Reckless rewards do not pay

Mr. X, a zonal manager, performed extraordinarily in an FMCG company. The director decided to reward him with promotion, transfer to head office and unusually high increments. The HR, who is always being miser rewarding employees, recommended saving some of these rewards for the future. The director concluded “No! Performance must be rewarded properly.” The employee was happy and remained in a close touch with the top management for next one year. When the time came in next year for a new increment, it was clear to the director that the zone was a stronghold for the company and anyone who performed well got transferred there, regardless of his talent or effort. He decided moderate increment for the current zonal manager. The current manager became hopeless and shocked to see two different treatments on the same achievement; he started looking for a job. Employees started gossiping about the meanness of the company policy.
On the other hand, Mr. X got a lower increment because the director decided ‘he was given extra-high incentive last year’. Mr. X felt deprived and engaged in an argument with the director, eventually resigned in the next couple of months.
This particular case is a true story, and it is real in this form or the other in every company of the country. I personally thank this director, because in his place Mr. X would have been rewarded again because of previous perception and current relationship with the top management. Most executives think rewarding employees are just about common sense! They do not evaluate employees, they perceive about them. Perception varies
from one person to another, good judgment rarely.
In the case above, one decision caused two good employees’ separation and depressed many. One bad reward may bring satisfaction to one, but it will dissatisfy many. There is a leadership style in this country to be autocratic and knowing all, they relish their power like a king. This attitude determines the culture, work environment, quality of leadership of an organization. They get away with this because when it comes of employment law, our legal practices are
very weak.
Thus the culture goes downward in an organization and people who are responsible for creating a negative culture thinks unhappily and unwarily about the outcome of their own creation and blame common employees, “they are good for nothing”.
 “The challenge for HR arises from the fact that one employee’s fairness often becomes another employee’s perceived injustice.” – says Stephanie Reyes in his article ‘Fairness in the Workplace’ Therefore, some people may argue that fairness is just a myth; it is not possible to make everyone happy, but keeping the system in place, ensuring the engagement of employees, this can be reduced.  Unjust rewards are marked as nepotism by the employees, the leader is seen as weak and unfair, as a result work environment gets polluted. The receiver manipulates the leader but never respects him/her for that. In reality, nepotism is a virus that pollutes work environment faster than anything else.
The principal sufferers are the ‘merit’ and ‘talent’. In the course of time, the organization becomes talentless. After the message hits the market, talent crisis starts silently. The organization becomes mediocre over time.

Tips to foster a just workplace:
•  Measure performance systematically: appraisal must be designed with objectively verifiable indicators. The appraiser must take the job seriously, cautiously and perform skillfully. Performance must be measured periodically. The supervisor must take it as part of his job, not an optional task assigned from the management.
    However, this has to be understood that without proper design, adequate training and administrative support, appraisal may be another bureaucratic ritual. This is the reason why many modern scholars argue on its use. W. Edward Deming even proposes to eliminate it from the system.
•  Supervisor’s managerial and leadership skill must be tested before giving managerial role. A person is good at his work does not necessarily mean that he is capable in a managerial role.
•   Any decision related to the rewarding of an employee must be related directly with the job performance and not on future potentials or personal fondness. Some argue that future potentials are important, but in practice we have seen rewarded potential employees do not perform as expected and the management gets puzzled on how to correct the mistakes. It is the duty of the management to create opportunities for the potentials to perform.
•  Periodical performance feedback mechanism linking to training and development is an important tool to ensure that the employee is growing in an expected path. Most supervisors either give too much negative feedback or entirely avoid negative criticism, both are wrong in its root.
•  To be sophisticated enough to ensure perception of fairness; the measuring should be on clear competencies only. •  Last but not least, an employee must know why he was rewarded, like the one who knows why he is punished.
    A famous electronics company adopted a result-based reward system; they only reward employees according to the performance results. Employees do not have a problem with that; they appreciate the distinctions based on performance. They believe this stimulation is required to achieve, encourage and challenge the target.     Although it is said “there is no permanent job satisfaction”; dissatisfactions can be minimized. Being rightly evaluated is a workplace right for employees, establishing this culture is the core work of the managers.

