Incentive Intelligence

Where To Apply Gamification In Your Incentive

A few weeks back I posted on gamification.  My intent on that post was to warn companies about turning a strategic recognition program into a "game."  I also said gamification could be considered when looking at incentives.  A great conversation followed in the comments.  Take a look when you get a chance. 

For those that don’t click over the net-net was this...

Strategic recognition isn’t a “game” and shouldn’t be positioned as such (I do, however like some of the psychological principles involved in game design and those can be part of the program.) 

Making strategic recognition too much like a game takes away some of the value (IMHO – some would argue – but I think they’re wrong…)

When/How Game Mechanics Apply in an Incentive

However – I DO think game mechanics are valuable in an incentive application for a variety of reasons – shorter term, more focused on transactional behaviors not values and more esoteric things.  The fact is, although we in the industry didn’t call it “gamiifcation,” we’ve included many of the elements of game mechanics in our programs for years.  We just didn’t have the foresight to call it something cool.

To give you an idea of how game mechanics CAN be used in an incentive program I point you to this post (I’m gonna steal liberally from it.)  It’s one of the better summaries I’ve seen on how to incorporate game mechanics in a corporate initiative to drive behavior.  The author, Roan Yong, consults with companies on using these principles in the Knowlege Managment space.  His post is about using game mechanics to influence behaviors to increase knowledge sharing in a company – a problem many companies have. 

The Basics

The author outlines how game mechanics impact our reward center in the brain and makes us WANT to keep playing…

• Showing progress through visible “progress bars.”
• Including long and shorter term goals in the “game.”
• Rewards for efforts – not just outcomes.
• Rapid and frequent feedback – even if it is negative.  Think of games where you die if you make a mistake.  That is negative feedback.  But we learn and continue.  The key here is that the failure is safe – you’re not fired for doing something wrong.  The author calls it a “safe-fail environment.”  I like that a lot.
• Keep them guessing by providing uncertain award – think slot machine.  This is a big one for most companies – they like things to be fair so they shy away from uncertain rewards.  But if you put minimal value on the award – and base it on behaviors not outcomes – you have better chance of it being accepted.
• Add an element of collaboration – allow people to work together on a task/challenge.  People are inspired and engaged with other people.  The ability to solve a problem with a team is a reward in itself.

The author then goes on to show how to incorporate those elements to drive knowledge management activity.  The recommendations are solid and I’m reprinting them in whole below so you can see how they can be incorporated into a specific objective – sharing knowledge.

• Establish Points System. If someone in the organization captured her knowledge, give her some points. This gives her some sorts of reward for capturing knowledge.
• Establish Hall of Fame, and ensure that it is visible throughout the organization. Hall of Fame would allow people to compare themselves against others – which would build up healthy competitive spirit. For example, the high scorers would be given ‘lofty titles’ – such as KM champions, evangelists, guardians. And the top ten in the list would be featured in the organization newsletter.
• Show the Impact of KM activities. Establishing Hall of Fame is not enough, people may not see the value of outscoring each other. Unless, they are able to see the impact of KM activities to the organization, or to themselves. Consider illustrating the benefits of KM activities in terms of time saved, productivity gained, increased innovation. Better still, translate knowledge capture in terms of personal development. In gaming, this is called ‘leveling up’.
• Make Types of Rewards Uncertain. An element of uncertainty is what makes people keep on going. The key here is to keep people guessing on what kind of rewards they would get. So, consider giving random rewards. It is important to avoid giving financial rewards such as salary increment, or bonus payment. Instead, tell people that they can expect either one of these: (1) Appreciation Lunch with Senior Management; (2) Time-off; (3) Employee of the Year award; (4) More training opportunities; (5) Additional points during performance review.
• Give Rapid and Frequent Feedback. In gaming, when you are inexperienced, your character would die often. These instances of getting killed are part of the rapid and frequent feedback mechanism. This kind of feedback system, spur people to learn. In the same way, people who are inexperienced in KM activities should be given rapid and frequent feedback. For example, they should be informed of how many people downloaded (or using a Facebook term – liked) the knowledge capture documents.
• Give Autonomy. In gaming, gamers could accomplish missions in various ways. That’s why gaming is so engaging! In the KM world, people should have the freedom to capture knowledge using methods that they prefer. Rigidity kills intrinsic motivation.

