This is my third time at #HRevolution - a "learning, laughing and linking" conference. I shudder to even call it a conference. It is more like a mash up of say... The Hangover and a Science Channel documentary (without the tiger and without Morgan Freeman.) Still major cool though.
The main idea behind this track to help HR professionals learn some of the tools they have available for influencing behavior in their organization. After all, HR is continually tasked with guiding behavior in the organization through recognition strategies and communications efforts targeting all employees.
I want to help you do that more effectively and more efficiently.
But First ... I need you to help me help you.
If you're going to HRevolution I'm asking for input.
HRevolution was built on the concept of the audience driving the conversation. This is a meeting about you and your needs. I want to be sure I do that right.
So ... below is a short, 5-question, survey that will help me get my head around what it is you want to get out of the 90 minutes we have together.
Feel free to add anything in the final text box... remember - this is YOUR session... I'm just priveldged to be allowed to be in the room with the cool kids.
(If the form doesn't show up in your RSS feed or your email subscription - try the post on the web site here. If that still doesn't work - try this link... somethin's gotta work no?)
Mergers and acquisitions are common. But they can be risky. Therefore, a lot of effort and work goes into looking at financial data and systems/technology issues as well as branding and marketing synergies. What isn’t obvious – or at least talked about – is the need for understanding the social networks at play in the companies being considered by the buyers/sellers. At least it hasn’t been obvious in the stuff I see in my reader and in my ongoing searches.
Example – 1+1+1= 1
A little while ago, we received a call from a company that was soon to be going through a “merger.” The parent company owned three companies they were combining into one big entity. Each of the companies had their own culture and “way of doing things.” The person who contacted me wanted to talk through how to structure a recognition strategy so that they could begin reinforcing the “new” culture of the organization. Smart move on his part. I applaud him for thinking about it before the merger and not after the merger - when the problems would have been bigger and more difficult to address.
Each of the three companies had their own recognition program in place. Each had their strengths and weaknesses. Each was tied to the individual company mission/values. In their own right – each company had done a good job. The client wanted to know how to combine the three programs.
Our Recommendation... Step One - Social Network Analysis
We recommended – before any program design work was started - they do a social network analysis of the employees to find out who is connected to whom. We wanted to identify who in the three companies where both connected internally and externally. We wanted to know who our potential allies and foes would be when the program was finally designed. We wanted to know who had real social influence – not just “org chart” influence.
I say “we recommended” because Josh Letourneau (follow him on twitter @jletourneau) from Knight & Bishop and I collaborated on the proposal (mostly so I could take advantage of his smarts – I really got the best part of that pairing!) Josh does great stuff in the SNA world and we thought we could combine his skills identifying the players with our skills designing the program with the players.
Josh and I explained that if we could identify these “internal and external connectors” we could leverage their influence in the design of the program, evangelizing the new program structure and connecting within and across the three merging organizations and increase adoption of the program. These “connected” folks are critical. They are the ones that others will look to for opinion. And if they are connected both within and across organizations – they can have maximum impact. There are always those folks in a company whose opinion drives other’s opinions. These are the folks you want to know about.
Step Two – Enlist the Connectors as Co-Designers
Our goal was two-fold – first, use the connectors as our ad hoc “design team” so that we could get their buy-in on the program design/strategy. We all know that no one thinks their own baby is ugly. Having this group be part of the design process ensures the final program will be something they will speak positively about with other employees. They won’t go out and say “hey, jump into this program – I designed it and it’s terrible.” Not happening. They will sell this positively because it is theirs.
Second – having people who connect within and across company org charts gives us a big leg up on the overall adoption of the new cultural norms. They are our “virus carriers” so to speak. If we had only picked people that connected within an organization the new culture virus might not spread to the other companies involved. However, by picking those folks who are both connecting within and between – we get the best of both worlds and we can expect the positive work-of-mouth to be big.
Don’t Play the Game Until After you Pick Your Players
So the moral of this little story – If you’re trying to create a single company culture that is the result of a merger of cultures – find your trusted connectors first and enlist them in the design. Don’t design and then deploy without involving your best line of offense.
By-The-Way – this is a good strategy for any major change in any initiative at your company. Enlist the people who influence others but don’t necessarily show up as influencers on your org charts. Truth is, many of those you would expect to be positive influencers are really negative sources of influence.
Plenty of companies have that mean, crabby, socially-crippled Sr. VP of Ops that when he/she says something everyone laughs and assumes it must be wrong. Don't want them "selling" the program.
Find the real influencers before trying to influence. Just sayin...
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!
Sometimes you just read a sentence that sums up 1,000 words. Here’s two that are worth 2,000...
"Sociologist Diane Vaughan calls this the normalization of deviance. When small, seemingly insignificant deviations from the norm, slowly but surely pile up until they change the organization’s culture."
The entire post is good – it talks about how talking care of the small things is what keeps a culture intact.
Too often we think recognition has to be big, bold and beautiful, full of pomp and circumstance, important VPs and banquets.
I’m not against that – it’s a nice touch. But what really, really matters is how much you pay attention to the little things – the things that are easy to not notice. Those are the things that eat up a company culture over time, one little behavior at a time.
