Incentives AND Recognition - Forbes Article AND Some Thoughts - I2I

A tweet came through today linking me to an article on Forbes online discussing recognition and rewards and their relationship with employee engagement.

AND or BUT

I have a comment on the article. Normally, when taking a position on something like this the process is to say -- "I think this, but I also think this." Adding that little word "but" in the middle of the sentence communicates "the first part is less important than the second."

Try it... here's one for you HR types:

"You are a good employee, you hit 90% of your objectives, we're happy you're with us, BUT, you need to work on "X."

What happened - the focus shifted from the positive to the negative. The word "but" has that effect - demoting what comes before it and promoting what comes after.

I point this out so that when I make this statement...

"I really liked the article on Forbes about incentives and recognition - it has a lot of very important points in it - But, I have a point of my own to make."

Readers will automatically think I'm saying my point is more important or more correct. However, what I really need to say is...

"I really liked the article on Forbes about incentives and recognition - it has some very important points in it it - And, I have an additional point to make."

Changes the whole deal no?

So here goes...

The article on recognition and incentives highlights some important things:

Deploying a recognition program that highlights and rewards company values helps advance your long-term mission and boosts morale.
Money is the currency of compensation, but it is typically far less effective as the currency of motivation or recognition. Why? Because it is psychologically linked to expectation and entitlement, and not to appreciation or recognition for a job well done.
If you address the core of your workforce, engagement will go up across all groups. Don't just shower resources on your platinum performers or senior executives. Spread the wealth. Direct recognition programs at the middle-tier masses and you'll improve engagement company-wide.

All very smart and important points to consider.

AND...

There is one big "misstatement" in the article.

The article states: Incentive programs are contests usually limited to a specific group within a company, such as sales, in which employees compete to win some prize.

Almost all of that is untrue.

More employees than ever are participants in incentive programs targeting everything from on-time completion of projects, wellness, innovation and other specific goals of the company.
Incentive programs are NOT contests and awards are earned NOT won.
Contests are games of chance - while they do influence behavior - they are not incentives.
Contests have winners and losers.
Incentives have earners and non-earners based on individual effort.
Incentives are tied to specific behaviors and specific, individual performance metrics. Or should be. Too often programs are designed as contests, with limited "winners." But these are not incentives.

I only bring this up because there is so much misinformation out there on incentives and rewards - including recognition - that I have to keep bringing up that incentives and recognition are good things - things that need to be considered when determining how to engage and influence your audience's behavior.

The article puts the word "incentive" after the "but" - when in reality is it all about the "and"...

Recognition AND incentives drive performance and engagement in today's workforce.

PS: sorry no image today - couldn't find anything safe for work that tied into the word "but" - you get my drift...