Now think about your own organization goals.  Which one would benefit from adding some form of game mechanics into the process?  I’m thinking most of them if not all of them.

Substitute your goals/process into the above list and see if you can create a “gamified” solution.

 

Related articles

• Incentives You Can't Keep May Be More Effective (i2i-align.com)
• Gamification of Incentives and Recognition (i2i-align.com)
• Susan Scrupski: A world of sloppy thinking, part 2: Journalism | Gamification Research Network (gamification-research.org)

Incentives You Can’t Keep May Be More Effective

Traditionally, incentive programs were designed around the idea of “do this get that.”  It’s been an axiom of program design.  Give people a reason to do something and they will do it.  Mostly, we’ve focused on our inner Gordan Gekko and assumed participants are rational and will do the things that maximize their personal ROI on the effort required to earn an award.

And, except when badly designed, these programs work pretty well.  Actually, when badly designed they work even better – but to the detriment of the whole versus the individual… again I’ll cite Wall Street as our cautionary example.

But new research is showing that maybe, just maybe, awarding people with stuff they can’t ever use or own is better for the person earning it – and better for the company offering it by actually spurring higher levels of performance.

Prosocial Incentives

Yeah, you read that right – a new term that I’m sure will be bantered about with the same frequency as “gamification” – is an incentive that, to quote a recent article in the Washington Post on the idea, is

“a novel type of bonus spent on others rather than on themselves”

The article highlights a study done by Harvard Business School, the University of British Columbia and the University of Liege.  To pull from the Washington Post article:

First they researched how the recipients “felt” about themselves after earning the proscocial award and the results:

“…Compared to people who did not get the charity vouchers, the employees who donated $50 said they were happier and more satisfied with their jobs. (The opinions were unchanged among those who got the $25 donation.)"

They then looked at actual performance (‘cuz hey, we don’t really care how they feel do we, we just want to know if the results were better)…

"They decided to study the effect in both sales and sports, giving Belgian pharmaceutical sales teams and Canadian recreational dodge ball teams money. Some were told to spend it on themselves, while others had to spend it on a specified teammate. The researchers found that those who had to spend the money on other teammates performed better, in terms of sales made or games won, than those who spent the incentive on themselves."

The author does note (as I do in a lot of these cases) that this is an academic study and didn’t really control for the myriad of variables within a larger organization but it is an interesting guide post for program design. 

Something for us to consider – if not implement.

Our Recommendation?

I’d recommend you do both – create a win-win-win.  Award the individual with something for themselves – and add a little sumptin’ sumptin’ to the award they can then use on someone else. 

Recipient wins, the social target wins, the company wins.

Pret A  Manger Has a Different Take On Prosocial

The article also references Pret A Manger’s unique recognition strategy which I think is pretty cool too…

"And 'when employees are promoted or pass training milestones, they receive at least £50 in vouchers, a payment that Pret calls a "shooting star,"' Clifford reports. 'But instead of keeping the bonus, the employees must give the money to colleagues, people who have helped them along the way.' The message? You didn’t do it alone, and need to recognize those who helped you get there."

Nice way to really cement the idea that “we’re all in this together.”

Ask yourself – could you do this in your company?  Should you?

How would this impact your next channel incentive program?  If your company has a charity they support – or if your client has one – why not tie some of the awards earned in the program to that charity or cause and connect the earner to it through awards.

I’m not talking about just throwing up an “option to redeem” for charity contributions – I’m talking about you being prosocial and making it an automatic thing – 5% of earnings go toward a charity.

Is this something you’d be willing to do?  Would taking 5% from a budget allocated to awards and moving to social causes really cause a program to fail?

Or, as this research suggests… cause it be more successful?

I’m in the latter camp and think you should be too.

