Treating everyone equally when it comes to rewards can lead to entrepreneurial paralysis
Many corporations no longer have employees — they have “team members.” And without a population of employees, they no longer have a need for managers. Instead, they have “team leaders.” Employees work in teams rather than as managed individuals. Teamwork is often conspicuously inserted into many corporate value statements.
Parallel to the growth in popularity of teamwork is the growing realization among human resource management experts that recognition is important to behavioural change. Recognition aligns attitude to corporate values. Through their daily, routine behaviours, employees are charged with taking the initiative to skillfully execute corporate strategies and business objectives.
These two significant workplace trends have created some difficult challenges for employers and HR departments. Two tough questions often arise. Firstly, “How do you recognize the value of individual endeavour within a team?” Secondly, “If the team concept is so important, should individuals be recognized at all, or should organizations only recognize the achievements of the team?”
Hiding behind team recognition
Certainly all employees deserve to be recognized for their behaviours and achievements relative to their job description, skill sets and position. But, that takes skilled managerial evaluation. Many managers are afraid of confrontation or are apprehensive about making tough decisions. Therefore, they really prefer team recognition.
One of the biggest pitfalls in recognizing teams rather than individuals is that it is often a disguise for poor or weak managers to hide behind. Sometimes team recognition is nothing more than a socialistic approach to treating everyone equally. And, it has about the same results in that it promotes entrepreneurial paralysis.
So what is to be done? Well a good team recognition strategy begins with a clear understanding of the dynamics of teamwork.
First and foremost, it’s important to debunk one of the most irritating, cheerleaderish, sayings of all time: “There is no “I” in team.” Who are they trying to fool?
Last month, two of the best teams in professional football battled it out for the Super Bowl. After 60 tough minutes on the gridiron, the New England Patriots emerged as the winners and took their place among the champions.
Were they recognized for the win? Of course, the team took home the trophy. Each member of the winning team also took home the most coveted award in football, the award that money cannot buy — the illustrious Super Bowl ring.
Whether a benched, second-string centre or the superstar quarterback, each team member ultimately received the same recognition, the same award, the same ring. Or did they? Did you see any post-game interviews with the second-string centre? Will he be on the front page of the next Sports Illustrated?
Here is another favourite old adage of teamwork champions: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” A recent study proved that is actually not true. The study had a group of people working as a tug-of-war team, pulling against a rope attached to a tension-measuring device, which produced a team score. Afterward, each member of the team pulled against the tension-measuring device individually. At the end, the individual scores were added together and compared to the team score. The results: the cumulative individual scores far surpassed the team score. What? The sum of the individual parts was greater than the whole? Heresy!
So, what happened? Well, human nature happened. The problem with the old adage is that it presumes the individual parts work just as hard and exert the same maximum effort when working as a team. But it just isn’t so. When in teams, individuals have a tendency to slack off, often without even knowing it. Whenever individual efforts are not individually measured, people are inclined to hide out and rely on the efforts of teammates. Overlooking this simple reality has become a major irritant to many high achievers when companies reward all the members with equal team recognition.
Team or teamwork?
A team is simply a group of people, functioning together for a common goal or purpose. Teams, therefore, don’t naturally come with embedded attitudes or work ethics.
Randomly placing a bunch of individuals into integrated, interdependent positions with a single, common task doesn’t make a team. Just playing on a team doesn’t necessarily make a person a team player.
Teamwork is an individual behavioural attribute, an outlook on life. Instead of teamwork it could be called a spirit of co-operation, helping one another, doing your part, playing your role. It’s an inner sense that causes people to willingly give their best efforts for the good of the team.
A team is only really a team when the members function together by exercising this behavioural attribute we call “teamwork.” So, the key to a successful, dynamic team is not to evaluate the team but rather to measure, compensate and recognize the team members based on their individual personal performance — performance that is individually evaluated within a designated sphere of responsibility and function.
