really any models and any model you pick has “some” validity.  Consultants are great at this – find a way to package a thought process – pick some letters – make it fit and viola – you’ve got a sellable solution to a client’s problem.  

Think about Ariely’s model for marketing – FN-LN 

FN Framework = Design  -  Adoption  -  New Products

LN Framework = Attitude  -  Research  -  Image  -   Education  -  Learning  -  Yield

For those of you who haven't seen the video yet... Look at those frameworks – closely.  

Remember the framework was designed and presented by Dan Ariely.  Look again.  

Ah... now you get it.

The “Incentive Model”

The incentive industry has used a few over the years:

• Motivation = Communications x Training x Reward
• Performance = Ability x Preparation x Effort x Will
• Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valance
• Performance = Ability x Motivation
• Effort = Drive x Habit x Incentive
• Performance = ability X motivation X organizational support

Sometimes they go all mathy on you and add the “f(x)” at the beginning and maybe even raising it to a power of some sort – usually something to do with their unique and patentable award mix – making it look more like a “real” formula like this:  

My point here is that don’t look for a formula... look for the generalities that explain as much of our human variance as possible.  No formula, model, construct, will explain our behaviors.  Relegating your motivation, engagement and reward discussion to a formula ensures you will be playing into the hands of the incentive supplier.  Remember who wrote the formula.  What do you think their real intent was?  Drive performance or drive redemption?  Just asking.

So What’s The Frequency Kenneth? 

I don’t know – and neither do they.  I do know this – a formula isn’t the right answer.  A thorough understanding of your particular support systems, cultural history, brand identity, and talent make-up is what really drives program design.

Wait... is that a new model?

Coming soon to a four-square PowerPoint slide near you....

Related articles

• Rules for Good Incentive Programs (i2i-align.com)
• One More Time - Worry About YOUR Employees Not Theirs (i2i-align.com)
• Worst. Incentive. Recommendation. Ever. (i2i-align.com)
• Active Communications VS Passive Communications in Reward and Recognition Programs (i2i-align.com)
• A Great Example of A Bad Incentive (i2i-align.com)

Don’t Launch Your Recognition Program If Leadership Sucks

Your CEO says employee engagement is critical to success.  Your CEO asks you to put together a plan to drive engagement.  Your CEO has read all the blogs (year, right) on engagement and knows recognition is key (it is but...)  Your CEO gives you your marching orders, walks down the mahogany hallway, out the front door of the building to the assigned parking spots for “execs,” yells at the employees having a smoke in the parking lot before jumping in his BMW 760Li to race off to dinner and opera with the local politicos.  

Now what?

Don’t do it!  I’m warning you right now.  Take my advice.  Don’t do it.

No recognition program in the world will drive engagement if the employee population isn’t connected to the leadership of the organization.

Want proof?

Check out this article on the new employee recognition program for the state of Wisconsin.  In theory the program is probably a good idea.  In practice and application – not so much.  

Why?  

The spokesperson is the Guv himself.  And, if you’ve followed any of the political news coming out of the great state of cheese, you know that Governor Walker isn’t the most loved guy right now.  I think this sums up the response to the program announcement...

"On behalf of all of us here in the state of Wisconsin," says Walker, "I want to say thank you to the thousands of men and women who work each day as public servants here in the state of Wisconsin."

To which, one wag responds: "What a clueless moron!" And another: "What a bunch of fascist propaganda." At one point, the guv's video had garnered 10 "likes" and 285 "dislikes," although I'm guessing that if they had their druthers, a lot of those dislikers might have chosen a slightly stronger word.

A reader of this column suggested the governor has "chutzpah" for launching the initiative. "

The lesson here is that any recognition program worth its weight in logo-identified mugs has to connect to “people” in the company.  Specifically people in positions of authority.  A recognition program based on signs and posters has zero impact.

I take that back.  A program based on signs and posters has NEGATIVE impact.  

Uh... Thanks, but no Thanks...

I can only imagine what the employees of the state of Wisconsin are feeling right now.  I’m guessing many are embarrassed.  Some may be actively doing a poor job to avoid being nominated and rewarded to keep themselves from being identified with the program figurehead.  This will not end well.  At least not until the person who is the “face” of the program is respected, valued, liked and most importantly – lives the values of the program.  

Your management, executive management and informal leaders are the face of the program.  Either they’re on board – and living the program - or it is a waste of your time and theirs.

If your CEO is asking for an employee recognition program – and doesn’t give a rip about the employees and everyone knows it - just send all the employees a sawbuck and call it a day.  It’ll be cheaper and faster.

