Do We Even Need Individual Incentives for Performance?

I have been thinking a lot lately about where the balance is from generating competition between individuals and teamwork. You can incentivize both, but is there some type of balance that needs to be maintained, and what is that balance? There has to be a point in which teamwork can’t exist because individual agendas interfere. But there also has to be a point in which team incentives are so great you have to put aside your own agenda for the good of the team. Maybe there is no balance; it’s one or the other?

In sports the scoreboard is the true measurement of a team – you either win, or you lose. But there are also individual statistics and even rewards such as the most valuable player (MVP) of the game or year. In business we often create bonuses for individual performance and sometimes for teams.

How do you balance it? Should we even recognize the individual? What are the consequences, if any, of only rewarding teams? W would love to hear and learn from you. Let’s discuss. Thanks.

Mike

Follow Mike on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/secondgleader

Join our Teamwork Group on Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/e/vgh/2232816/

Comments

[Steve Franklin - Manager of Learning and Development CoBank]

I think you need both. The team needs to think as a unit and be rewarded for its success. That being said, if everyone gets rewarded the same, not matter contribution, then the top performers will feel slighted because they are being rewarded the same as those who do not pull their weight on the team. Thus, there is a disincentive to work hard on the team and go the extra mile if the rewards and recognition are not there.

[kare anderson]

See Dan Pink's answer to your question in his new book Drive

[Mike Rogers]

Thanks for your comments Steve and Kare.

Steve, the great thing about team rewards though is if everyone is getting rewarded the same then they will tend to hold one another accountable for the unproductive performance or behavior of the team. Peer pressure will become the ruling force of the team. That can be a really good thing if the team trusts one another etc... What do you think?

Kare, thanks for your recommendation. I have never read any of Dan Pink' stuff, but I am going to order his book "A Whole New Mind."

- Mike

[Ben Deceuster]

The emphasis always needs to be placed on the individual. Equal distribution of rewards will only magnify the negative feelings already held by top performers towards those they are carrying. I like the sports analogy because top performers know their skills are in demand by other teams/companies and will have no problems leaving one team if they feel they are being cheated. Rewarding losers is an open invitation to watching your best performers leave. Teams can get small rewards like a free lunch or something a top performer does not mind seeing shared, but I would not recommend going out and purchasing new flats screens for everyone on the team for Christmas if there are obvious differences in performance. Poor performers need to be weeded out and new talent brought in, this shows a serious attitude on performance and will keep pushing top performers with new competition. In this economy, there is a lot of talent available, so companies should not be settling for weak performance.

[Mike Rogers]

Thanks for your comments Ben.

Do you think the weeding out process would occur quicker by the team themselves if the rewards were equal across the team? Wouldn't team member be more willing to hold one another accountable if rewards were equal? Peer pressure would become the catalyst to performance?

- Mike