Gradual approach can be confounded by inappropriaincentives... RE: [Ailist] Re: Applying leeches?

[John Loty]

 Great discussion - is is not interesting that we see examples - vivid -
from my perspective of "Social Construction at work"

The same words meaning different things to different people.


John Loty
 
AI Advocate and Facilitator 
 
"What we focus on grows" 
 
Learning to improve by building on what works - our strengths.
Find out more about Strength based approaches to improvement 
 
 The Appreciative Inquiry Network
 
Visit www.appreciativeinquiry.net.au 
 
PO Box 217 Bexley South NSW 2207
50 Glenfarne St Bexley
Telephone 61 2 9588 5228
Fax 61 2 9587 9996
Mobile 0411 809 404
 
Our other online courses and training services can be accessed at:

www.scilnet.com.au and

www.frontline-management.com.au 


-----Original Message-----
From: Lionel Boxer [mailto:lionel.boxer at rmit.edu.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, 22 April 2008 8:08 AM
To: cheri at mobileteamchallenge.com; fairgo at ozemail.com.au;
rdavies at rtpcompany.com; nancy at sonic.net
Cc: ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: RE: Gradual approach can be confounded by inappropriaincentives...
RE: [Ailist] Re: Applying leeches?

Reflecting on Roger's reply to my post about "underlying incentives" ...

I was referring to a broader understanding of the term "underlying
incentive"; for these sort of changes to take place it is necessary to
understand everyone's fundamental principles of remuneration as well as the
responsiblities in their job descriptions that determine whether or not they
are doing their jobs properly.  I did not mean paying people a token reward
for "jumping through a new hoop", "jumping higher", or "jumping in a new
way".

People tend to attend work everyday with expectations that if they do their
job as defined in their job descriptions that:
- they will be paid,
- at their annual reviews they will be told that they have done a good job,
and
- this performance will result in them retaining their jobs and being given
a fair increase in remuneration over time However, in many cases the
fundamental job that they are doing and the certain way that they are doing
it is not aligned with the new way that is required to behave as defined by
the change.

These sort of incentives to do the opposite to the change will undermine a
gradual approach, because people will not feel that their job will survive
if they adopt the changes.  In cases where job descriptions are at odds with
new required behaviours the job descriptions need to be redesigned to
reflect and align with the changes.


Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256 Associate of RMIT
University - lionel.boxer at rmit.edu.au Graduate School of Business What's
up?: http://intergon.net/events.html The Sustainable Way:
http://intergon.net/tsw
>>> "Roger Davies" <rdavies at rtpcompany.com> 21/04/08 11:02 PM >>>
My two cents on incentive.....DON'T DO IT. 

I have found it very necessary over my last 10 year's in management to make
a distinction between incentive and reward. Incentives are doomed to failure
because they guaranteed before the act or behavior is exhibited i.e. if you
incent a group to complete a project by a certain date they may do so at the
expense of the long term viability of the project. Rewards on the other hand
are not determined before hand and are given in support of a desired
behavior i.e. one should be rewarded for identifying a critical type of
failure and proposing a solution prior to it occurring.

The only acceptable incentives are salary and overtime, everything else soon
becomes an expected part of total compensation and quickly loses the value
expected from it.

It is counterproductive to incent anyone for making a morally correct
choice. Practically this approach has stood me in good stead for over 10
years. Rewards, not incentives are what motivate. I think Herzberg's hygiene
theory adds some background to this too.

Roger