Everyone gets a prize (like they should)

I got my fare share of “recognition” in the few companies I worked at but I think its time to put this tradition to rest — and not only because of the cringe that surrounds the whole ceremony.

I’m referring to the act of singling out team mates for “outstanding achievements” and rewarding them with some shiny object or amazon gift card. I can’t fathom why this became such a popular activity in larger corporations or even smaller ones who aim to mimic the larger ones.

Off the bat, I’d like to make clear that my position isn’t that individuals shouldn’t be occasionally recognized for their work but that exactly everyone in the team should be recognized for their work equally.

What companies tend to do, in my experience, is try and recognize individuals that contribute more and reward them publicly. They hope to achieve two effects: retaining the talent and creating an environment that can be described as pseudo meritocracy: “Effort is rewarded”. (Meritocracy is usually summed up as “talent and effort is rewarded” but I believe that corporations try to reward talent by hiring them and reward effort by other means.)

While these effects seem advantageous for a team that wishes to continue to succeed, the following effects also exist:

• Team mates may feel disappointed that their efforts are overlooked (only one person can be “employee of the month” and other’s efforts were fruitless).
• People lose trust in management if the reward goes to someone undeserving and in some instances management is vulnerable to accusations of nepotism, racism, sexism, ageism, etc.
• The person receiving the reward may feel a range of emotions that may be detrimental to their work: entitlement, pressure to perform and deliver (as if to be deserving of the recognition), etc.
• Not everyone likes the attention and would rather be appreciated in other ways.

I put it that the negative effects out weigh the good, especially because it is nearly impossible to have just and fair processes for dealing these rewards. I also argue that one of the good effects is actually very dangerous: Meritocracy.

There are many books and studies that point an accusing finger at this term, but I’ll summarize my stance on the matter with this quote:

“ Meritocracy offers a ladder system of social mobility, promoting a socially corrosive ethic of competitive self-interest which both legitimises inequality and damages community ‘by requiring people to be in a permanent state of competition with each other ” (Against Meritocracy)

To put things back in place, lets review some basic values when approaching this subject.

Not everyone belongs

My first underlying assumption is that there are exactly two types of team members: those that belong and those that don’t. Those that belong should be recognized while those that don’t need to be reassigned.

The team needs to succeed, as well as the individual

A team should consist of a diverse group of individuals who contribute their talents and efforts. Contribution is never equal but if the team continually succeeds, then the team and the individuals in the team need to be recognized.

Some people are more ‘visible’ than others. Some positions are more visible then other’s. This is one of the traps that lead meritocracy to dark places. If you are rewarding individual contributions then you are building a team of individual contributors. If you recognize effort across the team and the teams’ achievements, you are recognizing team work as well as the individuals in the team.

People need recognition

Recognition comes in many forms. I remember the feeling of being recognized for my efforts — it was motivating and uplifting. Those rewards kept me at work for longer than I would have otherwise. Smart companies recognize their employees without prejudice. Good managers recognize the effort of their team members constantly. Recognition needs to be specific — but it doesn’t have to be exclusive. Everyone wants to be seen and everyone wants to feel valuable.

Managers are people

There is some odd misconception that only team members or individual contributors can be rewarded publicly. Its considered bad form to praise managers publicly, for the exact same reasons I’ve outlined earlier — team members may feel that credit is being stolen. Ironically, middle management positions are notoriously ungrateful and stressful. People in these positions are constantly blamed and pummeled by their managers as well as their subordinates.

So what do you suggest?

This is a difficult issue and I haven’t seen a model I completely agree with yet. Frustratingly, even the notion of rewarding teams might suffer the same pitfalls — as some teams are more visible then others, some get more business critical projects or have better managers and vicious cycles may give way to continuously over achieving vs failing teams.

Eventually, I think management should make sure that everyone is recognized — in several ways where possible.

• The continuous every day ‘pat on the back’ — efforts appreciated should be ingrained in the culture of every team and in every relationship between manage and worker. This needs to be supervised as managers may err in many different ways like inherent biases towards specific positions and people.
• A periodic celebration of an employee’s contribution. I don’t believe that performance assessments are related to this discussion as they tend to put the good of the team before recognizing effort. Here is something close that I’ve experiences at WeWork: On the employee’s anniversary (first day at the company), they are given some reward that is visible to others, like a large bouquet or cake. They are mentioned together with others that share their anniversary in the nearest town hall meeting. They are mentioned together with their position as well as some main highlights from this year and a large photo of their smiling face.
• Project completion (or failure) — occasionally a team finishes a project and its time to celebrate (or mourn). Its important to recognize all the members who contributed, maybe not by name but in some way that its clear that they are mentioned (“Launch could not have been possible without the QA, R&D and IT departments and their members and a special mention to the France Team for supporting us”).