At this time of the year, there is much thinking going on in relation to the manner in which incentives will be applied in the coming year, for which you are preparing the budget.
There are many and varied schemes, most of which are geared in one way or another to a threshold, above which the incentive kicks in.
It can be anything from a sliding commission, to share allocations, holidays, and goodies from the local store.
99% of those I see have one common characteristics: they are known, the thresholds are clear, as they are seen as the motivating factor. They can also be gamed in all sorts of ways, particularly by those in sales. When the commission is based on revenue alone, that can be achieved by giving big discounts, the timing of invoices can be varied, ‘channel stacking’ becomes common.
These sorts of incentives are usually ineffective, because they become taken for granted, and are always ‘gamed’ by staff.
In the early 50’s psychologist B.F. Skinner did a series of experiments, using rats and pigeons as subjects, since validated widely. He used a box that became known as a ‘Skinner box’ in which he placed the hungry subjects, and a lever. The rats and pigeons pushed the lever, and could gain an intermittent reward of food. They soon learned that pushing the lever sometimes delivered a reward, so they pushed it more and more, each intermittent reward reinforcing the behaviour. The variability of the reward when it is intermittent tends to increase the speed with which the subjects pushed the lever, a few will keep pushing despite the calorific value of the intermittent rewards being less than the calories required for life.
This behaviour can be seen in any room containing poker machines. Some players will, despite knowing the odds are against them, keep pushing money into the machines, hanging out for the intermittent reward of the clatter of coins in the tray, and the psychological reassurance that goes with it.
Why not use the same sort of thinking to manage your incentive programs?