And a video treat for those that might want to consider social responsiblity and including "prosocial" incentives... (video embedded - RSS and email subscribers may have to click through to see video.)

 

 

Related articles

• Engagement Update - No Summer Vacation Here! (enterpriseengagement.org)
• Should You Run an Incentive Program? Free Download. (i2i-align.com)

How Visualizing the Current Economic Woes Can Affect Your Incentive Program

Everyone is aware (I hope) that the current economic situation is tough.  As a country, we’re in debt.  We continue to deficient spend.  And we don’t really have any good answers on where to get more money or where to cut our current spending. 

Maybe I should rephrase, we can’t “agree” on where to get more money or where to cut.  We all have our opinions.

But this isn’t a political post – it’s about numbers and how we perceive them in our brains and how that might just affect your next incentive program.

First... Let’s Start With the Economy

The numbers are big.  Very big.  And we don’t do well with big numbers.  Our human brains were designed to work with much smaller issues – how many people in my tribe, how many saber tooth tigers are chasing me... that kind of stuff.  There’s even something called the Dunbar number that says we can’t effectively handle more than roughly 150 personal relationships.  We don’t do BIG numbers well.

Our economic situation is similar...

The federal government will take in $2.173 trillion in 2011 and spend $3.818 trillion.  We will take in $1.645 trillion less than we spend.  And we owe $14.2 trillion already.

Big numbers.

What does that look like in numbers we can all understand ... simple.  Divide by 100,000,000 (as if we could understand that math either...that’s ONE HUNDRED MILLION!) and you get

• A family that is spending $38,200 per year.
• Their income is $21,700 per year.
• The family adds $16,500 in credit card debt every year in order to pay its bills. 
• The family already owes $142,000 on their credit cards.
• After a long and difficult debate among family members, keeping in mind that it was not going to be possible to borrow $16,500 every year forever, the parents and children agreed that a $380/year premium cable subscription could be terminated.
• So now the family will have to borrow only $16,120 per year.

Starts to make a little more impact.  Nothing changed but the number of zeros.

Our Brains Need Smaller... but not too small

Blame it on evolution or the public school system but we don’t handle the big (and the very small BTW) well. 

And your incentive program may be plagued with the same problem.

Telling a sales person to sell $100,000 more by year-end may not have the same effect as showing them how making 4 more calls this week will result in one more sale.  Those are numbers we can deal with.  Those make sense.

Any incentive that is 12 months long and includes large numbers (read: goals) may not be as impactful as a shorter-term program with smaller goals (even if the sum of all that is the same.)

Work with the brain – work with your people to create programs that fit the way we think and behave.

Or... just keep putting goals out there that they ignore anyway – hoping someone they don’t know calls and orders one big humongous number of widgets so they can get the trip to Hawaii.

 

 

Related articles

• Asking People to Perform May Increase Performance. Who Knew? (i2i-align.com)

Asking People to Perform May Increase Performance. Who Knew?

Incentive programs provide rewards for hitting specific goals.  Typically, the incentive program will announce the requirements and as you perform and hit the specified hurdles, you earn awards – points, credits, what have you.

Your points are good for merchandise, gift cards, travel, you name it. 

All good in the hood right?

Maybe not.

Maybe you could enhance performance by simply asking a question before you start the program.

Prediction = Increased Prediction

A recent post on the FutureLab site talks about research into consumer activity and to quote the post:

"Research shows that if you want to get people to do something, you should ask them to predict if they will do it. An affirmative answer greatly increases the probability that they will follow through."

The research highlighted in this article goes on to say...

1. Ask customers about their intent to buy your brand or product. Even this small step (mere measurement) will have a positive effect.
2. Get an affirmative answer. Plenty of studies show that if a person states a positive intention, they are more likely to act on it.
3. If possible, get a public or tangible commitment. This may not always be possible or even appropriate, but if it happens it will further increase the probability of future action.

While this post is all about consumer behaviors – getting people to “buy” – why wouldn’t the same hold true for incentive and performance programs?

