Many, many times when consulting with companies on their reward and recognition strategy, I’ll be asked about what the company should add to their portfolio of programs to increase “insert objective here.” I think we instinctively think that in order to accomplish our goals we have to add on to what already exists. We believe something is missing.
I don’t know why we start with addition; maybe because we learned in High School algebra that addition comes before subtraction, we assume this is the case with everything. Unfortunately, reward and recognition program design doesn’t follow the rules most of us learned in algebra class. If you remember (and I had to Google it to be sure) the order that operations are completed in an equation is: parentheses first, then exponents, multiplication and division, then addition and subtraction.
I submit that program design should follow the exact opposite flow. The first thing any company should do is look for the things they should subtract from their portfolio of programs and initiatives – not add.
Most companies have programs, rules, processes, etc., that take away from the motivation – or even the ability – to achieve objectives. But, this is the most overlooked step in the process. And typically, the most painful. All too often the existing programs and processes were someone’s pet idea and removing them is seen as failure. However, when looking to revamp and update a strategy – ripping out some of the old wiring is probably a good idea.
Taking the analogy of the algebraic equations to the next level, here’s how you should look at your rewards strategy:
- Subtract those things that are preventing you (and your people) from hitting goals.
- Add in programs and processes that enable individuals and motivate them to move in your desired direction.
- Divide your awards portfolio up to include those that are directly and indirectly involved in supporting your goals.
- Multiply, exponent (is that a word?) and combine (stretching parenthesis a bit here for my example) by including team incentives within and across departments to get the entire company/division working toward common objectives.
If you think about this, it only makes sense. I cannot multiply or raise my motivation to another level without first having individual motivation. To use another math metaphor (is it a metaphor or an analogy?) – I need to get to the lowest common denominator – the individual.
So, when looking to put in place a program or initiative to guide behavior in your company, go backward – subtract, add, divide, multiply and combine – your result will be much greater than if you try to work it through, based on the logic you learned in High School.
Paul, insightful post – you bring up great points during my first sip of gin and coffee-juice this morning
Essentially, what you’re saying is that you’re forcing the client to use a ‘different part of their brain’, although that’s not necessarily true. In a neuroscience meets quantum physics sense, you’re forcing them to use their same brain, but asking them questions that force their neural networks to fire in a different sequence than their ‘current’ brain is accustomed to (like breaking a bad ‘thinking habit’ that is subsconscious . . . i.e. “Business is War! Aaargh!!!”).
Again, great stuff, Paul!!!
The notion of ‘reverse engineering’ literally forces the brain to think differently about a given scenario. Ironically, they teach this in the military as well – you evaluate a target of opportunity in 2 ways; moving from current time (with the starting point being now) to moving back from future time (with the starting point being right at the moment you secure the target). The process of doing this can be astounding as it forces you to consider risks you may have otherwise overlooked.
P.S. When I first saw the title, I thought you may be delving into rewards & incentives . . . which continue to blow me away, particularly Alfie Khon’s work
Couple of things at work here… yes… starting with the subtraction is the reverse of what you would normally think so it does force you to think differently. It also starts to put priorities around what you’re doing. Taking away a program makes you justify it – if you can’t or can only weakly justify it – it is very obvious.
The backward process is also good at identifying the behaviors that are necessary to achieve a specific business objective. Many times when creating a reward strategy from the “now” you miss the behaviors that drive results (which is what you should focus on.)
Don’t get me started on Alfie. I understand the points he makes but he’s taken research done in an academic environment (schools, and students) and convinced a lot of people that the theory holds in a business environment. I don’t think he’s right.
Ann Bares and I have had a couple of posts on Alfie and his point of view. You can search my blog and her’s for Kohn.
Great post, Paul. Another way to look at this is: “The stuff we’re doing now isn’t working. So let’s ditch it and start over.”
Wally – thanks for the comment. You summed up the post in 14 words. But I’m sure you know how difficult it is to admit that what you’ve done isn’t working – no one will claim failure. But it is sometimes the best course of action.
Good post, but it seems to be a misleading title. In your piece you’re not talking about starting with taking rewards away, but hurdles (ineffective communication, poor cultural traits such as politics, etc.) that get in the way of good performance, which can LEAD to rewards. Does that make sense?
I would also caution against any real-world cases that don’t fit neatly into this model, for strict interpreters/practitioners. If someone were to go off just your headline and start removing reward incentives in a workplace with a lot of employees who have been accustomed to them, and then follow your other steps, I would think a fair amount of chaos would ensue — especially if the proper communication (which itself could take a lot of time to get right to ensure mutual understanding) didn’t happen or wasn’t thorough enough.
Certainly a stimulating post, though! Good HR food for thought.
The main goal of the post was to communicate that just because you have a program it should remain. What I find in many organizations is that there are legacy incentives/recognition programs that were developed in a different time for different needs. But because they have been around for a while they are off limits.
My point is that anytime you want to take a look at the way you influence your audience – in a non-compensation way – don’t start with adding a program right off. Look at what you have and see if there is a program that should be removed first. You may find that once that incentive is removed other things take care of themselves.
A good example is a program for sales volume – established when the company was in start up mode and needed sales fast. Now if your company needs to focus on customer retention – you may want to remove the sales volume incentive since it may be hindering your ability to focus on existing customers.
Thanks for the comment.