Blog 8-The Dark Side of Reward Systems: Preventing Unintended Consequences and Toxic Competition

Recognition programs are designed to enhance employee performance and improve motivation. Companies invest millions in their recognition programs with high expectations. However, these systems usually deliver negative results. Even well-motivated incentive programs may work in reverse when the designers do not foresee human actions. These recognition programs may also create unhealthy competition, support unethical practices, and, ironically enough, lower intrinsic motivation that they are intended to boost (Kuvaas et al., 2017). Knowledge of these dark sides helps organizations to create superior systems. This paper identifies the pitfalls and provides mitigation strategies.                                          

         

Gaming the System 

Employees can always find innovative methods of suppressing reward measures. When organizations measure the wrong indicators, the people are motivated to optimize measurement instead of performance (Ordonez et al., 2009). Salesmen can sell unwanted products to meet targets. Customer care agents may hurry calls to enhance response time requirements at the expense of service quality.  

New gaming opportunities are discovered in the new studies of algorithmic management. Employees with artificial intelligence monitoring their performance will resort to complex mechanisms to make themselves seem more productive and work less (Kellogg et al., 2020). The complexity of gaming changes along with the measurement technology. Organizations should also be aware of the fact that employees will create loopholes in any system. The design of the rewards has to predict possible gaming behaviors and incorporate suitable preventive mechanisms. 

Unhealthy Rivalry and Ruined Relationships 

Reward systems that are individual based tend to ruin cooperation. Competition among employees means irrational cooperation when they are competing to receive a small amount of recognition or bonuses (Tauer & Harackiewicz, 2004). Team members do not share information that can be of benefit to others. Knowledge sharing is substituted with knowledge hoarding. The silos within an organization become stronger as different departments struggle over resources and recognition. 

Forced ranking systems are an example of this malfunction. According to these systems managers have to classify employees in terms of performance levels with set distributions. There has to be somebody who is at the bottom category irrespective of the absolute performance. This would generate a zero-sum competition. The failure of one person needs another individual to succeed. The resultant atmosphere fosters resentment and sabotage (Stewart et al., 2010). 

Recent studies affirm these harmful impacts in industries. An analysis of healthcare institutions revealed that competitive incentive systems led to less information sharing across departments, which eventually undermined the quality of patient care (Gao, 2015). The innovative process is impaired as employees are concerned with personal safety instead of creative cooperation. Competition decreases performance when work depends on interdependence and creativity (Miao et al., 2021). 

Subjective Bias and Favoritisms

Even apparently objective reward systems are subjective and can be biased. Managers have a discretionary approach to assessing contributions and assigning recognition (Abhineswari & Kakada, 2023). Such discretion gives way to both conscious and unconscious favouritism. Employees with similar traits are given various rewards depending on non-relevant traits. 

Studies indicate that there are consistent trends of bias in the organizational setting. Women and minorities tend to be less appreciable with the same performance, and these differences increase in distance workplaces (Yang et al., 2022). The extroverted workers get a better exposure compared to well competent introverts. Employees that stick close to the managers are rated better than those who keep a professional distance. Such biases undermine the perceived equity that is the key to the effectiveness of the reward system (Colquitt et al., 2021). 

Algorithms based performance appraisal systems which are frequently promoted as objective alternatives bring new forms of bias. The machine learning models that are trained based on past information reproduce the discrimination trends (Fernandez-Martinez and Fernandez, 2020). Bias may be more challenging to spot and overcome because of the illusion of algorithmic objectivity. 

The Over justification Effect 

Intrinsic motivation is counter-intuitive in response to external rewards. When citizens are paid real money to perform something that they used to like, they lose their natural interest (Kuvaas et al., 2017). The reward makes the play a work. Activities that were initially done to gain satisfaction are turned into instrumental transactions. 

This effect has been proven to be strong in organizational contexts up to date (Deci et al., 2017). The performance-contingent rewarded employees demonstrate less enjoyment of tasks and less creativity than are those who have no external incentives. Internal motivation is driven out by the external reward. 

This habit forms a disturbing addiction. There should be a continuous rewarding process by organizations in order to sustain the behavior that would have been attained naturally by the employees. Punishing does not make original motivation levels to come back. In its turn, performance decreases below the baseline (Cerasoli et al., 2014). The reward system brings about the demand of its continuance. Rewards do not all have such effects. Intrinsic motivation is usually maintained with the help of unexpected appreciation and autonomy-supportive recognition (Deci and Ryan, 2014). 

