Daisypickpetal2 I saw this announcement via my google alerts (names, amounts, dates, and in general a lot of things have been changed – but not the structure – to protect the uninformed.)

Someplace, USA — ACME Inc, a leader in (insert any industry you want), announced the grand prize winner of “ACME's Sales Leaders Sweepstakes!” salesperson incentive program during a special event (insert date and place).

Of the XX (number of) qualifying finalists, Mary Makesomemoney (made up name) from ACME Somewhere, USA was randomly selected as the grand prize winner and received a cash prize of $10,000 USD.

From January through June , the program rewarded sales staff for their efforts and recognized the important contribution they make to the industry.

“We are thrilled that we were again able to recognize the efforts of our sales team,” said Bobby Bigshot, president and CEO, ACME. “This incentive program is a great way to showcase our appreciation to the very talented and successful sales associates. We congratulate Mary and all the finalists for their great work.”

Each week for 20 consecutive weeks, qualifying managers submitted the name of their top salesperson in the district for that week. Each Monday, ACME through an independent sweepstakes administrator, held a random drawing where one lucky salesperson was selected to win a state-of-the-art 42” high-definition flat panel TV. At the end of the 20-week period, the qualifying winners, along with his or her sales manager, were invited to attend last night’s event as guests of ACME.  Building on the great results of the 2008 program this is the second year that ACME has recognized the contributions of its sales teams to celebrate the mutual success of the sales person and ACME.

Now – want to play "Spot the Bad Program Design Elements" with me? 

Here we go….

  1. Grand Prize Winner of an Incentive Program – nope – Grand Prize winner of a "if you're lucky you can get something" program.  Yeah – work hard, be number one, but don't think that will get you anything.
     
  2. Weekly random drawings from the group of top salespeople.  Okay – so if I'm the top sales person in District A and I sell twice what the top sales person in District B sold – they could "randomly" win something?  Yep.  Fun to work hard and have someone doing half the volume get the a 42" TV (which by the way – ya didn't need but still have to pay income tax on.)
     
  3. Sales Managers get trip based on someone winning a random award weekly.  Yep.  So – the worst sales manager in the nation could get the trip if one of their people won a  random award one week out of 20?  Yep – great – you can have drinks with Micheal Scott at the bar.
     
  4. As long as I'm tops in sales 1 week out of 20 and win a weekly random award – even if overall, I sell less than last period and potentially sell less than all the other 19 weekly winners, I could walk away with $10,000?  Yep – sweeeeeeeeeet!
     
  5. Inverse of #4 – I could be the top sales person every week for 20 weeks in my district, AND be the top sales person in the entire company and I may not get the $10,000?  Yep – AND you have to have drinks with Micheal Scott at the bar during the ceramony as you watch the lower performing sales person get the award.  Fun huh?

I could go on. 

I'm sure there are some minor details missing from the release I copied and edited that may take away some of my arguments but really folks, this is just plain bad design.  Don't use random awards as your way of rewarding and recognizing non-random work.  Top performers are rarely lucky – they work hard and they do things that non-performers don't do.  A program structured like this – with random awards pretty much all down the line simply drive folks to work only hard enough to qualify for the randomness of the program.

I can see where people get a bad taste in their mouths when talking about incentive programs.  Me too.  Especially when they look like this.

 

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

  • Bohdan Rohbock

    The research I’ve seen suggests that random reinforcement can be very powerful, even if what you want is non-random behavior.
    I’m not claiming this particular design is well done. However, you can get more of the desired behavior with randomly rewarding it, especially once you establish a base pattern with some initial consistent positives.
    If random reinforcement can increase a behavior more than consistent reinforcement, why not use it? What would be the correct time for random reinforcement?

  • http://profile.typepad.com/2of6 Paul Hebert

    I’m am glad you brought up a very important point. You are right – in many cases, having random reinforcement is a great way to maintain a behavior. And as Skinner noted – random/variable reinforcement also has a longer extinction phase, meaning that the behavior will continue longer in the absence of any rewards.
    But we’re not dogs – we understand it and can make the logical connection between getting a variable reinforcement and then getting none. No program runs forever, and the audience knows it. Dogs don’t know if the reward will return or not.So it’s not always as effective as some studies would indicate.
    Also, the idea of variable reinforcement is for reinforcing behaviors – not results. The program I described was about sales results – not a behavioral goal in the bunch. Totally driven by sales numbers.
    Reinforcement does nothing for results – it only works on things I can control – my behavior. If the program were structured in a way that provided a variable payout from $0 to say $25 for making cold calls – no one – not even the top performer would complain. They understand that it is behavior based and random.
    But – move that into the realm of money and transactions – the person reacts very differently. You can’t do a variable commission structure ($1 for this deal and $100 for next and then $2.50) – no one would go for that. In the program I wrote about it was basically a random award based on results. If they had done it based on behaviors – it might have been a better program.

  • http://trueconnect.callidussoftware.com/ Andrew Sevillia

    The problem with your arguement is that it makes too much sense. In order to remain fair and impartial the employer would need to award the top performer in each district with an award fitting their achievement.
    District A sales rep sold 200 widgets while District B sales rep sold 100. District A rep get a trip to Hawaii while District B rep gets a 42″ TV? Nevermind the fact that territories are divided up differently, etc, etc.
    While I agree that randomly rewarding top performers has many flaws it’s the randomness of it that motivates.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/2of6 Paul Hebert

    I can’t tell if you’re serious or sarcastic.
    Incentive programs don’t need to be impartial – rewards are based on efforts (behaviors) and results. Not on fairness.
    I know we give everyone a trophy on the soccer team – but we’re not six any more. We eat what we kill – no kill, no eat.
    However, I will help you learn how to kill – I will reward you for doing things I know will increase your chances of getting your meal. But don’t ask me to take away awards/recognition from those that are doing the right things because someone else isn’t up to snuff.
    Randomness only influences those that can’t earn based on their effort and takes away and desire to succeed from those that typically are top performers.
    Next time raises are awarded would you want someone to spin the wheel or would you want a raise based on your work output? How would you perform if you knew your raise was a random event? You’d only work hard enough to get a shot at the wheel no doubt.

  • http://deltaorg.wordpress.com/ George A Guajardo

    Randomness does not motivate.
    This poorly designed reward program is not an example of a variable ratio reinforcement schedule. Not only are behaviors not being reinforced, but only a single individual gets reinforcement.
    If it is a yearly event, then at best it is some weird sort of variable interval reinforcement schedule which is not all that effective.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/2of6 Paul Hebert

    Thanks for the comment George. You saw the thing I didn’t and you’re right – Only one person is getting the reinforcement and therefore isn’t doing anything for the rest!

More in Uncategorized (283 of 817 articles)