Is your management _rewarding_ you?

what kind of rewards get you moving?

I've read the thread on Icelava's forum and I beg to differ. True that job satisfaction supercedes monetary rewards but if you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, one would need to be able to feed his basic needs before he can look for self-fulfillment and other stuff.

Take for example someone borne in a poor family (or for that matter, poor country), monetary rewards simply DRIVES these people.

For most Singaporeans, we are born lucky and never had to suffer from the hardships of life and can be able to look down and see that, yes, monetary rewards MAY just seem extra.

Just my $0.02, and yes, monetary rewards is very important to me. And I believe it becomes more important as one picks up more baggage along his/her life.

microlau wrote:

I've read the thread on Icelava's forum and I beg to differ. True that job satisfaction supercedes monetary rewards but if you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, one would need to be able to feed his basic needs before he can look for self-fulfillment and other stuff. Take for example someone borne in a poor family (or for that matter, poor country), monetary rewards simply DRIVES these people. For most Singaporeans, we are born lucky and never had to suffer from the hardships of life and can be able to look down and see that, yes, monetary rewards MAY just seem extra. Just my $0.02, and yes, monetary rewards is very important to me. And I believe it becomes more important as one picks up more baggage along his/her life.

That goes without saying... Money after all keeps you alive...

microlau wrote:

I beg to differ.

I can agree with you on that - you need to satisfy items at the base level before concerning the ones above. And the "do this and you get that" scheme, as evidenced by its popular implementation by (even) American economies, does indeed sound attract because it most certainly caters to the pyhsiological needs.

But I believe that decade old article is not driving the point at the base level, and in-line with Maslow's theorem, is pointing at the upper levels that push you to excel as far as your capabilities take you.

Case in point: in one of my past jobs, the way management structures the team and "distributes" tasks has gone way beyond the questionable threshold. (Notice i use quotes on the word "distribute" because it is actually an overstatement to the way things were done).

When one of my seniors exhausted the reserves of his patience, he quit. Sorry to disappoint you if you were expecting him to whip out an Uzi sub-machine pistol to shoot everybody in the office. But he was an important individual because he was most experienced with the Unix/Linux systems and losing him was really a bad deal. Management subsequently reacted by giving the core group of us a salary jump of $500.

Do you think people stayed on just because of that?

I stayed on because there were many more opportunity to learn things there, and extra money in was an "er.... ok.... even better" affair for me. My colleagues in time one by one around me threw the towel. $500 more, per month, is not important. Their lives were. They wanted their lives back. Eventually i quit too after deciding i have learnt enough and wanted to embark on a career as a developer of Microsoft technologies.

Again, content is the keyword.

i had simliar experiences....

however i must say monetary is important. and there is 'Minimum level',
and this minimum will increase as u grow older n esp when u hav ur own familiy.

will u want to work for a company tat  gives u lots of  'Learning opportunities and challenges'
if they pay u only slightly more than a fresh grad even thou say u hav a senior guy experience?

Infact, thats how some company 'con' people into 'challenging' but low pay jobs,
esp fresh grads n people who still think 'challenges' is most important.
Thats how they get 'cheap slaves'... who tried to be responsible employees
who put into lots of OT jus to meet unrealistic schedules...

In my encounter... many people left nevertheless....
after meeting the seemingly unfair contract terms...
but heck... in the coy's view, theres still many 'fresh people' out there
eager to take on challenges....

Thats how the 'dark' part of the industry works... issit it?

...ok i hav to add... even if that company offer to pay me 1-2K more...
i wil not work for them...

As a saying goes. "Money cannot buy happiness, but lack of money can make you sad." As mentioned by someone else earlier in thread, beyond a certain level work counts for more than money. One of my friends is willing to leave his current job despite worse renumeration in multiple ways because, one a better brandname company and two he is sick of the management and the work.

nuzone wrote:

however i must say monetary is important. and there is 'Minimum level', and this minimum will increase as u grow older n esp when u hav ur own familiy. will u want to work for a company tat  gives u lots of  'Learning opportunities and challenges' if they pay u only slightly more than a fresh grad even thou say u hav a senior guy experience?

Once again, I think it is important to remember that the article, in my perception, is not elaborating on a scenario of underpaid coolies who struggle to carry that extra bag of rice for more money in the pocket. It is not delving at the pyramid's bottom layer of survival needs.

One should assume one is already reasonably renumerated in the existing job as is, and that what is mentioned are the extra bonuses to push employees, not to work harder, but perform better. There is a difference. Also do not assume the reward management waves at you is always money.

Think about what the sentence is saying: "Do this and you get that"

Quoting you: "The point that is highlighted very clearly in the article is that true motivation to perform excellently in jobs is rarely a monetary concern." http://icelava.net/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=851

I think this is simply a wrong generalization. It only applies to people who think that money is LESS (<> NOT) important to them. So taking this idea and apply blindly throughout an organization is simply NAIVE.

Also, think of this: a lot of time it's not the money itself which is important, but what the money represents and what you can do with it.

Take for example: You completed a work which you think you have excellently done, and your boss simply say "Thank you" and then compare it with another situation where your boss  awarded you with $20k of bonus for also an excellent execution.

Assuming $20k is nothing to you. I believe you still probably think that in the second scenario: " my boss REALLY appreciate my works, else he/she won't reward me so handsomely." Why would you think that way??? because it's HARDER to get someone to reward you $20K than saying "thank you".