Commitment and Consistency

We’ve talked about these social psychology triggers before.  People like to remain consistent with their past behaviors and commitments.  Prediction is a form of commitment.

So...couldn’t you increase the chances of your audience following through on program goals if you hit them with a double whammy – asking them if they will participate and hit goals – and reward them when they do?

It’s not really a new idea...

In the days before electrons we used to send out a commitment card to the participants asking them to commit to the program and complete a wish list of items they might want to redeem for out of the award catalog.  We’d also offer bonus points for completing the card.

Little did we know we were ahead of the curve. 

So... Now go back to the three points highligted above...Take out the words “buy your brand or product” and replace it with “participate in the program and earn and redeem points for awards.”

This doesn't have to be only for incentive and reward programs.  Any performance issue you want to focus on can take advantage of our human desire to be consistent.

Before telling an employee what to do - ask them if they think they CAN do it.  Ask them if they think they WILL do it.  Ask them to predict outcomes.  These questions can increase the odds it will happen.

Ask and ye shall receive. 

 

Related articles

• Sometimes the Incentive Industry Surprises Me (i2i-align.com)

Gamification of Incentives and Recognition

I had a conversation with a reward and recognition professional the other day.  They asked me “what do you think of gamification in the recognition world?”  The implied addition to that sentence was, “versus the incentive world.”

My response... “Not good for recognition.  Good for incentive.”

He said – “y’know – that might make a good post.” 

Aaaaaannnnnnnd here we are.

What is Gamification

You’d have to be one of the actors in the GEICO commercials to not have heard about gamification.  Gamification is the new black.  Gamification will cure hiccups.  Gamification is the new “it” girl. 

And like any idea – it can be used for good – or evil.  Here’s a link to a pretty robust article on the gamification craze. 

From the post...

Gamification is:

The use of gameplay mechanics for non-game applications. The term also suggests the process of using game thinking to solve problems and engage audiences. 

And it is expected to be big...

A recent Gartner report from April of this year suggests as much. Analysts predict that by 2015, more than 50% of organizations will gamify their innovation processes.

“By 2014, a gamified service for consumer goods marketing and customer retention will become as important as Facebook, eBay or Amazon, and more than 70% of Global 2000 organizations will have at least one gamified application,” the Gartner report concludes.

Why Incentives And Not Recognition?

If you don’t really believe or understand the difference between incentive programs and recognition programs stop reading now.  The rest of this post will just confuse you and make you mad. 

Or check out some posts on this subject here, here, here, and here, then come back.

 

Incentives+Gamification = Good

Game mechanics – Points, Badgets, Levels, Leaderboards, and Challengaes – apply many of the influence techniques and social psychology things we talk about here on the site, consistency, commitment, scarcity, social proof.  They all play a role in influencing someone’s behavior and can turbo-charge an incentive program.

Now – time to split hairs – but it’s important. 

You can recognize achievements in an incentive program (that’s good) and levels and badges are those events.  They are recognition of specific achievements. 

But... they are not “recognition programs.”  They are recognition events within an incentive.  (Read that again -important concept time.)

 

RecognitionPrograms +Gamification = Bad

Recognition programs – ones that are driven from corporate culture and long-term business and personal values - do NOT lend themselves to overt gamification.

Here’s why...

First of all – they are already “gamified” – but in a more refined manner.

Think about it.  Recognition programs provide levels of achievement.  Recognition is already about assigning someone to a category whether that be “innovator” or “top sales” or “top service rep.”  Recognition programs rest on some of the elements of the gamification foundation.

But... and this is a big but (I cannot lie,) to add a level of “gamification” to an already “gamified” platform is like – well, adding peanut butter to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.  It is just too much.  It changes the sandwich from something good and gooey to something just gooey.  Adding gamification on top of a high-level recognition program just makes it less good and more gooey.  

Gamification = manipulation. 

If you “gamify” a recognition program – start layering in things that take away from the core values you dilute the real intent.  The real intent of a strategic recognition program is to reinforce a culture – reinforce core beliefs and tenets.  Gamification, in the word itself, communicates that the system can be manipulated.

