I ran across an interesting study of employee award
programs. Award programs are often thought to be a low-cost way to trigger
additional worker productivity (e.g., increasing output, reducing waste,
reducing injuries). The Dirty Laundry of Employee Award Programs: Evidence from the Field
revealed two types of unintended consequences when a reward-scheme was implemented in an industrial
laundry plant.
First, employees
gamed the incentive scheme. Chronically tardy employees amended their behaviour
just enough to avoid disqualification for the awards, but were still tardy.
When ineligible for a reward, they reverted to their prior behaviour. And
employees were more likely to call in sick (rather than be tardy) to retain their
eligibility for attendance-based rewards. This behaviour is not really much
different than the well known effect of “injury-free days” programs, whereby
workers hide injuries to maintain their eligibility for the reward.
Second, employees
with perfect attendance or high productivity saw a 6-8% decrease in
productivity. Although there was no relationship between productivity and the rewards (which were attendance based), the reward system appears to have
negatively affected the intrinsic motivation of high performers (likely due to
perceptions of unfairness).
Overall, the scheme
saw a 1.4% reduction in productivity. This effect meant that the costs of the
program were not covered by improved performance and, in fact, the program
degraded overall performance. So much for a low-cost motivational tool! This study raises some compelling questions, both about the validity of basic models of worker motivation and the utility of "common-sense" HR tools.
-- Bob Barnetson
No comments:
Post a Comment