This is an experiment told to me by my Prof in a management class about an experiment carried out on chimpanzees.
The chimps were divided into two groups – say, A and B, and kept in two different large rooms. They were given canvases, some paint brushes and color vials.
When one of the chimps of group-A managed to take color from one of the vials and made a stroke on the canvas, it was immediately rewarded by a banana. The others in the group followed suit and were also rewarded. This carried on for sometime and whenever the chimps made a stroke, they would get bananas. This excited the chimps initially.
At the same time, in a different location, the chimps of group B also started off exploring the new things given to them and made some strokes on the canvas with their brushes. But they did not receive any reward. They started making strokes after strokes on the canvas. The new colors made them more inquisitive and excited other chimps too as they made number of color combinations out of the same set of colors.
After sometime, both the groups were taken to a room and were once again given the same things - canvas, colors and brushes. Very soon, the chimps ofgroup-B started off - mixing colors, painting on the canvas, which they had started enjoying gleefully. But the chimps of group-A made little effort, showed poor interest in painting. When one of the chimps did make a stroke, it stopped and started looking for a banana. Finding no banana, it stopped painting!!
Continuously doling out rewards to reinforce behavior can backfire. Rewards must be given with a view to encourage further efforts for higher level goals. Here the chimpanzees in group-A were subjected to extrinsic rewards for every small move they made. This killed or rather dampened their creativity and initiative. They started looking for extrinsic means for motivation. While chimps of group-B had learnt to derive intrinsic pleasure out of their activity and probably became more energetic and experimented with the colors - mixing them to get different shades and painting on the canvas. It probably brought a feeling of having done something new.
To reinforce this inference, there is evidence that if intrinsically motivated people are rewarded, their performance diminishes. There are various studies which say that people become more ‘conscious’ of their efforts and they loose the ‘creative flares’.
Today, in organizational context this experiment and study could perhaps hold some vital clues to the grueling challenge for HR and organizational leaders –‘‘How to motivate employees?’’
Whenever somebody mentions ‘motivation’, I invariably see the discussion moving towards rewards and incentives. I feel that before jumping on to ‘rewards’, ‘behavior’ needs a careful analysis. The antecedents of behavior can be different for which the nature of reward would also be different.
 |
| @ www.projectswole.com |
Scenario - 1
Many organizations believe that reward structures are to be kept more or less permanent. This is more prominent in rigid organizational structures. The reward mechanisms often form a part of wage negotiations which are usually frozen for say, 5-10 years and during the intervening period, changes are not possible. It is well known that motivation from external sources does not last long. The initial rising curve hits the flat plateau very soon. Such organizations land up in situations where they just try to push the ‘out-of-sync’ schemes and hope a buy-in from their employees. The rigidity of the system stifles opportunities to reinforce appropriate behavior at the opportune time.
Result: Complacency sets in and the schemes loose value. They are no more able to attract employees. Dissatisfaction sets in and managers feel helpless. So, watch out when trying to establish a reward system in such a scenario, it may not get systems support.
Scenario - 2
Some organizations come out with excellent plans to reward their star performers. This has become a popular practice nowadays. You can see ‘star of the month’, ‘champion of the team’ etc being “hung” on walls or put up on notice boards at prominent locations within the premises. This approach does give the employee a feeling of being recognized but needs sensitivity and objectivity. It runs the risk of relegating into a ‘ritual’ that saps the system of its genuineness. This is most often observed when the organization is driven more by its sense of urgency to show that it cares for its employees.
Result: There is disillusionment among employees who cannot figure out the criteria of judgment. They cry foul and the plan fails.
Scenario - 3
This time the initiative on the organization’s part is well thought of. It has put its best foot forward. The initial results are whooping! There is lot of enthusiasm. People are excited about it and managers are too busy answering queries and all. It has turned into a success story but suddenly the management finds it is going in the wrong direction! What was supposed to be a means to achieve an end has become an end in itself! The attractiveness and instrumentality of the reward is so high that it immediately stirs people, but the scheme does not help the organization to achieve its goals! This often happens in motivating sales force, channel partners etc.
Result: Management decides to abandon the scheme amidst strong resentment from employees! Ensure that your systems channelize efforts in the right direction.
Scenario - 4
The organization believes in a liberal approach towards ‘rewards’. Very soon a large number of people get the reward. The craze for the ‘award for excellence’ becomes a necessity. It becomes a symbol that generates a ‘‘Want ’’ as almost everyone has it. Awarding becomes a mere ceremony. The awards loose their purpose and importance. The managers, here, are just “honest” in their intentions – they want to motivate as many people as possible!
Result: There is little or no differentiation between the ‘‘haves’’ and ‘‘have nots’’. People start questioning the ‘validity’ and purpose of the reward and gradually loose interest.
Scenario - 5
Organizational systems are not in tandem with the motivational scheme. The scheme is seldom supported by the other sub-systems. For eg. An employee gets rewarded for a brilliant ‘implementable’ suggestion on an occasion, but it doesn’t get implemented. There is little interest or no follow-up from management. The employee would have been rather more pleased had his/her solution got implemented but in such a scenario, looses faith in reward system. This is more so because implementation is not often given importance.
