Motivating with Measures: Accountability, Incentives and the Dark Side

The benefits and risks of using measures for motivation are amplified when employees are made accountable or incentivized.

Measurement and Accountability

Measurement is at the heart of accountability. In the dictionary, accountability has a neutral meaning: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions. This is the denotative, or literal, meaning. In a work setting, the denotative meaning of accountability is a goal that defines who will do what by when.

Accountability in this sense is the basis of management by objectives  (MBO).  While MBOs were popularized in the 1950s, they remain a central element of most organizations’ annual performance appraisals. 

While some objectives are task-based, the best objectives are measurement-based. We have found that the most effective examples of accountability-based motivation use SMART goals—goals that are Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, and Time-bound. Describing expectations in terms of measures at the beginning of a project motivates performance. 

Accountability is a word often loaded with connotations. How would you feel if you were told in a business meeting that you will be held accountable? Queasy? The phrase suggests that you’re in trouble. This isn’t actually accountability—it’s scapegoating. This is a connotative meaning, and the connotations of accountability are negative. The fear of negative consequences can lead to all sorts of dysfunctional behavior.

If the meaning of the measures isn’t managed, then accountability is more likely to instill a culture of fear than it is to motivate employees and support the organization’s strategic goals. 

To motivate with measurement-based accountability, the meaning of the measure must be managed. Use measures to describe expectations before the employee works to achieve results.  Articulate both the formal, denotative meaning (how the measure works) and the connotative meaning (the implications for the employee).

• If you’re building a measurement system, remember that the connotations are probably more important than the measures. Consider how the measures will be seen by employees. Develop a list of actions employees could take to influence the data.  Be sure to include actions that the system intends to encourage as well as unintended actions. Adapt your system accordingly to especially encourage the intended and discourage the unintended.
• If you’re managing employee accountability with measures, be sure to talk with employees about both the denotative and connotative meanings. It’s important to develop a shared vision: This is a true leadership communication task.  If there is clear agreement on the meaning of the measure as well as the level of performance expected, accountability can be positive. 

Accountability is simply responsibility. Measurement can help top build responsibility for results and the rewards or consequences of the results.

Incentives and Measurement

If goal setting and accountability work, why not add incentives to make them work even better? Why not juice the motivation system? Many of us have worked, or currently work, in an incentive system. Sales people work on commission. Managers get bonuses and stock options.

There is a whole industry of compensation consultants trying to create incentives that work. Since the industrial revolution, we’ve been trying to get incentives right—and some of us are starting to wonder if incentives are just wrong.  

Research summarized by Daniel Pink suggests that incentives lead to lower performance in completing tasks that are complex or involve creative thinking. I’m sure we’ll find that this relationship is true in many circumstances. 

I am also sure there are many circumstances in which incentives lead to improved performance, even in complex and creative tasks. As with many aspects of human performance, there are complexities.

Life isn’t one-size-fits-all; there are individual differences and nuances of context that influence how incentives affect performance. Long-term goals, which are difficult to study experimentally, may work better with incentives.  Mr Pink presents the world in black and white; i am confident there are many shades of gray.

There is a bigger problem with linking incentives to measures, however.  Incentives, or consequences, have the tendency to put the focus exclusively on moving the needle—on affecting the data and the measure rather than addressing the underlying goal. Too much focus on the connotations of the measure, as opposed to the meaning of the measure, leads to gaming.

The Dilbert comic strip may seem ridiculous, but as is always the case in Scott Adams’ cartoons, absurdity reflects reality to an uncomfortable degree (many of his cartoons are based on real-life examples submitted by readers). Incentives can have unintended consequences, often encouraging employees to behave unethically. For example, if you were earning a subsistence wage as a packer for Green Giant, and the company announced that a bonus would be paid to every employee who could find and remove insect parts from packages of frozen peas, what would you do? Possibly what many of the employees did—bring insect parts from home to earn the incentive.

There are, of course, more troubling examples of the dark side of measurement-based motivation. In the sad story of system-wide cheating in Atlanta Public Schools, 178 employees, including both teachers and principals, are now suspected of inflating scores on standardized tests to earn the significant rewards that come with rapid improvements in school performance. Outright swindles, such as Bernie Madoff, are all too common.

In sales departments there are more subtle examples of gaming incentive systems. Sales departments have been known to count all sales in the current quarter toward commissions—even though many of the sales are not actually closed. 

Conclusion

It’s dangerous to rely too much on measures for motivation: The more you emphasize measures, the more apt the measures are to cause dysfunctional, even unethical, behavior.  If you need to use measures for accountability and incentives, be careful.  Measures can’t replace management; they are a management tool.  It is necessary to make sure that the measures are reasonable – not gamed – and that accountability is understood and positive. 

Engagement and the Employee Value Proposition

Speak to many consultants and you may hear the suggestion that engagement is a free resource that you should tap and that you should always engage your work-force more—for better results. I encourage you to question this assumption. I don’t think much in life is completely “free.” There is an element of reciprocity involved in all relationships—even employer-employee relationships. Dilbert offers some wisdom about this.

Different Takes on the Psychological Contract 

A psychological contract exists between employers and employees. Historically, the contract was a reciprocity of “lifetime pay and benefits in exchange for loyalty.” This month's HBR has an important article by Tamara Erickson that explains how this contract can be understood by generational differences (e.g., Baby-boomer v. Generation-X). I agree with Tamara.

