by Peter A. Arthur-Smith, Leadership Solutions, Inc.®

“Incentives for teams have stronger effects with small teams, when the team faces complex tasks, when rewards are equitable (vs. equal), and when they are perceived as fair.” Paolo Sciacovelli, Team based rewards, Science for Work, December 2018.

Over the past one hundred years we have become addicted to individual performance and reward systems. This mode likely grew out of the 20^th-century efficiency movement. Bearing in mind how haphazardly industry was probably organized coming out of the industrial revolution and beyond, people like Frederick W. Taylor conceivably convinced enterprises that making their individual employees more efficient would make their companies more efficient. Relative to other ad hoc practices which likely existed at that time, his thinking made a significant difference and so it stuck.

Based upon so many other incredible workplace developments over the past 100 years, it’s high time to revisit such modes and build motivation and reward approaches fit for the 21^st century. Our workplace people are far better educated. We have incredible computerized tools and associated systems. We have automation in many forms that can handle many

repetitive, drudgery tasks. And, our society now has many more work options than just sitting on a production line.

Our Millennials, GenXs, GenYs and Gen Zs are looking for other ways to spend their work lives, other than clocking-in, clocking-out and pursuing other efficiency procedures. They wish to add value to whatever they’re involved with rather than just be an adjunct or a slave to computerized systems: even though many of them are addicted to their gizmos in so many ways. Our higher education universe increasingly encourages students to collaborate with classmates on different projects, even though as students they are ironically rated or scored on an individual basis. How’s that for an oxymoron?

We’re only gradually getting our minds around to teamwork and team rewards as hinted at by our opening quote. This is despite the fact that people can achieve a whole lot more by working together as teams: be that in pairs, threesomes, foursomes or even six people. Your author has regularly extolled the virtue of a particular team definition:

“An optimum team comprises of two but no more than six members, who are interdependent upon each other to accomplish a common, highly prized objective.”

It’s indisputable that a well-put-together, effective team will produce far more than a similar number of individuals.

It would seem that there are at least five key reasons why the team reward concept has not caught fire as much as it should have:

• A minority portion of the population, either through personality quirks or their upbringing, contribute more by working alone rather than collaborating with others. Many of these people have gone on to become performance outliers and therefore become icons that organizations want to replicate. Take advantage of it, if you can, but don’t expect everyone else in your work universe to be the same.
• Our media invariably focuses on individual heroics within any sports team. This makes it easier to draw people’s interest, as well as is reflective of how most reporters see themselves as individual heroes, too.
• As of today, we don’t seem to do a particularly good job of putting together the right complementary personas to form strong, effective teams. Left to their own devices, people seem to prefer linking up with personas similar to themselves within their workplace, even though in their personal lives they tend to pick partners complementary to themselves. Associating with similar people to ourselves at the office, does not seem to bode well for creativity and creates ho-hum teams.
• We don’t know enough about and are not especially interested in rewarding collective effort. Perhaps it’s because if we reward for team effort at the frontline then executives might have to be rewarded for team effort, too. The latter is probably a concept that many individualistic minded executives would have a tough time living with, since so many would rather watch out for themselves.
• We’re not particularly good at going through the right steps to form effective teams, even though there are some good tools and concepts out there to draw upon to make that happen.

So, to meet apparent workplace desires of upcoming generations, rewarding teams is probably an issue whose time is now. We’ve made various stabs at it, more so in some organizations than others, and so we just need the will to make it more universal; as well as be more innovative in finding optimal reward solutions. Every organization is likely to have its own unique features, although there are some fundamentals which will serve all. Issues to be considered are:

» Do we know how to form an effective team? There’s lot to be said for objectively understanding the diverse talents and personas within our organizations and then hiring or pulling together complementary personas for particular assignments. “Pairing” is a good place to start, because it’s less complex and one of the most effective ways of getting something done.

» Do we have the patience to allow a pair or team to properly meld together? As this writer often points out: It generally takes nine months for a couple of humans to gestate a baby. Nature designed it this way, to allow humans to get used to the idea that they are about to become parents. In other words, humans are a slow moving resource and therefore take their time to adapt. It’s the same with building teams.

» Do we use the right reward approach: “Now that you’ve done that, let’s reward you this way;” as opposed to, “If you do this, we’ll give you that.”? The latter is our current and individualistic approach to rewarding people. Not only is it based somewhat upon bribery, but it can also be stressful and a demotivational means over time. There are many advantages from the “Now that…” approach; not least because team members will keep beavering away at their assignment, until stopped, because there are no immediate carrots hanging over their heads. With the “If you do this…” approach, people may become frustrated, when they hit roadblocks and don’t see the promised rewards.

» Do we offer rewards that are easy for pairs or teams to share? Taking a pair out to lunch or dinner after their success is not so hard – it closes the gap between executives and their team members, too. Taking a six people team to watch a major sporting event – just think of the bonding that occurs. Taking a foursome team for a pleasant picnic with spouses or partners is not so problematic – it also helps to close the gap between the two entities. Encouraging a pair to participate in a community sport and allowing them the time to do so, is not particularly onerous – allows them time to reflect upon their success and continue to enjoy each other’s company.

» How should we look upon team bonuses? Unless all team members ascribe to some highly specialized skill, then they should split all bonuses equally. More progressive restaurants are now abandoning individual waiter tips to where all tip money goes into a central pot. That money is then shared equally among kitchen staff as well as dining room team members – as it should be. You can get a lot of good team reward ideas out of Jack Stack’s book, ‘The Great Game of Business.’

And so our reality is that there’s much to be said for pursuing team as opposed to individual rewards; especially if we know how to put the right teams together.  The right teams can produce way more than a lot of individual effort. Our tribal instincts want us to work with others, so why don’t we do what comes naturally rather than create an artificial, individualistic world, except for a small minority? That’s why the world is full of mating pairs!