Short-Term Focus and Strategic Myopia 

Reward systems tend to focus on short term quantifiable results. Bonuses in quarterly form have quarterly thoughts. The yearly appraisals encourage the yearly planning horizons. This time orientation is at odds with the long-term organizational health (Ladika and Sautner, 2020). Employees give up on sustaining practices in favor of the short-term payoffs. Managers put off the required maintenance to save on the existing costs. The problem is that research and development are negatively affected because rewards focus on quarterly revenues, rather than pipeline innovation (Flammer and Bansal, 2017). 

In the recent studies, the dangers of executive compensation are illustrated in industries. The short-term incentive plans promote risk-taking that has short-term payoffs but leaves the company vulnerable in the long term (Kim et al., 2016). The technology firms have decreased infrastructural investment to achieve the quarterly objectives. The reduction in long-term research by pharmaceutical firms is due to the aim of increasing profitability. 

Mitigation Strategies 

When these pitfalls are known, it can help in designing a better reward system. Organizations must not focus on individual measures but multiple balanced metrics (Gerhart et al., 2016). Integration of quantitative and qualitative evaluation minimizes the possibilities of gaming. Interpersonal rating, which involves peer ratings, helps to reduce personal bias. 

Individual recognition is supplemented with team based rewards. The method promotes teamwork and also recognizes the individual input (Johnson & Avolio, 2019). Reward timelines must be aligned in line with strategic goals in organizations. Sustainable decision-making is encouraged by long-term incentives. When short-term gains are shown to be an illusion, clawback provisions can enable bonus recovery. 

Openness on reward standards and compensation minimizes the feeling of injustice. When employees are aware of evaluation processes, they are more willing to accept outcomes despite disappointment (Kim and Holzer, 2016). Biases patterns can be detected through regular audits and corrected. Evaluation committees should be diverse in order to balance personal biases. 

Conclusion 

Reward systems are considered potent tools that should be handled with care. Their powers of evil are equal to their powers of good. Organizations should be humble and conscious in designing recognition programs. Foreseeing unintended consequences avoids foreseeable issues. The idea is not to get rid of rewards, but to apply them wisely. Reward systems properly organized boost motivation without manipulation, acknowledge achievement without bitterness, and inspire performance without undermined values. 

References  

Abhineswari, M., & Kakada, P. (2023, May). Managing diversity in organizations: How various factors influence workforce diversity. In Proceedings of the 8th International New York Conference on Evolving Trends in Interdisciplinary Research & Practices. Vellore Institute of Technology University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373649955_Managing_Diversity_in_Organizations_How_Various_Factors_Influence_Workforce_Diversity  

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661 

Colquitt, J. A., Sabey, T. B., Rodell, J. B., & Hill, E. T. (2019). Content validation guidelines: Evaluation criteria for definitional correspondence and definitional distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(10), 1243. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000406  

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 4, 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108  

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships: Relationships motivation theory. Human motivation and interpersonal relationships: Theory, research, and applications, 53-73. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/978-94-017-8542-6_3  

Fernández-Martínez, C., & Fernández, A. (2020). AI and recruiting software: Ethical and legal implications. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 11(1), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0030?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26medium%3Darticle  

Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2017). Does a long‐term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal, 38(9), 1827-1847. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2629  

Gao, J. (2015). Performance measurement and management in the public sector: Some lessons from research evidence. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1704?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26medium%3Darticle  

Gerhart, B., Newman, J., & Milkovich, G. (2016). Compensation (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. 

Johnson, H. H., & Avolio, B. J. (2019). Team psychological safety and conflict trajectories’ effect on individuals’ team identification and satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 44(5), 843–873. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118767316  

Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of management annals, 14(1), 366-410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174  

Kim, J. B., Wang, Z., & Zhang, L. (2016). CEO overconfidence and stock price crash risk. Contemporary accounting research, 33(4), 1720-1749. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12217?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26medium%3Darticle  

Kim, T., & Holzer, M. (2016). Public employees and performance appraisal: A study of antecedents to employees’ perception of the process. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(1), 31-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X14549673  

Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Weibel, A., Dysvik, A., & Nerstad, C. G. (2017). Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation relate differently to employee outcomes?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, 244-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.05.004  

Ladika, T., & Sautner, Z. (2020). Managerial short-termism and investment: Evidence from accelerated option vesting. Review of Finance, 24(2), 305-344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfz012  

Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2018). A cross-cultural meta-analysis of how leader emotional intelligence influences subordinate task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of World Business, 53(4), 463-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.01.003  

Stewart, S. M., Gruys, M. L., & Storm, M. (2010). Forced distribution performance evaluation systems: Advantages, disadvantages and keys to implementation. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(1), 168-179. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.16.1.168  

Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(6), 849. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.849  

Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., ... & Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature human behaviour, 6(1), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4