Rewards can be powerful things. Designing them is not a job for amateurs. Poorly aimed and carelessly fired, they can do damage. I like the image evoked by Dan and Chip Heath when they compare incentives to a jet engine: "There's no question that the engine will take you somewhere, fast, but it's not always clear where. Or what you're going to mow down on the way."
Work today, regardless of the job or employer, is a complex thing. Employee performance and contributions are rarely as straightforward and easily discerned as we like to pretend. A number of bloggers, both inside and outside the Cafe, have reinforced this point over just the past week.
Cafe blogger Jim Brennan reminded us that mentoring is a key to talent development and long-term organizational survival - and that we fail to appreciate and recognize those who do it at our own peril.
In yesterday's Cafe post, Derek Irvine shared the story of Tom to demonstrate how critical it is to recognize those who contribute consistently and support the success of others, even if they aren't the ones putting the highest score on the board.
And Bob Sutton, in his Work Matters blog, warns against "winner take all" incentives that lavish rewards on the select few and leave ordinary performers with just the crumbs, and notes the climate of cheating that such programs can promote.
Strong stories and sound advice. And if there is a common thread running through all this advice about rewards, I would submit that it is the imperative of balance.
Effective reward design must carefully sense and balance all sorts of competing priorities and tensions, including (but not limited to):
The greater team versus the individual
Results versus behaviors
Short-term versus long-term
Quantity versus quality
Speed versus service and attention
"Stars" versus supporting players
Critical skills versus all other skills
If there is one immutable law of reward design, it is that pushing too hard in one direction or the other, toward one desired end at the expense of another, invariably leaves unhappy unintended consequences in its wake.
So, better doggone well have the know-how and take the time to map out and appreciate the full lay of the land, including all those competing interests and priorities. Better have a pretty solid idea of where that jet engine is likely to go when it takes off and what else lies along that path, at risk for being mowed down. Failing that, you got no business designing and implementing rewards, Bucko.
It's a balancing act, baby, and no place for amateurs.
Ann Bares is the Editor of Compensation Café, Author of Compensation Force and Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting services to a wide range of client organizations. She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School and enjoys reading in her spare time. Follow her on Twitter at @annbares.
Comments