And these are also the things that Managers should be paying attention to. It’s not the big, big, big project that has all the Execs on Mahogony Row in a twitter – it’s the little things that managers see everyday that affect the culture. There are more of them in total, and have more impact than that one big project.
Don’t focus on the big, once in lifetime project for employee recognition. Focus small.
Ignoring the small things– both negative and positive – affect your culture more than you think.
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."
Short post today ... watching the Colbert Report the other day and he mentioned, “you can be my +1” when talking with a guest. That linked somehow in my head to recognition awards that involve travel or some sort of party/event/celebration.
What if...
You gave each of the award earners for any recognition award the ability to invite a +1?
What if you had an award ceremony where you highlight the achievements of those receiving recognition and they then had to invite and then talk about how their +1 helped them get the recognition? What if you allow those that earn your top performer travel award to invite a +1 - someone who was instrumental in helping them earn the award. No one is an island. We all rely on others to get our jobs done - and top performers are no different. I'm also guessing Management might just be a little surprised on who their top performers pick as their +1.
Think about the goodwill. Think about the value of extending the recognition outside the confines of the “committee” (I always think Communist Russia when I think of the "committee.")
And this could be used in almost any recognition structure – take Peer-2-Peer programs for example: If you get recognized by a peer you have to add a +1 to your notification or you don’t get the reward/recognition. Or if you have a departmental program – whomever gets the award has to nominate and recognize their +1.
If you think about it – the idea of a +1 for invitations to events is all about picking someone you would want to share that event with. Why wouldn’t that same idea hold for recognition?
I think you should try this.
I think, on a scale of 1-10, it's an 11 (‘cuz that's one more.)
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.
I’ve had a lot of conversations about recognition and rewards programs over the years. Invariably, I’ll run across a company that runs reward programs focused on what I would consider “must have behaviors.”
What is a “must have" behavior for an organization? Here are some examples:
No stealing (and yes that includes inflating your expense reports)
No lying (and yes that includes calling in sick when you’re not)
No discrimination (unless they play Justin Beiber at 11 all day in their cube –I think we can all get behind that one)
Taking Credit where credit isn’t due (unfortunately, poor managers are most likely to practice this one)
In general – “must have” behaviors are minimum standards of performance. Things that are non-negotiable (at least they should be in a quality, values-run organization.) Don’t run reward programs for those activities.
“If employees are generally focused on the benefits of getting things done, will they be attentive to messages about what not to do?”
In order to answer the question they devised an experiment...
Let me try to paraphrase it...
Two groups given anagrams to solve in 90 seconds – six rounds.
They score themselves on success (knew this at the onset.)
Were told they would be rewarded for performance.
They could track cheating via a planted series of letters in the anagrams.
After completing the anagrams but before scoring, groups given a maze to complete – one maze showed mouse getting reward for cheese. The other maze showed mouse trying to complete maze before owl ate him (achieve goal versus prevent from getting eaten.)
Results?
“The results showed that the students who completed the cheese maze were far more likely to overstate their results, and to reward themselves accordingly, than those who completed the maze with the scary owl—82 percent (37 out of 45 participants) and 39 percent (16 out of 41 participants), respectively.”
Weird huh? The addition of the maze with a reward vs. prevention spin, changed results.
Simple Wording Can Be A Factor
They then changed the experiment slightly and instead of the maze, they framed the experiment differently by changing the instructions. One group was told, "This research project is being conducted to advance the ideals and aspirations pursued by applied social science." (reward/promotion.)The other group was presented with this: “Statement of Research Code of Conduct—This research project is being conducted with strict adherence to the standards and obligations required of applied social science." (prevention/compliance)
And again the results showed that those presented with a “reward” scenario were more likely to cheat than those with the compliance/prevention scenario.They also did a version that gave students the opportunity to donate some of their earnings to National Public Radio. Those that were given the promotional instructions – donated more than those in the prevention/compliance group. The researchers saw that as assuaging guilt from earning a reward (and/or cheating.)
So... WTF does all this mean?
I don’t really know. :-)
The experiment is a bit squishy when you try to think of how this would play out in real business life. Which is a problem with all this behavioral stuff done at universities with students (really – who cares if I cheat on an anagram test? But ask Madoff who cares if you cheat in business – the consequences and magnitude are very different – and that affects behavior.)
Here’s what I do know...
Incentives are really choice architectures – when you present an incentive you are asking people to choose to perform – that means they believe the choice is theirs. If you set up a program to reward people for telling the truth – the real deeper meaning is, “tell the truth and earn – but if you don’t want to, that’s fine, you just don’t get a reward.”
Focusing incentives on behavior versus outcomes reduces the “cheating effect” since you are not asking people to focus on a goal per se – but what they do to get to the goal. When you focus on the goal, you communicate "here’s what I want – now go do it (and BTW – you decide how to get there, I’m just worried about the end result.)”
While not perfect, university studies such as this do provide a point of view to consider.
Check your own communications – are you coming at the “must have” behaviors from a “promotion” mind-set – rewarding people? Or are you looking at your “must have” behaviors from a prevention/compliance point of view? How are your programs and/or guidelines worded?
You may inadvertently be giving your employees permission to be unethical.
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.
Recent Comments