Praise Me, Pay Me, But Above All, Appreciate Me

[David Blanchard]

Anybody who has ever worked for a penurious boss (a euphemism for “tightwad cheapskate”) has undoubtedly heard these words, or something close to it: “I’m sorry we can’t pay you more, but we’ll make it up to you with recognition. We’re all team players here.”

Well, according to a study conducted by Sirota Survey Intelligence (http://www.sirota.com), the idea that praise is an adequate substitute for money is a workplace myth.

“Neither praise nor money alone are sufficient to satisfy employees,” says David Sirota, chairman emeritus. “There are three basic goals that the vast majority of employees seek from their jobs: pride in one’s work; positive and productive relationships with one’s co-workers; and being treated fairly in pay, benefits, and job security.”

Sirota also adds that “these needs cannot be substituted for one another. As we enter the holiday and bonus season, managers should remember that a ‘thank you’ from the boss does not replace money, and money cannot substitute for praise. All of these needs are critical. There are no significant differences in the three basic goals that people want from their work by occupation, industry, age, gender, or culture. People everywhere want to be treated fairly, be proud of what they do, and for whom they do it.”

So if you’re thinking a modest year-end bonus handed out at the company holiday luncheon will buy you a year’s worth of gratitude and loyalty from your staff, forget it. Take a look at that “continuous improvement” schedule on your bulletin board and remember that applies to employee relations, too.

According to Sirota, other workplace myths include:

· Employees’ immediate managers are the cause of most workers’ problems.

· Employees who complain about their pay are really unhappy about something else.

· There are major differences between generations in what people want from their jobs.

· There are major differences between cultures and countries in what people want from their jobs.

· Profit-sharing is a major motivator of employee performance.

[Milo3]

Well I guess its clear that the folks at Sirota didn't go to the University of Michigan. Uof M did a study that ranked employee wants as follows:
#1 Recognition
#2 Feeling Involved
#3 Job Security
#4 Interesting work
#5 Wages
The way I see it, the first four of these are Free, that is to say, non cash.

From a personal point of view, All the money in the world wouldn't keep me on a job that I couldn't stand, nor working for an unethical boss, nor with a company that didn't have a future.

I've voted with my feet several times.

The folks at Sirota may not think that these are replaceable, or substitutable, but how many of us would leave a job we are happy with based on items 1-4 above, to go to a hell hole just to score big on item 5?
I wouldn't.

And I wouldn't work for someone who would, either.

Their findings may stand if one looks at these as 'either-or pairs,' but that is such an oversimplification as to not be worth the effort to publish. Who is better, mommy or daddy?

Milo3.

[David Blanchard]

As with every survey, the answers always depend on who does the asking, and who does the answering. In the case of this survey, Sirota talked to 150 human resource managers, which I thought made the results a bit more valid since it wasn't based on perceptions (disgruntled employees vs clueless bosses) but instead of input HR people are getting when people take jobs, leave jobs or have a problem on the job.

Also, the main point I think the Sirota survey was trying to make is that it takes a *combination* of wages, recognition, job security, interesting work, et. al., to consistently motivate employees -- not that any one factor outweighs the other.

[Milo3]

Well the combo meal was exactly the point of the U of M study.

But the way that the Sirota study is being explained sets up "praise" as a straw horse proxy for "pride in one’s work" or
"to be treated fairly," or "be proud of what they do," and then shown to be an inadequate substitute for "fair compensation."

It troubles me that in management writing, we frequently encounter lists of factors, and these factors are always either-or, digital, not analog.

What a well designed study based on data and not just opinions from whatever stratifed sample one has available might do is attempt to deteremine coefficients and exponents for the multiple factors involved. In the physical sciences we try to fit data into expressions that explain the data, not show that "X" isn't "Y".

I would suggest that factors such as Recognition and Feeling Involved are multipliers, with out which the product is zero or minus ...Job security is an add on or subtract off from wages (Have job security, you would accept somewhat lower pay because you believe that you have a longer stream of payments...) and Interesting Work is an exponentfor the base wage...

Looking at mere substitutability of factors seems parochial at best.


Great topic.
Milo3

[bradintx]

I find this an interesting contrast to the discussion last week on skilled labor shortages. Last week the arguement seemed to be that employers would not pay enough money to attract and keep workers (especially those of us in the South). This week it seems that it is not about the money but the love.

No one did a survey of me - but my response is:

Almost no amount of money is worth a long term job with an unethical company or in an oppressive/abusive environment.

At the same time all the praise in the world will not buy groceries or pay the mortgage.

So we eliminate the extremes and we find that there is no doubt some room to play between the amount paid and love shown. The good organization will balance these and recognize that employees are individuals and what motivates Joe may not motivate Bob. Easier said than done, but no one ever said it would be easy.

[Rick]

I realize that this is not exactly the subject of the discussion, but I would like to describe what is currently happening to me and ask 1) if anyone has ever encountered a similar situation, and 2) if you think that I'm being treated wrongly.

One year ago I was actively recruited away from a solid company with which I had a bright future. I wasn't looking for work, they caled me. My new assignment was to take on the management of a poorly performing manufacturing plant.

Within 6 months, the company was considering closing the plant, and has now done that. Until one month ago, they had told me that I would be transfered to one of three other plants, with no mention of a reduction in salary.

Now after I managed the plant thru closure and meeting the remaining customer obligations, they've given me the option to take one of the other plants, move my family, and take a 15% pay cut or lose my job.

Have you ever heard of a well performing salaried manager being asked to take a lateral transfer to another state and accept a 15% pay cut?

Is that ethical?

[Milo3]

You said "One year ago I was actively recruited away from a solid company with which I had a bright future. I wasn't looking for work, they caled me. My new assignment was to take on the management of a poorly performing manufacturing plant."

I had said "From a personal point of view, All the money in the world wouldn't keep me on a job that I couldn't stand, nor working for an unethical boss, nor with a company that didn't have a future."

When considering employment options, one has to look at All of the potential consequences, not just the most favorable ones. I faced a similar oppoirtunity a few years ago, to become head of quality with a major telecom. It involved a move, huge incentives, etc.etc. It seemed too good to be true, and I passed. 4 months later the dot com bubble burst, and I was still working, and whoever they had moved to wherever was in quite a pickle...

As I mentioned earlier, A solid company is likely worth more in terms of future string of payments vs the "poorer performing plant." The poorer performing plant offerred a higher payment in the short term to "compensate" for that higher risk, and you must have felt that that, combined with your ability to turn things around was a good bet. Sorry that it didn't work out.

I think that it is a tribute to your talent that your current employer A) didn't let you go when they shut your current plant down; B) is offerring you a chance to run another plant. The fact that they are giving you an opportunity to work at another plant says "plant closing was not your fault."

The issue of reduced pay is a reality of the positions available with them. With your talents, you have options- you can accept their offer at the reduced pay, or find work that matches your desired pay level somewhere else.

But expecting them to pay you higher than the current openings available deserve is somewhat optimistic.

Your experience is relevant to this discussion as it shows that the basis for making employment decisions relies on a combination of factors, and the higher pay is a poor substitute for expected stability at a more solid employer. The Sirota study called it job security, Blanchard argued that praise wasn't substututable for money; Your experience shows that higher pay was not a sustainable substitute for working at a solid company.

I see praise for a job well done in their offerring you the lateral move, not an ethical violation.

Milo3