If the team’s designated junior note-keeper does an exemplary job that is above expectations while the team’s thought-leader stalls on the runway, there is a good chance that the team will not achieve its necessary results, regardless how good the notes were.
While the high-flying thought leader failed to fulfill the designated sphere of responsibility and function, the junior note-keeper may have surpassed the normal expectations. Therefore, the team’s overall failure to complete the task shouldn’t eliminate the note-keeper from being recognized for the great job done because it was never the note-keeper’s responsibility to come up with the stellar ideas. In a sense, it’s a form of “noblesse oblige” — nobility comes with greater obligations.
Conversely, if the thought-leader’s innovation and direction transforms the company, should the note-taker be given the same recognition just for being part of the transformation team? No. The fact is, notes were nice, but the innovation, direction and ideas were invaluable.
It’s important to provide “relative opportunity” for every team member to be appropriately recognized based on their individual effort and achievement within their expected objectives.
A pro-active approach
The next question is what should be rewarded. Recognizing achievements alone is a passive approach. It’s far better for an employer to be proactive and recognize the behaviours that inevitably lead to achievement. A good golf instructor stresses form and stance, not distance and accuracy. If the proper form and stance are developed, distance and accuracy will naturally follow. Likewise, if organizations recognize people for the way they work, then the results and achievements will naturally follow.
It’s really teamwork and not teams that should be the focus of workplace recognition. But how does this work? By evaluating individual team members based on both “how” they executed their tasks in accordance to the corporate values and by “what” they achieved based on the business objectives.
The level of recognition given to each person needs to be appropriately apportioned according to each individual’s overall extension beyond the normal expectations. Effective recognition strategies always work with a pyramid approach — lots of simple, instant, informal recognition presented to many with progressively increasing reward leading up to a recognition pinnacle for a few.
Should teams be recognized? Maybe. Should we recognize attitudes that promote teamwork? Yes. Should we recognize members of a team for the way they execute as well as their accomplishments within the team? Absolutely yes.
Gordon Green is vice-president of business development, recognition and reward systems for Rideau Recognition. He can be reached at (905) 648-9873, or [email protected].
Parallel to the growth in popularity of teamwork is the growing realization among human resource management experts that recognition is important to behavioural change. Recognition aligns attitude to corporate values. Through their daily, routine behaviours, employees are charged with taking the initiative to skillfully execute corporate strategies and business objectives.
These two significant workplace trends have created some difficult challenges for employers and HR departments. Two tough questions often arise. Firstly, “How do you recognize the value of individual endeavour within a team?” Secondly, “If the team concept is so important, should individuals be recognized at all, or should organizations only recognize the achievements of the team?”
Hiding behind team recognition
Certainly all employees deserve to be recognized for their behaviours and achievements relative to their job description, skill sets and position. But, that takes skilled managerial evaluation. Many managers are afraid of confrontation or are apprehensive about making tough decisions. Therefore, they really prefer team recognition.
One of the biggest pitfalls in recognizing teams rather than individuals is that it is often a disguise for poor or weak managers to hide behind. Sometimes team recognition is nothing more than a socialistic approach to treating everyone equally. And, it has about the same results in that it promotes entrepreneurial paralysis.
So what is to be done? Well a good team recognition strategy begins with a clear understanding of the dynamics of teamwork.
First and foremost, it’s important to debunk one of the most irritating, cheerleaderish, sayings of all time: “There is no “I” in team.” Who are they trying to fool?
Last month, two of the best teams in professional football battled it out for the Super Bowl. After 60 tough minutes on the gridiron, the New England Patriots emerged as the winners and took their place among the champions.
Were they recognized for the win? Of course, the team took home the trophy. Each member of the winning team also took home the most coveted award in football, the award that money cannot buy — the illustrious Super Bowl ring.
Whether a benched, second-string centre or the superstar quarterback, each team member ultimately received the same recognition, the same award, the same ring. Or did they? Did you see any post-game interviews with the second-string centre? Will he be on the front page of the next Sports Illustrated?
