While dealing with monkeys, rats or humans, most organisms tend to perform those actions for which they are best rewarded. Given this premise, why then do
reward systems often reward the type of
behaviour they are supposedly trying to discourage in the first place?
The author is not shy of being controversial. He has given numerous concrete (but politically incorrect) real life examples to support his extraordinary claims:
Public positions of politicians are generally high on rhetoric, and vague on specifics, whereas operational
goals indicate where the money will come from, and how it will be used. The author states that vague
rhetoric finds greater acceptance among the public, whereas the voter tends to punish the politician who points out the fiscal constraints towards fulfilling the rhetoric. It is pointless to expect the politician to talk of specifics, if he is going to be punished for it!
In the case of war, the primary objective of the defence ministry is to win, whereas what the
soldier on the front wants (most of all) is to return home alive. The author states that the defence ministry must reward the soldier for winning the war; that is, the soldier must be allowed to return home only after the combat goals have been obtained – not when his tour of duty is over!
The author
says that medical practioners are wary of declaring even a moderately sick person well, for fear of malpractice suits. However, labelling a well person sick (on the strength of a few stray symptoms) is deemed to be sound medical practice, besides ensuring a regular stream of income!
The author states that the main purpose of orphanages is to place as many children as possible in good homes. But the orphanages often set up so many rules and regulations as to render the process of adoption virtually impossible! The author terms this an example of “goal displacement” – whereby the means displace the original goals, and become an end in themselves.
The author has not spared the teaching profession either. He says that the primary purpose of the University is to impart quality education to the students. But the University rewards the teachers based on the research they have carried out, and the articles they have published! Due to the scarcity of time, the teachers must choose between teaching and research, and teaching tends to suffer in the process.
The author states that such examples often occur in business as well, and not just in real life. The author has also listed four major factors to explain why this strange phenomenon takes place at all:
i. Obsession with so-called “objective” criteria, which are not really “objcetive”at all.
ii. Emphasis on highly “visible” behaviour. Some parts of the task (such as attendance) are highly visible, while other parts (such as team-building & creativity) are not.
iii. Hypocricy – certain types of behaviour (such as sycophancy) are rewarded, despite management’s declared policy against the same.
iv. Emphasis on equity instead of efficiency.
The author says that it is pointless to complain (as some managers do) that the workers are not motivated enough, when the type of behaviour that is being rewarded is not the
desired behaviour. For the reward system to work, it must be seen to reinforce positive trends, and it must not become an obstacle in the way of achieving desired organizational goals. When the reward system works by itself, one does not have to spend time, effort and money to guide the workers along the desired channels.
More summaries about the Article: On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B