 

Related articles

• The most powerful motivator (empwaynek.wordpress.com)
• Counterproductive Employee Recognition Programs: What Not to Do (brighthub.com)

A Great Example of A Bad Incentive

Too many times I’ve talked about bad examples of incentive programs.  Too many times.  

I keep asking myself why companies still continue to design bad incentive programs?

The short answer - I don’t really know.  Some of it is purely based on the fact that we keep seeing them happen and because we’re influence by what others do we continue to do that.  Until the “social norm” is such that bad incentives aren’t tolerated - there will continue to be bad incentives.  As long as the vast majority of clients hear the same tired shtick about trophy value, Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs, Antecedent-Behavior-Consequences - they will believe that is the truth and continue to reinforce a bad practice.

As long as incentive companies can get richer by designing bad programs they will continue to design bad programs.  But I’m rambling.

What I wanted to address was this post on “Seeking Alpha” - an investment advice site.  They posted today on the new management “incentive program” that SuperValu is installing to hopefully drive performance.  Here’s a link to the full discussion (well done BTW) - but the summary of the plan is:

• For 2012 - 2014 Employees will receive up to 4.8% of the company's market cap increase

On the surface that looks pretty good.  As an employee, if I help the company grow and increase the value of the stock - I can share in the profits.  Sounds like I’m aligned with what Management, the Executives, the Board and all the other stockholders want.

Except... as the author explains in pretty good detail... it is a hugely bad idea.

Here are his points (and keep these in mind because whether you’re talking about a financial incentive or a non-cash incentive - these RULES stay the same.)  I am moving the authors points around a bit to aid in my writing...

Point #1...

The problem with this bonus program is that it is largely based on events that are outside the control of employees. Yes, a company's stock price is correlated with business performance to some extent. But over short periods, other factors can play a much larger role in determining whether a stock rises or falls. Should managers really be paid (or not paid) as a result of Federal Reserve interest rate decisions, OPEC quotas and/or Chinese economic growth? All of these factors and then some help determine the multiples at which stock prices trade, so it seems silly that employees should be compensated based on things they cannot control.

Incentive Lesson #1

Reward things people “DO” - not things that happen when people are doing things.  Big, big difference.  That paragraph says it all.  Say, just for grins - the market bounces back and a rising tide floats all boats.  Do the managers really deserve that bonus?  Probably not.  Look at your own incentive programs.  How much of what you’re basing your payout on is within the manager’s control?  

Reward efforts not effects.

Next Point from the article...

If the stock price just returns to its 2007 level (so shareholders who have owned the stock over this period would end up with no gain), the bonus payout could be around $250 million. This is more than the company has generated in operating income over the last four years combined!

Incentive Lesson #2

TOO much incentive.  The amount the employees could earn is just too big.  It will create unintended consequences.  I did some quick math and based on the total number of employees it amounts to about $1,300 per person employed.  But that includes full and part time across all stores (190,000 employees.)  If you look at just headquarters personnel (2,400 roughly) it comes out to... wait for it... $104,000.

Not sure about you but - that’s a lot of cabbage in this economy.  

Keep that in mind as you read the third reason this plan is bad...

This type of compensation structure results in a misalignment of incentives between shareholders and management and can be destructive to the company.This particular topic has been discussed in more detail before, but the short story is that it encourages managers to take more risks than they otherwise would, because they don't share in downside pain but they make out like bandits when it comes to upside rewards. (Emphasis mine)

Incentive Lesson #3

Combined with #2 - the program isn’t aligned, really, with the goals of the company.  As it stands, an employee can make out like crazy by doing things that in the short run influence the stock market - but don’t really enhance the performance of the company.  

I ran into this once in company that was running a “cost reduction” program with big rewards if they save a lot of money.  Some of the suggestions - Get rid of employee health care.  

Yep... get rid of health care.  Saves the company money, I get a big bonus.  I quit because the company doesn’t have health care.  

Yeah - smart design.

So summing up...

• Align
• Behavior-based
• Reasonable and ethical

Really - you can’t make this stuff up.

 

 

Related articles

• Rules for Good Incentive Programs (i2i-align.com)

HR Anarchy - Our Post on Fistful of Talent

Image via Wikipedia

Just a note to let you know we have a post up on Fistful of Talent today.  One that I like a lot.  Not only does it have a pretty cool image but it links William Golding's classic "Lord of the Flies" to HR practices.

If we didn't have HR making rules for us - would be happier or more miserable.  Before you answer - check out the post on FOT.

Rules Are Important

As with incentive programs, rules are critical to ensure the results you want are the results you get.  Too few - and you chaos.  Too many - you get paralysis.  HR - like good program design - finds a balance between those two ends to create a space where people can exercise creativity and personal control.  

Rules are good.  Just ask Piggy...or Simon.

Worst. Incentive. Recommendation. Ever.