In addition, gamification is about short-term – it’s about the “next step” – not the big picture.

Strategic corporate recognition programs reward bigger issues than a simple behavior.  Recognition programs – the strategic kind – not the little employee of the month parking space kind – require a more dignified approach (IMHO).

Can you use gamification in an overall recognition strategy?

Sure. 

Will it communicate that you don’t take recognition seriously and you think it is a game to be played versus a business approach to be lived?  Yep. 

Will people be engaged?  Yes. 

Engaged in scamming the system to get the badges, levels, etc., not to be recognized for their connection to the mission and values of the company.

Gamification takes the focus off the outcome and places it squarely on the game.  Recognition should focus squarely on the outcome and take the focus off the game.

So... if your incentive supplier wants to add gaming elements to your incentive program say “Tell me more.”

If they want to add gamification to your strategic recognition program, well, as they say in “The Holy Grail” – RUN AWAAAAAAAY....

(Video below from "The Holy Grail" - some may say NSF, but I think it's okay.  Email and RSS subscribers may need to visit the post on the website here.)

 

 

 

Related articles

• Maritz Says Game Dynamics Will Revolutionize Employee Recognition (prweb.com)
• Combining Recognition Awards & Games in the Workplace (awardemployees.com)
• Major Difference between Incentives or Recognition Programs (awardemployees.com)

Sometimes the Incentive Industry Surprises Me

I have gone on record here that the traditional players in the incentive industry really need to think about their long-term viability. 

Traditional companies have seen the market get tougher and tougher as their business model get’s disintermediated squeezing margins, software vendors encroach on their space, new award options are developed by outsiders, and thought-leadership is usurped by just about everyone.  All things that point to an industry resting on its laurels. 

Loyal readers know I don’t recommend specific companies (our model is about program design – not fulfillment) but I’m not against highlighting companies that I think are doing good stuff.  In the past, I’ve referenced, Globoforce and I Love Rewards – and now I need to add MotivAction, LLC to my list of companies to watch.

The Big Deal

MotivAction, LLC out of Minneapolis, MN recently issued a press release about a new platform for their award programs and I really like the concept.  Called “The Big Deal” (might want to check with Shanter - I wouldn't want to get on the real Big Deal's bad side) – this new patent-pending technology adds a layer of game play and special access to the traditional earn and burn strategy employed by most companies.

"The Big Deal" in a nutshell...

Paraphrasing their recent press release: 

Companies pick specific activity goals.  Once those goals are achieved by the program participants, they “unlock” access to specific, time-sensitive deals on awards.  The deals are determined by the client and are communicated via the program website, email and mobile communications.

The key here is that the “award” is not only the points that the participant would normally earn for activity in a program – but the access to deals.  The participant isn’t just working to earn a “point” – he/she is now working to be one of a select few that can get behind the velvet rope and redeem their points for lower priced awards.  Leveling up so to speak.

I’ve not seen the process in action but I can guess that what may be offered in the catalog for $100 in points could be offered through “The Big Deal” for say $75 in points – but only for a limited time and only if you hit specific metrics in the program.

The Real Win Here

While MotivAction seems to be selling the “deal” aspect (ie: lower point values on awards) I don't think that is the real win. 

The real win is increased program performance.  Here's my thinking...

1.  Scarcity – By establishing a threshold for access to the deals you increase desire. 

We all want something we can’t have.  Another Cialdini principle in action!  By making access limited – you increase focus and attention on the goal thereby increasing program performance and the influence the program has on results. 

In addition, making the offer time-sensitive (short term) it increases the scarcity factor.  Not only is access limited based on my performance (I got in and you didn’t neener, neener) but I have to redeem within a time frame creating an urgency that normally doesn’t exist in point award programs.  And that means...

2.  Redemption = Engagement. 

Many companies see unused points as a positive thing especially if they are in the old model of bill on redemption – meaning they don’t pay until someone actually orders an award.  However, unused points are really a big negative.  When participants redeem they get to experience the award and the feelings that award brings them.  No one ever got excited looking at a bank statement (well maybe Bill Gates does) – but put a 55 inch LED TV in the living room around SuperBowl time, and you got a party! 

