Some experts advocate employee engagement, others are strong believers in motivational strategies. But one does not necessarily exclude the other. There can be circumstances where even an engaged employee can use some extra motivation. Having an overall engaged team should be the main goal of every leader. Engaged employees are a true asset for every organization, especially in difficult times. There is, however, quite some confusion about the difference between engagement and motivation. Engagement comes from 'within'. It is having belief in the 'cause'. Engaged people do what they do because they believe it is the right thing to do and not necessarily because there is a reward waiting at the end. A prime example of engagement is volunteer work. There is no payment involved, it takes up a lot of time and it is very often ungrateful work. Yet most volunteers do it with passion and perseverance. Because they believe in what they do. Engagement has everything to do with commitment.
Here is where the confusion starts. When we talk about motivation, we distinguish two different kinds: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is in fact exactly the same as engagement. It comes from 'within' and it has to do with the joy or fulfillment a certain job or task gives the person, rather than the reward it will bring. Extrinsic motivation is triggered by external factors. As soon as those factors don't exist anymore, the motivation will be gone as well. The opponents against motivation strategies are against extrinsic motivational measures like incentives and reward programs and they are absolutely right. Reward programs are counter productive; they usually have a negative return-on-investment in terms of money, employee satisfaction and retention. What is there against Reward Programs? Let me share my own experience with you. I started my career as a sales rep for a company that sold copiers, faxes and printers.
As often the case, we got paid a commission on top of our - quite low - base salary. On top of that, the company had a few 'reward programs' running. A program for the most sold units in a given period, a program for the most 'new business' and a few more like these. The worst one was the 'Sales Person of the Month Award'. What do these reward programs bring? Nothing, really. Guess who always won these rewards? Correct, the people who were always in the top already. Guess who didn't even try to get one of these rewards? Correct again, the ones at the bottom. They knew up front that they would not stand a chance against the top performers. And guess who tried a few times but never got the 'prize' and became de-motivated? Right, the people in the middle. So was it motivating? For sure it was, for the group who didn't need to be motivated; the top performers.
They might have sold a bit more but once you are at the top, the room for improvement becomes smaller and smaller. It didn't do a thing for the bottom performers. They were 'untouched' by these programs. It did do a lot for the group in the middle though. That is the group where every sales manager can 'score'. They have potential and a lot of room for improvement. And what did it do? Exactly the opposite of what the program was invented for. They knew that they contributed to the company and they saw that they would never get 'rewarded' for their contribution. How motivating is that? I hear some people say already:"Then they should make it to the top! Then they will get the rewards as well!" I can score 110% of my target but if other people score 115%, does that make me 'average'? No, it doesn't. No matter how great your group of sales people is, there will always be a number one and a number last.
No comments:
Post a Comment