Learning Corner with Jeffrey Pfeffer: Less Is Better Than More When it Comes to Incentives

Jeffrey Pfeffer

Professor of Organizational Behavior, Stanford University

Some years ago, Men's Wearhouse founder George Zimmer came to a class I taught to discuss a case study I had written on his company.

Zimmer commented on a bonus program I had written about where each store employee (except the store manager) would receive $20 if the store met its "good" sales target for the month, and $40 if it met its "excellent" sales goal. My students thought these amounts were quite small, but Zimmer thought the incentives were perfectly sized. They were large enough to provide some recognition of store achievement, he said, but more importantly, the payouts gave people a chance to celebrate success together without being large enough to distort people's behaviors.

Zimmer's insight that, in the case of incentives, less is often better than more is too infrequently embraced by leaders who instead seek to use substantial rewards to fundamentally channel behavior.

HR Managers and c-suite executives would do well to learn from Zimmer's wisdom. While most employees today assume incentives will be part of their job, how large they are and how they are presented can substantially impact an organization.

Incentives Can Undermine or Crowd Out Intrinsic Motivation

Beginning in the 1970s, studies in psychology found that providing people rewards—extrinsic incentives—could undermine intrinsic motivation for engaging in inherently interesting tasks. One theory suggested that people found incentives controlling, and rebelled against attempts to control their behavior. Another perspective suggested that people interpreted incentives as signaling that a task was inherently unpleasant, reducing their interest in doing it. The takeaway? Incentives have the potential to reduce people's motivation and interest in tasks.

Even economists, who have traditionally looked more favorably on incentives, have also argued that incentives can backfire. They argue that providing extrinsic incentives "crowds out" intrinsic interests in doing something. Consequently, incentives can backfire, and make it less likely that people will do what the incentives want them to do. For instance, one study observed that parents were more often late in picking up their children from a day care center when a fine was imposed, while yet other researchers observed that volunteers who were paid a small amount worked fewer hours than volunteers who were not paid. Here, the evidence suggests that using incentives to drive desired behavior may not work.

Consistent with the idea that smaller is better, smaller incentives will be less likely to crowd out or reduce intrinsic motivation because smaller incentives are less psychologically prominent and salient. For organizations concerned about maintaining intrinsic task motivation—which is probably most workplaces—the crowding out and undermining research provides one more reason to be cautious in the use of incentives.

Incentives Drive Behavior, But in Often Unanticipated—and Counterproductive—Ways

As Bob Sutton and I pointed out in our book on evidence-based management, a huge problem with incentives is that they are too effective at influencing behaviors. And most people and companies aren't great at anticipating how behaviors will change in response to incentives. There are enough examples of this to fill a book—or maybe several.

In 2018, William Dudley, CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, noted that "misaligned incentives contributed greatly to the 2008 financial crisis." In the scenario that Dudley is referring to, many mortgage brokers were compensated for the number of loans they made—not necessarily for making sound loans that would be repaid. And many of the incentives for mortgage brokers for senior financial industry executives were short-term rewards. Meanwhile, the assets being created (the loans) and the financial results were inherently longer-term. The time horizon on incentives needs to match the time horizon of the results being affective. Simply put, short-term incentives aren't going to be very good for creating long-term results.

How to Make Incentives Work

Based on extensive empirical evidence, there are some simple but important implications for implementing incentives in ways that aren't likely to cause misbehavior that adversely affects organizations.

First, and most importantly, keep incentives small enough to not overly influence behavior. That may seem counterintuitive—many workplaces implement incentives precisely to influence behavior—but, as noted, people are often quite bad at predicting the ways in which incentives may drive behavior.

Second, spend time trying to anticipate how people could achieve the goals signaled by incentives in ways that are harmful to the organization's interests and try to put up various guardrails to detect and deter such behavior. One way to do this, is to monitor how rewards are being received and the behaviors associated with them based on consistent conversations with employees who are benefiting from the rewards program.

