Recently, the Toronto Star and Macleans Magazine published articles about the best employers in the Greater Toronto Area for 2011. The organizations that made the cut were chosen and ranked by Aon Hewitt, the consulting arm of a professional services firm. Companies are ranked based on employee and executive responses to surveys surrounding staff engagement, as well as company reports on HR practices. This survey data is then used to create an elite list of companies. If you’re working at one of them, your friends will be jealous.
After explaining their ranking process, The Star subsequently profiles the top organizations in a number of different categories. The common trend among these profiles is an emphasis on workplace rewards programs. To summarize, top ranked company = a really sweet package of fringe benefits. Wellness bonuses, extra holidays, spa time, etc. Today, if you work hard, payback is huge.
This makes sense. As human beings, we respond to positive and negative reinforcement. Employee rewards programs are based on this theory that people are motivated to behave in a certain manner, based on the perceived outcome of that behaviour. If an employee is rewarded for outstanding results on a particular assignment, that employee will be motivated to put forth a similar effort on their next assignment. People like to be acknowledged for the work that they do. But where should we draw the line between motivating optimal performance, and perpetuating a culture of entitlement?
When organizations provide health bonuses to be used for golf clubs and snowboards, there is a risk that employees will begin to expect these things just for showing up. An ideal working environment is one where staff are motivated by organizational objectives and values. Corporate culture can also serve as a motivator, when effective programs are in place to provide for collaboration, creativity, flexibility, and feedback. Material rewards are important, but only when they are used in conjunction with these things, and when they are directly linked to employee performance. Macleans and The Star miss the big picture in their profiles on top employers. By emphasizing the material, these publications encourage a workforce that will be conditioned to perform only when a prize is dangled on the horizon.