Redemption is the surest sign your people are engaged in the program.  This new twist on the program should increase redemption – which in turn should increase engagement with the program.

3.  Redemption = More Performance. 

I’ve said this before – when you have big balance of points in your program bank account you don’t need to perform.  Why?  You can redeem any time.  But as you spend down those points and experience the thrill of the new doodad or that trip – you want to do it again.  But you’ll need to earn more points (positive feedback loop or vicious circle?  You decide.)  In either case – redemption begets earning.  It’s a fact.  The more I redeem, the more I like it, the more I need to earn to redeem again.

The Big Deal creates more reasons to redeem and therefore should increase the reasons I need to earn and ultimately – increase the results of the program.

4.  Increased program communications.

Traditionally incentive programs have stayed on a standard schedule of one communication contact a month.  It’s what we did when we printed everything and in many cases it’s what we did when we went electronic.  This program creates additional program communication triggers.  I would think they would communicate the “deals” when they are announced, when people are close to unlocking a level, when the time for redemption begins and ends.  All events that require an increase in the amount of communication with the participant about the program.  That is a good thing.  The more I talk about the program – the more the participants are aware of it and incorporate the earning possibilities into their daily behaviors. 

So... “The Big Deal” by MotivAction, LLC – nicely done folks.  Nicely, done.

 

Webinar – June 14 – Total Rewards or Total Costs? You decide.

Next week on June 14 at noon EDT (my daughter’s birthday BTW – hey honey – happy birthday!  She doesn’t read my blog but I’ll get credit for the shout out I hope...) I’ll be hosting a session for the Human Capital Institute on total rewards and how to look at your organization’s planning and decisions around influencing employee behavior.  You can sign up (hope you do) here – noon EDT on June 14th.

Total Reward = Total Costs?

Total Rewards has been somewhat of a buzzword – and somewhat of a misnomer.  In most cases the total rewards discussion is really about repackaging “total employee costs” in a new light with new graphics and new spin.  In other words – take what we spend on employees, change the title so it reads like something the company is “rewarding” the employees for, and viola – we’ll make the W-2 folks feel guilty for complaining about their low salary.

I know there are many who do the total rewards thing right – but many, many companies aren’t changing the way they view rewards in their organization – they are just changing how they communicate their costs.

So what am I going to cover?  

A lot really. I’ll hit on the big stuff – how compensation is pretty stagnant.  How the economy is making every organization look at the way they engage their employees with a much different filter.  I’ll talk about other ways to influence behavior (other than compensation.)  I’ll highlight how compensation (monetary that is) can decrease performance.  I’ll talk about how cash compensation is only one part of a reward strategy and depending on goals, organizational level, and time – how you should adjust what you think of in terms of rewards.  I’ll offer up a way to help you make decisions on where to spend money on compensation, where to use recognition and when to look at non-cash incentives.  It’s a pretty all-inclusive model if I do say so myself.

While the session will probably hit on a lot of what I’ve written about on this blog over the past 5 years – it is all condensed into a pretty short window on June 14th.  Think of it like a 1-hour incentive energy drink... one shot without that bloated feeling.

I hope you tune in – and I hope you engage.  

Related articles

• Impersonal Incentives Are More Expensive (i2i-align.com)
• Standing Next to Einstein Doesn't Make You an Astrophysicist (i2i-align.com)
• A Great Example of A Bad Incentive (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)

#HRevolution - Pre-Test? Channeling Jerry Maguire...

I predict seismic activity in and around Atlanta on April 29, 2011.  That's when HRevolution 2011, HRE3, HRevolution Tres - will be a-happenin'.  

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.

I'm leading a session called - Designing for Influence.  

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?)

 

Thnanks!  I'll see you at HRevolution 2011.

Related articles

• Supporting the #HRevolution and Other Activities of Note (i2i-align.com)