Comment Comment
Comment on the blogs Log in here Become a member Register now
 
Peter Honey

Peter Honey

27 Feb 2009 | 12:46

(Maximum of 120 characters)
Articles more than one month old can be viewed only by CIPD members or PM Subscribers.


A minefield – but here goes!

Everything I have heard and read about the controversy over bonus payments fails to mention an important principle: contingency. It is only when a bonus is applied contingently that it works as a motivator. In essence this means that a bonus, if it is to be effective, must a) be conditional upon the occurrence of successful behaviour and b) must follow the behaviour in question quickly enough for the link to be obvious. A bonus that was non-contingent would not act as an incentive, it would just be a thank you present: nice, but without any motivational impact.

Lots of things at work are non-contingent – for example, a monthly salary that stays the same regardless of how hard the person has worked in a given month. Some months might be quiet, but the salary stays the same. The performance during the month makes no difference to the monthly pay cheque. It is non-contingent but welcome.

I’m the first to admit that the promise of a monetary reward (in my case a fee) gets me to show up. But, once I’ve done that, it has little impact on my performance. Other factors take over, such as not wanting to make a fool of myself, being eager to please my clients, the extent to which the participants show an interest in what I have to say, the questions they ask and so on. The prospect of receiving a fee has nothing to do with it. Even when I donate the fee to a charity, I work just as hard.

Bonuses were dreamt up in order to overcome the shortcomings of paying people a fixed, non-contingent salary. The basic idea was to have a system that was contingent upon success. In other words, the success, defined in advance, had to occur before any bonus was paid. And the bonus would have to be timely, paid as soon after the success as possible.

There are, of course, two interconnected perils. The first is how success is to be defined; the criteria, or targets, often distort people’s behaviour so that local successes are achieved at the expense of wider organisational aims. The second peril is to do with timing. Bonuses, in their eagerness to motivate, tend to reward short-term behaviour.

One thing is for sure, we can’t uninvent bonuses. All we can do is think harder about the implications of making them contingent.

Comments

1. At 11:38 on 05 Mar 2009, Andy wrote:

Don’t bash bonuses – bash the system.

With regard to the current hot topic of bonuses, the saddest thing for me about the various articles, comments and exchanges? Legitimately all raise the issues of legality, short-termism and governance as well as the understandable feelings of unfairness, hurt, greed, envy, punishment, and the lack of apology, etc., but none raise the more fundamental question of why - why have any bonuses at all?
Incredibly the articles, including this one, seem to defend bonuses and rewards because they are endemic and assumed to be good, and the proposals merely tinker with how to make them better, more contingent. None question whether there is any evidence (other than behaviourists' experiments on laboratory animals) for whether bonuses and rewards/punishments actually improve motivation and performance of people. None question the current thinking on motivational theory or performance management. However, there is in fact an abundance of research, knowledge and evidence (Deming, Kohn, Seddon, etc.) to show that with targets and bonuses people will cheat, not because the people are bad, but because the system and traditional management thinking are bad – the system always wins! The very presence of bonuses in the system caused the problem, not the people.
Tweaking the bonus system will not provide the solution, doing the wrong thing righter is not the solution – only knowledge and a fundamental change in management thinking. My greater sadness is that HR seems acquiescent on the topic and not leading the re-think required at this time – it’s time to stop bashing the people and instead bash the system.

Andy Lippok
Change and Improvement Consultant
Report this post

NEED HELP? Contact the website support team
 

About the specialists

Iain Mackinnon

Iain Mackinnon

Managing director of the Mackinnon Partnership and a public policy consultant specialising in the people side of economic development,...

Ian Buckingham

Ian Buckingham

A specialist in employee engagement. He is the former founding MD of Interbrand Inside and the founder of the Bring Yourself 2 Work...

John Philpott

John Philpott

Chief economic adviser at the CIPD and visiting professor of economics at the University of Hertfordshire. He has been an adviser to...

Keith Rodgers

Keith Rodgers

Co-founder of Webster Buchanan Research, an international research company that helps HR practitioners make effective use of technology...

Lou Burrows

Lou Burrows

Global head of people at innovation company ?What If! Since joining in 2006 Lou has revolutionised the company's approach to recruitment,...

Peter Honey

Peter Honey

Founder of Peter Honey Publications Ltd. He created the Honey & Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire and has worked as a management...

Peter Reid

Peter Reid

European Employee Relations Consultant who has monitored employment developments in Brussels for almost 20 years. Peter also advises...

HRD Conference

Discover new ways to improve and sustain high performance

Join us from 21-22 April (Opens in a new window)

My HR Map

a NEW online self-assessment tool for CIPD members!

Find out how it can help you! (Opens in a new window)
Links open in new window
 
People Management neither recommends, nor is responsible for, the content of external sites listed here.
Your link here: contact the PM sales team.