If the $20k is nothing for you, still the satisfaction comes from getting the $20k itself, rather than getting words like "thank you". You will probably donate all the $20k to the poor :)

 

domainconnect wrote:

Take for example: You completed a work which you think you have excellently done, and your boss simply say "Thank you" and then compare it with another situation where your boss  awarded you with $20k of bonus for also an excellent execution.

A boss who goes all out with his/her authority to cut out a portion of the company's funds to show personal heartfelt gratitude for a deserving performer is most certainly welcomed over a blatant cheapo who thinks words alone can pay for food. That I agree. (although that opens a policital can of worms of subjectivity and favourtism that shall not be discussed here - another topic for another day)

But, this would be slightly out of context from the article. [At least] I felt it is pointing at the cold-hearted use of rule tables to logically, and impersonally, allocate token incentives. This "sprinkling" of candy to lure people to do better out of a environment and system that is making them frustratingly ineffective, is avoiding the core issues to why the people are ineffective in the first place. The smart workplace is not a room full of empty "thank you"s but patterns and processes that are satisfyingly enriching.

First, I don't mean "thank you" as "empty thank you", I'm merely pointing that $20k is much harder to get than "thank you". The satisfaction could come from getting something harder to get.

Second, I do not mean money is everything, money cannot compensate everything. So money does not work in every scenario, that's true.

Third, taking the idea "money should not be the key driver to exellency" and then apply it through out an organization is a naive thinking, or a thinking which is diconnectted from how the real world is working. BEWARE of any motivational speaker who is teaching you this idea. The idea itself is not wrong, but the application of the idea is the one that could be very wrong.

 

 

 

For me, I think both money and appreciation are equally important. We cannot kid ourself that money is not important - that will not be doing ourselves justice while the bosses smile all the way to the bank and play golf.

Balance between "Getting enough money" and "Getting enough appreciation/satisfaction" is very difficult to achieve as we human beings tend to be "wanting-animals". So our needs, wants and demands change over time. If you have both at satisfactory level, you should be happy.

With money comes responsibilities. The more you earn, the more things you need to do and the more stressful your job becomes. One has to understand that one can never earn all the money in this world. Therefore, it is good to spend some time with our family members (while they are still around or while we are still around).

Working for money alone will not give you happiness. Most of the time, you don't even have the time to spend it. Working for interest alone will not give you happiness either because we need to pay bills. For both scenarios, I've been there, done them.

As for appreciation in an organization, it all depends on the managers and those who have the power to reward. A Team Lead can offer no better than a pat on the back for doing a good job. Whereas, a generous boss could go to the extend of giving instant cash bonus (I've heard off this in one chinaman company).

Personally, I feel that a combination of money compensation and expression of gratitude is the best thing a company could do to make the staff feel appreciated. I've worked for a company where I spent 6 weekends rushing for a project - that 42 days working non-stop. On one saturday afternoon, my manager went to buy chicken-rice for all the developers.

When I asked him, why he did it as he could have called for delivery, he replied "I can't help you guys code but atleast I can help you guys buy the chicken rice you guys want."

After the project was successfully launched, all the key contributors received RM100-200 from the company and a letter of Thank You. They were awarded on a company dinner.

This is the type of management that I want to work for. What they did really make the staff feel appreciated and belonged to the company.

FD, I agree with what you have said. You offer a more practical and balanced view.

There are people who somehow read something (and probably thought that it is a new discovery) and then BLINDLY apply it in every context. Whenever there is a chance, I always try to bring these people back into reality and let them see if they are applying the idea/theory into the right context.

 

 

Firedancer wrote:

Balance between "Getting enough money" and "Getting enough appreciation/satisfaction" is very difficult to achieve as we human beings tend to be "wanting-animals". So our needs, wants and demands change over time. If you have both at satisfactory level, you should be happy. With money comes responsibilities. The more you earn, the more things you need to do and the more stressful your job becomes. One has to understand that one can never earn all the money in this world. Therefore, it is good to spend some time with our family members (while they are still around or while we are still around). Working for money alone will not give you happiness. Most of the time, you don't even have the time to spend it. Working for interest alone will not give you happiness either because we need to pay bills. ..... After the project was successfully launched, all the key contributors received RM100-200 from the company and a letter of Thank You. They were awarded on a company dinner.

Yes this is the type of balance to strike for. Note that I won't advocate working for free either just because it's immensely enjoyable. That becomes strictly a hobby not a job.

So can I conclude it this way:

"(1) In an organization (and please, separate this issue from personal motivation), monetary reward does drive performance, however it might not be enough for all people (but for some it might be more than enough) (2) we cannot generalize or belittle the power of monetary rewards in driving performance"

BTW, has anyone of you who come accross a GREAT organization which does not give any sort of monetary rewards? Example, no yearly bonus or whatsoever, but the organization still perform greatly?

domainconnect wrote:

So can I conclude it this way

I think you are still not inline with the context of what started this. The heart of the article targets the incentive programmes, plots devised by management to reward (usually less than generously) staff who just perform. Without the genuinely expressed gratitude of a personal handshake with both hands.

A sheer neglect to address the existing issues (system, processes) that shackle employees from exploiting their full potential, thereby causing them great torment in working according to current flawed procedures. "Work content" has thus been defined. And what great (extra) pains they must endure in order to perform to that "level" to obtain the less-than-worthy prize. (Not personally-reviewed hefty bonuses here)