Result: The employee looses the enthusiasm to participate in the scheme again as it is not the reward which actually motivates but the expression of valuing the contribution.
With the above scenarios in mind, we can conclude that a sound motivational scheme must meet the following requirements:
1. It must be aligned with the organization strategy
2. It must be well knit with other sub-systems
3. It must have a transparent judgment criteria
4. It must have an air of ‘exclusivity’.
5. It must be continually evolving.
In order to do so, we need to measure and evaluate performance which brings forth other issues:
 |
| @ www.idrc.ca |
- Measurement and timing -- How to measure and when to reward? I came across this organization that was initially having a four page performance appraisal form. Since the employees were dissatisfied with the high levels of subjectivity in appraisals, the company introduced a 14 page PMS form citing high levels of objectivity. What happened was that people became more confused with the large number of measurements. Administrative problems made the system less responsive and the high focus on ‘objectivity’ led to complex filling of multiple forms whenever an employee’s job profile or boss or section were changed.
- Force-fitting the normal curve – In one of the instances, ratings of employees would vary as they near promotion period irrespective of performance!! So, a good performer who has an excellent rating in year t may be rated average in year t+1 for no fault of his/her just because his/her colleague(s) need(s) to be elevated! The incumbent is simply not able to reconcile to the idea of being underrated within a year of his/her superlative performance! If such things become a common practice, the mind-boggling question that comes immediately to the mind is “What’s this nonsense?”. I have found this as the most intriguing among employees.
- Cultural Issues – Most of our management concepts are based on western philosophy which is quite different from ours. If a system is not culturally compatible, it puts a strain on society. This is the reason why ‘western’ concepts are often difficult to implement. They are so because their lifestyle and concept towards work are very different from ours. Indigenization of concepts has been in vogue but the success rate is yet to be scientifically studied. It is simply not easy to do away with our cultural values – our concept of time, the overarching emphasis on nurturing relationships and the diffusion of official and personal life do not ‘naturally’ align with these systems.
- Political pressures – erode faith in system. It is quite common to influence decision making through political pressures. This not only jeopardizes the efforts put in the appraisal process but also robs the deserving candidates of rewards. I feel that people are not yet ready to discuss this in open! Unscrupulous and clandestine threads being pulled from behind the screens are seldom or rarely talked of. A few wrong examples set by management can ‘misplace’ the motivation of the employee to ‘look for the right contacts’ to meet his/her requirements. The challenge for HR is to be able to maintain this ethical position. Back door entries are again a teething problem as ‘strategic’ connections play an important role in “mutual-obligations”. In a society like ours, we are more valued by ‘whom we know’ rather than ‘what we are’. Such moves tarnish the fairness of the process.
I have strongly felt that whenever an appraisal takes place, two important processes simultaneously occur related to perceived fairness (procedural justice) and related to rewards (distributive justice). In our culture there is high relevance of both of these forms of justice. Since time immemorial our thinking has been modeled to value them more than rewards. Is there not a dissonance when we focus mainly on rewards? and our relationships ‘hover’ around ‘reward-seeking’ behaviors? Fairness and equity - which should have been the prime focus are now become a ‘right’. Many organizations respond by increasing the number of rewards or introducing new incentive plans but do they have the appropriate perspectives for delivering the envisioned objectives?
Motivating people requires a careful understanding of the people, the organization and the cultural context you are dealing with. Any motivation scheme may backfire if there is mis-alignment of these components. Passion to work comes from within. It cannot be tamed by rewards only. We have people who join organizations to work with passion but the inherent drawbacks in our approach ‘extinguish’ it. We enter a cyclical trap when we keep on recruiting people and brush aside the issue of attrition as something ‘normal’ when the fundamental problem lies with our approach. It is beyond doubt that HR has to face the brunt of all these activities. In due course, it looses credibility and what really appears to the outside world is a ‘ritualistic existence’ managed by ‘insensitive’ managers. We keep hearing clamors in different forums, grievances and outbursts from people but we have nothing to respond.
We as HR practitioners and organizational leaders need to understand our people, the context, organization strategy and business environment and ‘position’ reward schemes in a better manner. The Indian economy is undergoing transformation and very soon fresh challenges for HR will emerge as Indian organizations elevate to a multi-domestic or to a global platform. The scenarios mentioned above would appear trivial in the face of diversity issues, multi-cultural workforce, different compensation structures and cross-country economic differences.
If we take a re-look at what we are actually doing from a behavioral perspective rather than be enamored by the success of HR instruments elsewhere, we might well be on the right track !! It is imperative for HR to develop an indigenous approach which can be developed through action research. We assume that if a ‘method’ succeeds in a country, it will succeed in our context too. This is a challenge for multinational and global organizations which have to address cross-cultural contexts. We see urgency among organizations in ‘imitating’ best practices of other organizations which do not ‘fit’ us and it is difficult to resist the temptation.
Igniting passion – the topic of the article – suggests that in order to lead people, you must know what ‘fires’ them just like when you light a match-stick you ensure that it is not damp; it suggests that ‘passion’ defines a ‘winning’ organization and you need to explore the ‘right’ systems and processes that ‘ignite passion’.
