"Recognition that Resonates" is the title of an article from Workforce Management that seems to give creditability to the fact that Cash isn't always needed to motivate employees. In fact, it seems that Non-Cash programs may be more effective.
If your organization is looking for a way to get your employees Engaged, this article illustrates how cash may be nice, but non-cash based recognition may be much more appreciated and effective with your employees. The article also eludes to non-cash programs as being a retention tool. According to a study by the Forum for People Performance Management and Measurement at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, which is sighted in the article, non-cash programs were viewed as being more effective in getting employees to achieve eight out of ten corporate goals according to a study of 235 corporate managers.
I think that non-cash programs are great. I was part of a program that issued what was called "driverdollars". These "dollars" could then be used to obtain a variety of items from a catalog. The items where high quality merchandise, such as tv, camcorders, bose stero equipment, apparel, trips, jewelry, and more. I was able to purchase Christmas presents, and items for me, all while the company benefited by not having to pay payroll taxes, and unemployment insurance on the money that was allocated. They also benefited because the goals for the organization were accomplished.
I would have to agree with the results from the study, I think that non-cash based rewards programs are probably more effective. I think the reason is that you have to pay a person a lot more in cash to make it worth while. For example, I don't think that many employees are going to be all that motivated over an additional $50 or $100. Why, because once Uncle Sam gets his share the employee will take home and additional $30 or $70. However that same $100 or 100 points may allow an employee to buy the new telephone they wanted, DVD player, or watch.
What are your thoughts?
Comments