The writer is the Head of HR of Beximco Media Limited

 

Reckless rewards do not pay

Mr. X, a zonal manager, performed extraordinarily in an FMCG company. The director decided to reward him with promotion, transfer to head office and unusually high increments. The HR, who is always being miser rewarding employees, recommended saving some of these rewards for the future. The director concluded No! Performance must be rewarded properly. The employee was happy and remained in a close touch with the top management for next one year. When the time came in next year for a new increment, it was clear to the director that the zone was a stronghold for the company and anyone who performed well got transferred there, regardless of his talent or effort. He decided moderate increment for the current zonal manager. The current manager became hopeless and shocked to see two different treatments on the same achievement; he started looking for a job. Employees started gossiping about the meanness of the company policy. On the other hand, Mr. X got a lower increment because the director decided he was given extra-high incentive last year. Mr. X felt deprived and engaged in an argument with the director, eventually resigned in the next couple of months. This particular case is a true story, and it is real in this form or the other in every company of the country. I personally thank this director, because in his place Mr. X would have been rewarded again because of previous perception and current relationship with the top management. Most executives think rewarding employees are just about common sense! They do not evaluate employees, they perceive about them. Perception varies from one person to another, good judgment rarely. In the case above, one decision caused two good employees separation and depressed many. One bad reward may bring satisfaction to one, but it will dissatisfy many. There is a leadership style in this country to be autocratic and knowing all, they relish their power like a king. This attitude determines the culture, work environment, quality of leadership of an organization. They get away with this because when it comes of employment law, our legal practices are very weak. Thus the culture goes downward in an organization and people who are responsible for creating a negative culture thinks unhappily and unwarily about the outcome of their own creation and blame common employees, they are good for nothing. The challenge for HR arises from the fact that one employees fairness often becomes another employees perceived injustice. says Stephanie Reyes in his article Fairness in the Workplace Therefore, some people may argue that fairness is just a myth; it is not possible to make everyone happy, but keeping the system in place, ensuring the engagement of employees, this can be reduced. Unjust rewards are marked as nepotism by the employees, the leader is seen as weak and unfair, as a result work environment gets polluted. The receiver manipulates the leader but never respects him/her for that. In reality, nepotism is a virus that pollutes work environment faster than anything else. The principal sufferers are the merit and talent. In the course of time, the organization becomes talentless. After the message hits the market, talent crisis starts silently. The organization becomes mediocre over time. Tips to foster a just workplace: Measure performance systematically: appraisal must be designed with objectively verifiable indicators. The appraiser must take the job seriously, cautiously and perform skillfully. Performance must be measured periodically. The supervisor must take it as part of his job, not an optional task assigned from the management. However, this has to be understood that without proper design, adequate training and administrative support, appraisal may be another bureaucratic ritual. This is the reason why many modern scholars argue on its use. W. Edward Deming even proposes to eliminate it from the system. Supervisors managerial and leadership skill must be tested before giving managerial role. A person is good at his work does not necessarily mean that he is capable in a managerial role. Any decision related to the rewarding of an employee must be related directly with the job performance and not on future potentials or personal fondness. Some argue that future potentials are important, but in practice we have seen rewarded potential employees do not perform as expected and the management gets puzzled on how to correct the mistakes. It is the duty of the management to create opportunities for the potentials to perform. Periodical performance feedback mechanism linking to training and development is an important tool to ensure that the employee is growing in an expected path. Most supervisors either give too much negative feedback or entirely avoid negative criticism, both are wrong in its root. To be sophisticated enough to ensure perception of fairness; the measuring should be on clear competencies only. Last but not least, an employee must know why he was rewarded, like the one who knows why he is punished. A famous electronics company adopted a result-based reward system; they only reward employees according to the performance results. Employees do not have a problem with that; they appreciate the distinctions based on performance. They believe this stimulation is required to achieve, encourage and challenge the target. Although it is said there is no permanent job satisfaction; dissatisfactions can be minimized. Being rightly evaluated is a workplace right for employees, establishing this culture is the core work of the managers. The writer is the Head of HR of Beximco Media Limited