Here is another favourite old adage of teamwork champions: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” A recent study proved that is actually not true. The study had a group of people working as a tug-of-war team, pulling against a rope attached to a tension-measuring device, which produced a team score. Afterward, each member of the team pulled against the tension-measuring device individually. At the end, the individual scores were added together and compared to the team score. The results: the cumulative individual scores far surpassed the team score. What? The sum of the individual parts was greater than the whole? Heresy!
So, what happened? Well, human nature happened. The problem with the old adage is that it presumes the individual parts work just as hard and exert the same maximum effort when working as a team. But it just isn’t so. When in teams, individuals have a tendency to slack off, often without even knowing it. Whenever individual efforts are not individually measured, people are inclined to hide out and rely on the efforts of teammates. Overlooking this simple reality has become a major irritant to many high achievers when companies reward all the members with equal team recognition.
Team or teamwork?
A team is simply a group of people, functioning together for a common goal or purpose. Teams, therefore, don’t naturally come with embedded attitudes or work ethics.
Randomly placing a bunch of individuals into integrated, interdependent positions with a single, common task doesn’t make a team. Just playing on a team doesn’t necessarily make a person a team player.
Teamwork is an individual behavioural attribute, an outlook on life. Instead of teamwork it could be called a spirit of co-operation, helping one another, doing your part, playing your role. It’s an inner sense that causes people to willingly give their best efforts for the good of the team.
A team is only really a team when the members function together by exercising this behavioural attribute we call “teamwork.” So, the key to a successful, dynamic team is not to evaluate the team but rather to measure, compensate and recognize the team members based on their individual personal performance — performance that is individually evaluated within a designated sphere of responsibility and function.
If the team’s designated junior note-keeper does an exemplary job that is above expectations while the team’s thought-leader stalls on the runway, there is a good chance that the team will not achieve its necessary results, regardless how good the notes were.
While the high-flying thought leader failed to fulfill the designated sphere of responsibility and function, the junior note-keeper may have surpassed the normal expectations. Therefore, the team’s overall failure to complete the task shouldn’t eliminate the note-keeper from being recognized for the great job done because it was never the note-keeper’s responsibility to come up with the stellar ideas. In a sense, it’s a form of “noblesse oblige” — nobility comes with greater obligations.
Conversely, if the thought-leader’s innovation and direction transforms the company, should the note-taker be given the same recognition just for being part of the transformation team? No. The fact is, notes were nice, but the innovation, direction and ideas were invaluable.
It’s important to provide “relative opportunity” for every team member to be appropriately recognized based on their individual effort and achievement within their expected objectives.
A pro-active approach
The next question is what should be rewarded. Recognizing achievements alone is a passive approach. It’s far better for an employer to be proactive and recognize the behaviours that inevitably lead to achievement. A good golf instructor stresses form and stance, not distance and accuracy. If the proper form and stance are developed, distance and accuracy will naturally follow. Likewise, if organizations recognize people for the way they work, then the results and achievements will naturally follow.
It’s really teamwork and not teams that should be the focus of workplace recognition. But how does this work? By evaluating individual team members based on both “how” they executed their tasks in accordance to the corporate values and by “what” they achieved based on the business objectives.
The level of recognition given to each person needs to be appropriately apportioned according to each individual’s overall extension beyond the normal expectations. Effective recognition strategies always work with a pyramid approach — lots of simple, instant, informal recognition presented to many with progressively increasing reward leading up to a recognition pinnacle for a few.
Should teams be recognized? Maybe. Should we recognize attitudes that promote teamwork? Yes. Should we recognize members of a team for the way they execute as well as their accomplishments within the team? Absolutely yes.
Gordon Green is vice-president of business development, recognition and reward systems for Rideau Recognition. He can be reached at (905) 648-9873, or [email protected].
