It is a common belief that people achieve to the degree that they are rewarded … a “do-this-and-you-get- that” management model I call it. The misconception has been heightened by a fascination with leading millennials new to the workforce who we understand grew up with Mr. Rogers and got a trophy just for participating. While we are told that their need for instant gratification is more advanced and maybe it is, but, in fact, we are all motivated by “wiifm”. What we know is that rewards may spike effort temporarily, but a prize for winners is not necessarily good for the whole … or for the long term.
In his book, Carrots and Sticks Don’t Work, Paul Marciano hits the nail on the head when he says “reward and recognition programs can be costly and inefficient, and they primarily reward employees who are already highly engaged and productive performers. Worse still, these programs actually decrease motivation, because they make individual recognition, rather than the overall success of the team, the goal.”
Rewards offered as a prize for individual achievement fall short of programs designed to recognize, as an expression of gratitude, accomplishments achieved by the entire department or division having met the challenge of a new program or change management goal.
People have always craved contributing to something that is worthwhile and, perhaps, lasting. The stories that I share in this YouTube video illustrate how companies that communicate how the daily tasks that people perform, contributes to more than a fiscal result. The result is a more engaged workforce.
Here is the TED ( YouTube ) video of Daniel Pink explaining the mismatch between “what science knows and what business does”.
What is it that business “does”? Business thinks about how to get people to do things. To get people to do things, business “does” incentives. Like … sell stuff, when a trip. Pile up safety points, win a logoed jacket. Pull a lever, get some cheese. Sorry, didn’t mean to infer people are like lab mice. Just poking a little fun by exaggerating.
What Pink “does” is lay out a lawyerly case describing experiments that measure how people perform with various reward devices. The bottom line? Experiment showed that “the secret to performance is not rewards or punishment, but the unseen intrinsic drive to do work that matters”.
Question: Who defines what matters?
Answer: The leaders … the leadership team.
A brief example. How do you “get” people to innovate? One way is … if you want to innovate, go to work at Apple. Why? Exactly – the secret is “why”. What Pink describes as motivating was that Steve Jobs saw Apple as the institution that was all about changing how people lived (how they accessed and listened to music and made technology intuitive). He defined their purpose … their “why’ that made employees pioneers.
That’s work that matters. No cheese required.
Maybe if you are in that Fast Company crowd you fall into that category of those who describe a future where the top three constants are change, change and change. “Get ready, young professional, for 5-8 career changes … not just job changes. “, we hear. I figured that I’m the centerpiece for that trend. As a Boomer, my longest stint with one company was 22 years, although I worked for six companies in my 30 year career prior to starting this business 15 years ago. My dad worked for one company for 34 years. So, true, the trend is shorter stints today. And does that translate into reduced loyalty? Not necessarily, oh–prognosticator– of–old-paradigms!
My view: the world is changing but people have not. Take the subject of loyalty: Maybe people in our knowledge economy, where thinking, not doing, is valued, are just not loyal to the calendar. Actually, that’s pretty profound … for me anyway. I think it is important for employers in any human enterprise to understand that thinkers are likely (more) loyal to meaning, purpose … and contribution to a cause. Hmmmm.
Stay tuned… my next post will uncover how an ad agency “gets it”!






