Editor's Note: Derek Irvine shares a Classic cautionary note on how well-intended employee recognition can go wrong.
All employee recognition is good, right? Unfortunately, no. I’ve heard (and shared here) several stories of recognition gone wrong. Indeed, when it goes horribly wrong, it causes the opposite of the desired effect, demotivating employees and causing them to further disengage.
Yet, in my consultations with leaders in global industries, I find people wedded to “how we’ve always done things,” unwilling to make a strategic change even in the face of proof after proof of the wisdom in doing so.
For example, one common employee recognition program rife with opportunities for demotivating employees is the very traditional Employee of the Month. The two most typical challenges with Employee of the Month programs are what I refer to as “Teacher’s Pet” and “Who’s Turn Is It?” In the former, the same people tend to win again and again, leaving the vast majority of employees disheartened at best. In the latter, employees know the “winner” is merely rotated through the ranks each month, regardless of performance.
Then I read this article in the U.S. National Law Review, making a strong case against Employee of the Month programs for these reasons and more (including the liability of potential discrimination lawsuits):
“Employers frequently utilize recognition programs as a way of rewarding employees for a job well done and boosting office morale. 'Employee of the Month' programs ('EMP'), however, can sometimes have the opposite effect and can actually become liability traps for employers if not run fairly.
“Although competition can sometimes drive performance, it can also create unnecessary hostility. As a practical matter, most workers fall into one of three categories: the good, the average, and, the barely-making-the-cut. Assuming the EMP is truly based on performance, then the employer’s 'good' employees will always win. This reality will likely only dishearten the 'average' employees and will do nothing to encourage those barely making the cut. On the other hand, if the award is simply passed from one person to the next so as not to leave anyone out, is it really even a reward? What if no one performed particularly well in a given month? In that case, is giving an award encouraging mediocre performance? For these reasons, many HR professionals question the effectiveness of EMPs altogether.
“Another common problem with EMPs is that those who receive the honor often do not understand what they did to earn it. Whether the award is for having the highest sales in a given month or for a good deed to a fellow employee, without set criteria, the award may appear arbitrary. In the workplace, arbitrary can often be mistaken for discrimination.”
Instead of relying on old stand-bys like Employee of the Month, consider a more strategic approach to employee recognition. What’s the difference? Strategic employee recognition hallmarks include:
- Recognition based on company core values or strategic objectives – Employees know the criteria for being recognized, and every recognition moment reinforces what’s most important to your organization’s success in the recipient’s daily work.
- Target 80-90% of employees recognized annually – Recognition based on your core values is one of the fastest ways to influence your company culture and refocus all employees on top priorities. This cannot be achieved if the same 10% of top performers are the only employees receiving recognition. Expand the “winners’ circle” to include 80-90% of employees who are touched by recognition.
- Encourage everyone to recognize excellence in others – Even the best managers cannot see every good thing happening on their teams. Empower everyone, regardless of role or level, to “catch someone doing something good” and recognize them for it.
What’s your opinion of Employee of the Month programs?
As Globoforce’s Vice President of Client Strategy and Consulting, Derek Irvine is an internationally minded management professional with over 20 years of experience helping global companies set a higher ambition for global strategic employee recognition, leading workshops, strategy meetings and industry sessions around the world. He is a leader in the WorkHumanmovement and the co-author of "The Power of Thanks" and his articles on fostering and managing a culture of appreciation through strategic recognition have been published in Businessweek, Workspan and HR Management. Derek splits his time between Dublin and Boston. Follow Derek on Twitter at @DerekIrvine.
Good article, which prompted some funny (but relevant) reminiscing.
Parking where I work can be a challenge, with employees sometimes seemingly having to park in Delaware and then walk to their desks (in Maryland). For ten years, I voluntarily surrendered my senior management parking pass, that (would have) allowed me to park "close" - and gave it my employees to use for a full month, as internal recognition of noteworthy performance in the prior month.
This worked well, because I picked the first recipient, but the subsequent recipient was required to be picked by each succeeding pass holder. There were a lot of repeat recipients over the years - and once or twice I did have to "intervene" and remind everyone that the pass wasn't supposed to just "rotate". Consequently, some folks never received the pass, but there was general agreement regarding the FQ (Fairness Quotient) of this.
At least a couple of folks were canny enough to realize and observe that besides just a means of conveying recognition, another goal of this peer approach was to reinforce on everyone . . . that doing performance evaluation can be "hard". Who knew?
Posted by: Chris Dobyns | 08/01/2019 at 11:49 AM