Chad’s Blog-O-Rama

I have noticed an odd trend in employee recognition.

People would rather have nothing then something small. Or so they say.

Most of the complaints I get are when the “gift” was meant to be just something extra i.e. Pens, logo items, small gift cards, ring tones and other “swag.”

I have gotten some surprisingly angry complaints and once even had someone throw the item back at me.

I think that this high standard for employee recognition comes from two sources.

First I think company culture has spawned this. Historically employee recognition programs have been “winner take all” with bonuses for the winner (employee of the month, year etc.) This sets the expectation that when you win the payout will be large.

The second reason for this has to do more with good old fashioned behaviorism.

Skinner and Pavlov teach us that the route to desired behavior includes variable reinforcement.
Suggesting that giving out “stuff” to randomly reinforce desired behavior should get you more of that behavior.

The trouble here is extinction. I am eventually going to stop salivating when I hear the bell if there is no food.

The trigger will only work so many times on its own without a reward to back it up.
In this situation the “stuff” is not seen as a valuable reward and the trigger has faded.
Alright, what do we do about this?

I’ve got 4 ideas.

1. Don’t set high expectations for rewards. For example don’t suggest there will be prizes then give out pens.

2. When possible don’t give out junk.

3. Avoid public winner take all rewards. If you have a large population don’t give out 1 employee of the year, spread the wealth.

4. Wait for the system to work. Don’t give up these things take time.

These won’t work in every situation, it’s still ok to give out candy or swag in training and employee of the month may work in small organizations.

As with training it is important to understand the needs, in this case the wants, of your target group.

When the subject of education comes up I often find myself explaining what exactly it is that my MA degree is in: Industrial Organizational Psychology or I/O Psych for short.

Some times I say its the Psychology version of an MBA (a bit of a stretch), other times I say its workplace psychology, or maybe I say its applying the principles of Psychology to the workplace, then give some B.F. Skinner based examples.

The Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology (SIOP - pronounced “syop”) gives its members brochures to hand out when asked what I/O is. http://www.siop.org/visibilitybrochure/siopbrochure.aspx  My favorite explanation below:

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists contribute to an organizations success by improving the performance and well-being of its people. An I-O psychologist researches and identifies how behaviors and attitudes can be improved through hiring practices, training programs, and feedback systems.

I am embarrassed to say that it took until my senior year of college to realize that the “I” and the “O” doesn’t just mean that we will work for Industries and Organizations but have much deeper meanings.

Industrial Psychology loosely defined is the hard numbers side that is selection, productivity, statistics, and things like that.

On the other hand…

Organization Psychology is the mushy stuff. Motivation, teambuilding, change management, that sort of thing.

The idea is that a degree in I/O Psych gives you a well rounded view that will provide that tools needed to change the world…. or at least improve performance in an organization.

I am going to the SIOP conference next week and to be honest I am looking forward to being around people who will not respond to my explanation of what by saying “well you should come to my work there are lots of crazy people!”

By now everyone has heard the story about a corporate trainer type using waterboarding as a sales training tactic. You’ll be happy to know that apparently it has not hurt sales.

So, while most of us corporate trainer types know that torture is not an acceptable form of training, I was surprised to learn at a Chester County SHRM meeting that during internal EEOC investigations it is acceptable practice to terminate uncooperative witnesses.

Of course termination should not be the first course of action, only a final option.
It was suggested that you work up to this by first “guilting”the witness. Talk about all the bad things that could happen if this goes to court without accurate information. Remind them of the serious nature of holding back facts, people’s livelihoods are at stake.

If the witness is a manager it was suggested they should be reminded of their “duties” as a manager.

Only after trying to logic with them should the possibility of termination be brought up. It would be prudent to give the individual an evening to mull it over if there is time.

It would be just as prudent to take a couple hours to ask yourself if waterboarding is really a good training method.

If your blessed with a union environment check with the union rep before waterboarding or terminating witnesses.