After over forty years of experience in large and small organizations, I have been on both sides of rewards, both receiving them and being passed over for them. If there is anything this experience has taught me, it is that in general, corporate rewards offer little on the positive side and a lot on the negative side.
There are several issues missing - or at least not fully realized, in this book, though it does contain some very true insight into failed rewards systems, such as those that start out claiming to reward outstanding performance but degenerate into mere attendance contests (a sure sign that management is either too busy, lazy or out of touch with its employees on a personal level).
One of the missing issues is favoritism. People are human, whether they are CEOs or the custodial staff and they respond more positively to those who make them feel good about themselves. They also cannot help but become somewhat biased toward those they know over those they don't know. That is why the first people in a large organization to receive awards are those in their immediate field of vision -- a phenomenon I have witnessed time and time again. Kerr does allude to the fact that, even in a quantifiable reward system, it must be taken into consideration that the playing field is not always level for the candidates -- but what also factors in is that the "favorites", or to put it more charitably, the "high-profile" persons, are often going to get the better chances?
That is not to say that this book does not have value. Kerr does acknowledge flawed systems and, most importantly, points out that there are employees being rewarded for the wrong behavior. There will always be people who figure out how to work the system. That is absolutely true. Some terribly horrendous people who make life miserable for those around them and are a drain on both morale and company resources are given awards, making those awards mockeries of their actual intent.
Another very important point Kerr makes is that saying "No" is punished and saying "yes" without question is rewarded, even if the directive is going to be damaging to the company, the client, or the future. I can't help but wonder how many "less than excellent" employees could see the current problems coming for the fall of the banks or the auto companies but were considered "negative" and "not excellent" while those who carried out the flawed orders of those above them were called "outstanding?"
So Kerr's book is valuable if only that it re-opens the subject and hopefully institutes improvement, if not perfection. You can't expect awards to always be fair, just look at the Oscars or the Emmys. But they're probably here to stay because they're a cheaper alternative to raises and bonuses in these lean times.
That said, the most important part of the issue of whether rewards work is this -- what happens to the people who DON'T get them? They may never speak about it, not wanting to be "poor sports," but for all his quantifying, Kerr can't possibly account for all the hurt and possible bitterness that giving public awards to a select few incurs on the mass of losers. Who is really getting "rewarded" ultimately? The employees or the management who can rest a little easier now that they have rewarded "the best people?"
How can you tell a crowd of employees that they're all valued and they're great, but a few are even greater? Shades of Animal Farm -- some are more equal than others. Such events not only cause deep wounds but also shove wedges between co-workers who are being told there's no "I" in "team." You can't give awards to everybody either, because obviously they lose their meaning. You might want to tailor specific awards for each individual contribution, which is time consuming, or -- heavens to betsy -- visit your people more often to let them know how valued they are. I have seen, too often, that citing the contributions of some while ignoring those of so many others causes hurts, the depths of which you may never be aware.
It's not an easy issue to solve and Kerr, to his credit, doesn't pretend to have all the answers, nor do the companies he served become magically transformed. But again, in these economically challenging times, it might do well to find more ways to do more than just create a blanket reward policy without taking the variables of the human factor into account.