And third, if incentives are driving bad behavior, don't do what many workplaces do, which is to try and solve an incentive-based problem by implementing even more incentives. Many companies try to use incentives to substitute for leadership (coaching and feedback) or a strong, positive organizational culture. As research going back decades from places like shows, leader behavior matters a lot in motivating performance and reducing turnover. Incentives are a poor substitute.

In the case of incentives, the inescapable conclusion is that less—less reliance, less use, less magnitude—is most often better than more.

Photo: Unsplash

Related Resources

Want to keep learning? Explore our products, customer stories, and the latest industry insights.

IDC MarketScape:統合型タレントマネジメントの世界的企業 2021年ベンダー評価


IDC MarketScape:統合型タレントマネジメントの世界的企業 2021年ベンダー評価

コーナーストーンが「リーダー」に選ばれた理由 従業員体験は、企業の生産性、離職率、顧客満足度など、ビジネスの多くの側面に影響を与えます。統合タレントマネジメントは、彼らが体験する日常活動すべてに対する満足度を向上させます。 だからこそ、私たちはコーナーストーンが2021年のIDC MarketScapeレポートにおいて、統合タレントマネジメントの分野でグローバルリーダーの一社に選ばれたことを知っていただきたいのです。 IDCの定義によると、タレントマネジメントが貢献することとして、従業員の興味を引き、彼らの人財育成を支援し、報奨につなげ、人財としての確保を実現していくことが挙げられています。それらの目的は、人財の募集、採用者への初期対応と指導、教育と能力開発、活動評価、報奨の管理、キャリアアップと後継者選択の計画など多岐にわたる作業をコンピテンシーの管理や評価をもとに推進することで達成されます。 このレポートでIDCがコーナーストーンを高く評価した理由は以下のとおりです。 Sabaの研究開発チームが統合され、研究開発チームがさらに強化、拡大された スキルの特定、管理を可能にする機能が業界随一である 人財教育と能力開発の分野における優れた実績と豊富な経験・知識 IDCのレポートをダウンロードしてください。統合タレントマネジメントのベンダー評価詳細に加え、コーナーストーンが業界トップに選出された理由を確認いただけます。 出典:『IDC MarketScape:Worldwide Integrated Talent Management 2021 Vendor Assessment(2021年統合タレントマネジメントグローバルベンダー評価)』、リサ・ローワン、2021年7月、IDC# US45943220 IDC MarketScapeは、特定市場におけるICTサプライヤーの競争力を把握できるベンダー分析モデルです。調査方法として、定量的および定性的な評価基準に基づいた厳密な採点手法を用いています。調査結果は当該市場における各ベンダーの位置付けを示す、1つのグラフィックスによって図示されます。ケイパビリティスコアでは、ベンダーの製品、市場戦略、事業運営の短期的な評価を行い、戦略スコアでは、3~5年の期間にわたるベンダーの戦略が顧客のニーズに沿うものかどうかを評価します。ベンダーの市場シェアは、グラフ上の円の大きさで示されます。

新しい働き方と同じように 進化してきている コンテンツ


新しい働き方と同じように 進化してきている コンテンツ

新しい働き方と同じように 進化してきている コンテンツ ビジネスに貢献でき、成功するために必要なスキルは常に変化し続けています。そのような状況に対応するために、Cornerstone Content Anytimeは、現在最も必要とされてい るスキルを従業員に身につけさせることで、より優れたコミュニケーター、より力強いリーダー、より機能的なチームを構築することを目指しています。最新のコンテンツとそれぞれの学習者一人ひとりに合わせてパーソナライズされた学習体験により、パフォーマンスを向上させます。

コーナーストーン・パフォーマンス CSX


コーナーストーン・パフォーマンス CSX

個人のゴールをつないで組織全体の成果を出す 従業員全員が高いモチベーションを持って仕事に取り組んでいるといいのですがそれを確認するのは簡単なことではあり ません。従業員が自らの業務に目的を見出し、その目的を組織の目標と一致させる必要があります。コーナーストーン・パフォーマンス CSX では、人財の状況をハイブリッドワーク環境下でも 詳細に把握することで、組織の最優先課題を解決するための人財を迅速に特定し、動員することができます。



© Cornerstone 2022