Recently I saw a post in one of my Linkedin Groups about travel incentives that made me embarassed for my industry.  Which group and the author isn't important.  What is important is the description of the program inclusions that made me go "huh?"

Here's the set up.  

Client wanted to cut incentive travel program budget from $600K to $375K.  Incentive designer/Planner presented a $1.6 million budget with busines case rationale that the new program/budget would drive business to the next level.  The client bought the $1.6 million program and sales went way up.  Sales were so good the CEO of the client company held a company-wide celebration that (to quote the post)... 

"that included a video broadcast of the sales team, from their incentive travel destination, telling those employees how much they appreciated being able to exceed sales and margin objectives 'due to your support'. 

The presentation concluded with the Senior Vice President telling the employees, 'No, we can't all be on that trip, but we are all celebrating growth in our business while our competition is meeting to try and figure out who to lay-off".

I'll let you read that again. 

Here is one thing you can count on...

You Will Never Get That Recommendation From Us

I bring this to your attention for two reasons.  

Reason One:

IMHO - It's a terrible idea.  

We would never recommend that the sales people who earned a trip to some great travel location send a "video message" back home to say thanks for the support.  It's one thing to send video messages back from the war - quite another to film 50 tanned, sunglassed, half-baked sales people toasting the folks back home with a 48 oz Hurricane in a logo-identified souvenier glass from Tropical Tommy's Bar, Grille and Tire Shop on some exotic island.

I'm pretty sure all the "little people" back home know they contributed to the sales person earning that trip.  Some of them may even be a little happy they earned it.  Some, not so much.  Sending this message - from the trip participants back home - strikes me as a bit tasteless and elitest.  

Now that's my opinion - and why you'll never see that as a recommendation from us.

However, we might recommend...

• Each sales person send a personal, handwritten note outlining specifically what that individual did to assist that sales person, and the company, hit their goal.  Better yet - make it from their manager with some quotes from various members of the sales team and the Sr. Execs.  Maybe include a gift card as a kicker.  But the note is the real thing.
• Give everyone in the company some much needed extra vacation days (one or two - nothing weird like 30 extra days.)
• Recommendations from their manager to the individuals LinkedIn profiles (if they have them.)

Reason Two:

I want to know what you think of it?  Am I way off base?  Does this makes sense to you all.  Majority will rule.  

Not really - regardless of what you all say I will still think it is crass and demeaning.  But give it a shot in the comments.

 

Related articles

• Webinar - Incentive Design and Wellness April 19 Noon EDT (i2i-align.com)
• Incentive Roll-Over Plan - Or "Don't Run That Same Annual Sales Incentive" (i2i-align.com)
• Active Communications VS Passive Communications in Reward and Recognition Programs (i2i-align.com)

Incentives and the Class of 2011

Graduation will soon be upon us.  Millions of hungry job-seekers will be flooding the market place looking for work. A few of them will find it.  And they might find it at your organization.  And you may be responsible for influencing them, recognizing them and designing incentives for them to guide their behavior at work.

And knowing who they are is key.  But do you?

Last week the company I worked with on a webinar, i love rewards, released something called their “Class of 2011” white paper/research study.  It was profiled on Forbes and in the USA Today. 

When I saw the reference I thought of the Beloit College “Mindset List” started about 10 years ago to help Professors at the school understand incoming Freshman and how they may (or may not) interpret references.  Here’s an example...

How do you think a student would react if a professor, commenting on the lack of organization in a student’s backpack... 

“That looks like Fibber McGee and Molly’s Closet.”

I’m pretty sure many of you reading this have no clue.  I only know of it because my father (born 1928) used to use that when describing my bedroom.  Here’s a link for all of you under the age of 75.

Program Design Is About Them

I’ve only said it 239 times on this site - design incentives and recognition for your audience, not for you.  And your audience is probably very different than you.  Want proof... check out what the Mindset List said about the incoming Freshmen in 2008 who will be graduating this year.  

I’ve picked my 11 favorites out of their list of 70.

Beloit Mindset List 2011

1. What Berlin wall?
2. They never “rolled down” a car window.
3. They were introduced to Jack Nicholson as “The Joker.”
4. Stadiums, rock tours and sporting events have always had corporate names.
5. They learned about JFK from Oliver Stone and Malcolm X from Spike Lee.
6. High definition television has always been available.
7. Smoking has never been allowed in public spaces in France.
8. Tiananmen Square is a 2008 Olympics venue, not the scene of a massacre.
9. MTV has never featured music videos.
10. They get much more information from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert than from the newspaper.
11. The World Wide Web has been an online tool since they were born.

That’s what we call “perspective.”  Get it.  Use it in your program design.