Loading ...
Topic: SAFETY REWARDS
3 Reasons Not to Name an ‘Employee of the Month’
September 29, 2009
Employee of the Month programs are a perfect embodiment of the dysfunctions that can rob reward systems of their effectiveness. The three things I dislike about Employee of the Month:
- Ineffective Motivation. Being named Employee of the Month may be more of an embarrassment than a reward especially for employees who don’t like public recognition.
- Zero Sum Game. When one employee wins Employee of the Month, everybody else loses.
- No Recognition for Others. Employee of the Month systems don’t recognize the efforts of other employees who make positive contributions.
Instead of singling out one person at the expense of others, I’d advise you to devise a recognition system that acknowledges every person who reaches a designated target or standard of performance. In other words, the best rewards systems are those not just where everyone can win but also where “wins” by one individual don’t inflict losses on others.
Story Tools: 
Email This Post
Print This Post
Top
Email This Post
Print This Post
Top
Story Comments (5)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think that is one of the problems I see in America these days. You called the "Employee of the Month" program a Zero Sum Game, where one wins and everybody loses. Why is it that people look at it that way? It's just like people who get angry when someone betters themselves by working extra hard in order to buy their dream car, or went on a nice vacation. Instad of being happy that the other person saved and saved and worked very hard to achieve their dream, people are jealous that they have not made the same achievement.
I disagree. I think that "Employee of the Month" programs offer everyone a chance to think about what they can do to help the company. Plus, each month they are given a good example of what has helped others win such an award.
Our company's "Employe of the Quarter" program has employees nominated by fellow employees but the final selection is made by the president and CEO of the company
(Previously awarded top 10% "president's award")
I agree that Employee of the Month is not a strong motivator. There are obvious problems:
1. It is often a popularity contest (I don't care about the parameters, it still happens)
2. There are usually people who quietly perform, month after month and are never recognized.
3. Workers that toot their own horn/brown nose make sure their actions are noted.
4. A lot of workers are very unhappy about the choice.
5. Some supv are better at bringing their dept/people forward or are very uneven in recognition.
I agree with Allan. I think that most people are motivated to perform for reasons other than the recognition gained in a contest. If those people see their efforts unrecognized because they are not as good at championing their efforts as others or because management feels it's important to spread the recognition around, they are bound to ultimately feel resentment.
There are two distinct issues here. The first is the mentality that we now give all kids who play in a league a trophy. Whether they were 10-0 or 0-10, they are congratulated for "doing their best." The best slogan I have seen read "Second place is the first loser." And, yes, there are times when the person hurt wasn't performing the unsafe act. Life isn't fair.
The second issue is morale. Charlie always wins. Ray never does. Why bother? It is all fixed, right? The reward in and of itself is not the issue. It is the culture. In the right culture not having a reward isn't a de-motivator. get the cutlure right and morale will be right.
Have a cookout, bring in pizzas - mark milestones.
But don't "dumb down" rewards just to be fair. But make sure you communicate -- and challenge people -- to do their best, to 'catch' people doing the right thing and then build a reward system that reflects the culture and the community. Reward one, reward all -- it doesn't matter if there is a VALUE to what is being recognized. If you are 0-10, try harder and quit whinning. If you are 10-0, take that trophy and as a group enjoy the success.
I agree with Alan.
These programs are for entry level management understandings of human behavior. It is kind of high school dynamics at play here. Certainly the real rewards in high performance organizations are not given out this way.
Another way to say it is that some employees are uniquely positioned to win these popularity awards because of the visibility of their jobs. It does not mean they work harder or better than other people. it just means that more people see them working because of the nature of their jobs and they are more likely to get votes because of that, when it is no reflection of the supervisor's assessment of their actual performance and output given to the organization. nice people or "face" people can often get these awards while people doing the hard work, and most of it at that, in the background go unnoticed. Even people who passive aggressively undermine a good management team's direction can get these awards. Intelligent management teams do not award this way, unless maybe everyone is on an equal playing field and popularity is part of the job. This may work for a tiny organization where everyone works in the same building and knows what everyone else does. But it is still a peer acceptance deal. Management should award based on performance and achievement of company objectives.
To me if a system like this is in place, it should be done by a committee of supervisors who review accomplishments and give an award based on real metrics. The can use other subjective measurements when necessary to break close calls or send a message to a higher performer to walks over other people to get the job done.