Making Creative Use of Employee Recognition Programs
Every employee has a need for praise and recognition, and the more often they get it the better. Supervisors are in the best position to give recognition, but few do it often enough--or creatively enough.Government agency award programs seem to do little to drive the performance of public sector employees. In OPM's 2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, only 40 percent of all respondents agreed with the statement that "In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way." (Thirty-eight percent actually disagreed with the statement.) Only 37 percent felt that "Creativity and innovation are rewarded."
Why are public sector employees dissatisfied with their agencies' awards programs? And what can managers do to improve the effectiveness of these programs? These are two of the issues we shall attempt to address here.
One key problem with traditional agency awards is that many public managers rely on them as their primary--if not their only--mechanism for recognizing superior performance. This approach has two key shortcomings. First, employees need recognition more than once a year. So relying entirely on agency awards--which are typically given at big annual or semi-annual awards ceremonies--is simply inadequate. The other problem is the large number of people who are nominated for these awards. While managers may prepare their numerous award nominations out of a sincere--and admirable--desire to reward as many of their good employees as possible, this results in a significant number of employees receiving the same kind of recognition at the same big awards ceremony. The awards, thus, become less meaningful for the top performers, while those employees not receiving awards end up feeling slighted.
The fact that agency awards tend to be given at big annual or semi-annual awards ceremonies poses yet another problem. Since so much time elapses between awards cycles, the awards are typically granted for work that was accomplished many months in the past. This makes for a very weak linkage between accomplishments and rewards, and a general perception that the award is merely for "doing a good job."
In order to make employee recognition programs more effective, it is
crucial that managers: 1) think more strategically about how
to tie awards directly to results; 2) reward employees for great work in a
much more timely manner; and 3) use a wider menu of options for employee
recognition.
Forms of Recognition
There are many kinds of recognition to choose from besides regular agency awards. One of the easiest, most effective--and underutilized--forms of recognition is praise. Many supervisors seem to believe that lavishing praise on their employees regularly will somehow diminish the praise's value. This is misguided. It is extremely difficult to provide too much positive feedback to deserving employees.Other options for employee recognition include non-cash awards (such as logo items), gift certificates, suggestion awards, time-off awards, and even home-grown unit-specific awards (more on those later). All of these kinds of awards generally have streamlined approval procedures to facilitate their use. By using a mix of all these strategies, managers can keep their employee recognition programs fresh.
What Should We Reward?
In an effort to use awards to generate higher levels of performance, some managers have tied awards to the achievement of specific results. In some cases, this has involved introducing an element of competition in the awards programs. Competitive awards (such as awards for the highest productivity or the lowest error rate) can have a positive effect on the performance of many employees.The effects of competitive awards are not all positive, however. For example, competitive awards can distort employee behavior in undesirable ways. For example, an employee who is focused on winning an award for having the highest productivity rate might cut corners on customer service, make too many mistakes, or neglect areas of their work that do not help their statistics. While it is generally possible to counteract these kinds of behaviors, doing so requires a level of vigilance by the manager that is difficult to sustain.
Professor Robert D. Behn of the Kennedy School of Government argues that competitive awards can actually be counterproductive because only a few people can win them. Some of the employees who do not win despite a stellar performance may actually end up demoralized. Rather than grant awards based on competition, Behn argues, managers should provide recognition to all employees who achieve a specific performance target. If the performance target is challenging enough, then there should be no question that all those who reach the target deserve to receive some kind of recognition.
Tying awards to performance targets can be especially powerful in the context of a team environment. Recognizing teams for achieving specific targets or goals can do a great deal to energize employees and promote collaboration within the work unit. For example, if a work unit can win a quality award for lowering its overall error rate to 1 percent over a given period of time, then employees will be likely to help each other find ways to get their collective error rate down to that level. They may even identify some creative, systemic ways to do so. This would work the same for any kind of measurable performance target. The award can serve as a focus for celebrating the achievement of a common goal.
Questions? Comments?
Does your office or agency have any innovative and/or particularly effective methods for using employee recognition programs to drive performance? If you would like to suggest any additional award certificate templates, please email us.©2002-2018 GovLeaders.org