It is more important, however, that the psychological contract reflects the talent management strategy. This contract is critical to understanding links between employee engagement, talent management, and leadership. In this post, I will describe these links in more depth.

Since the early 1990s, HR pundits have argued about the “new” employer-employee value proposition. The arguments goes something like this: large organizations in a more stable business environment offered continuing employment, pay and retirement in exchange for employees’ on-going loyalty and effort. As the pace of global and organizational change has increased, unfortunately this implicit agreement has been broken. The pundits, however, are still arguing about what will replace the old contract. 

The arguments about the psychological contract can be replaced with a question: “what does your organization need from employees to be successful and what does it offer in return?”   

Fundamentally, the psychological contract is about the employee value proposition.  This value proposition has two points of view: the employers and the employees.  Both must be balanced. Employees must feel like they are getting a reasonably equitable deal, or they will disengage or leave. My colleague Amy Bladen wrote about this in the the April edition of Leadership Excellence (read the article here)

The universal employee value proposition is gone.  In its place are a number of employee value propositions that vary according to organizational strategy, employee class (some employees are more critical to organizational success) and generation.

Organizations can literally balance and harmonize the employers and employees value proposition—try using two columns and write some words.  Be careful, the reciprocal relationship in employee engagement is nuanced! It is important to think about what your organization needs as well as what your employees, or classes of employees, need.  When thinking about your employees’ needs, it must be from their point of view.

Reciprocity and trust are critical to building employee engagement.  Without trust for their leaders and organizational direction employee have no foundation for inspiration let alone energy for achieving the vision.

From the Employers Point of View    

Different organizations need different types of employee engagement and as such the value proposition varies with corporate strategy. To some organizations retaining employees is critical; to others only a few years of intense effort is needed. Yet others need to retain customers and as such employee engagement with the customer is critical. Others rely on employee innovation and skill as the strategy. The list could go on—ask yourself "what does your organization really need from its employees?" In all likelihood you will need different types of engagement from different classes of employees, so you may also ask "are there groups of employees that need to have a special type of engagement?"

Some organizations have a business model based on "employee churn." Life insurance sales organizations have a reputation for paying largely on commission and accepting that a large percentage of employees will leave when they cannot make ends meet. Employee churn is a reasonable business model. Life-insurance sales organizations need producers and they can use churn to find the one out of ten applicants who can actually sell life insurance to strangers (versus selling to family and friends). 

Other organizations have an up-or-out value proposition. These organizations often provide great opportunities a highly stimulating environment and these organizations benefit from hiring younger employees with alacrity. If employees run out of engagement in a few years, more can be hired.

Companies pursuing a product innovation strategy often rely upon skilled employees who have a deep understanding of their product--for example consulting, technology and pharmaceutical firms. In these companies the value proposition has to do with retention and reward of the key talent that enables the innovation-- for example expert consultants, critical skill engineers and R&D/Commercialization professionals. Again, employee value proposition should vary with strategy. 

Also some employees, within an organization, need to be especially engaged.  Consider actuaries in the life insurance industry.  Few life insurance companies want actuary turnover—the few individuals can accurately predict mortality to set insurance rates are rare and critical to a business success.  While high turnover of sales representatives is acceptable, actuary turnover is not. 

Organizations, for cultural reasons, often have a general employee value proposition. Thus, some life insurance companies may overlook low engagement or high turnover. In many pharmaceutical companies, retention-tactics are applied to all employees; these tactics, such as higher pay, lead to higher HR costs.

From the Employees Point of View   
Employees view the world through their own eyes.  As the Tamara Erickson's article highlights, Gen-X employees believe that their employer seems them as “replaceable,” and this colors their interpretation of corporate life. Baby-boomers are more likely to believe in the old psychological contract and act accordingly.

Employees will engage in any organization, even those with a churn or an up-or-out employee value proposition. However, the value proposition must be transparent to earn engagement. 

A leader can build trust if he or she is transparent about the employee value proposition.  I consider transparency to be part of being authenticity. A young and ambition prospective employee is likely to join a leader who says “I’m going to give you an opportunity and it will be challenging. You will learn a lot that will be useful in your career.  If you are successful you are likely to make some reasonable money.”  If, however, the employee value proposition is not made clear some new hires will have other expectations and be disappointed.  This is the basis of the realistic job preview. 

High potential employees may have another worldview.  They may, realistically, see themselves as having more opportunities than typical employees.  As such, they may require more opportunities or compensation in return for their engagement and loyalty.

Implications for HR and Leaders
The challenge for organizations is to understand the links between the value propositions and strategy and then to make the contract explicit. This becomes more difficult when you have multiple value propositions in the same organization. This is where front-line leadership comes in; supervisors need to authentically relate to employees and build trust on the basis of reciprocity. Organizations need to ask themselves:

• "Are our managerial ranks are up to this task?” 
• “Does the organization support supervisors to have authentic relationships with employees?”

As ever, I would like to hear your thoughts.  Does your organization have an aligned employee value proposition? Does your organization have multiple value propositions for different employee classes, or should it?

Charley Morrow

www.SageAssessments.com