On the Edge: The Disabling Power of Consensus
August 06, 2008
If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you? Probably not. So then why does the incentive industry continue to follow flawed consensus as a means of choosing "best" practice?
By Paul Hebert
I recently conducted group research on the best way to design and conduct incentive programs. Afterwards, one of the group members asked if I would recommend the group’s point of view or ignore their input when finalizing my recommendations. The subtle implication in his question? Since all group members agreed on a particular approach, that should then be my recommendation.
This experience highlighted a very powerful force at work in the incentive industry—a powerful and insidious force that actually has kept the industry from realizing its true potential, but one that is still embraced, discussed and highlighted as if it was brought down from a mountain etched in stone tablets. This force is quoted in presentations and used to convince clients to buy programs.
That force is consensus.
Trapped in Agreement
Consensus, as defined by dictionary.com, is:
1. Majority of opinion
2. General agreement or concord; harmony.
Dr. Robert Cialdini, a foremost authority on influencing behavior (often highlighted as the world's most cited social scientist), talks about consensus as the fundamental principle of social influence. The concept of consensus is that in the absence of other information, we follow the lead of what a group thinks. And, when that group is similar to us, consensus has even more sway. One of my favorite quotes from him is that "95 percent of the world looks to the other five percent to see what they should do."
Unfortunately, I think the incentive industry is trapped an infinite consensus feedback loop.
When the Consensus is Wrong
What are the biggest "consensus" blunders of our time? I thought you'd never ask.
• More choice is better. Even though there is evidence that too many choices reduce our satisfaction and, ultimately, our motivation (one of my first columns for Incentive was on this concept), the industry keeps pushing "unlimited choice" to clients. This consensus loop has brought us unlimited online catalogs via Amazon.com and debit cards, both of which can probably drive negative program results by setting up a transactional relationship—one tied to the value of the award, not the value of the relationship.
• Participant surveys say to use "X" award. This is a consensus within a consensus. Many programs include participant surveys in which they ask about award choices. Responses usually come back as majority preferences for particular reward items—such as debit cards or cash. Therefore, programs are designed around those elements. However, just because there is a consensus of your participant group on the award type or program structure, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Heck, ask your kids. I'm sure they would love to have ice cream for breakfast every day. I guarantee consensus on that one.
• Program budgeting should follow the 70%, 15%, 10% rule. This is one old saw. It was taught to me in 1984. Seventy percent for rewards, 15 percent for communication and 10 percent for administration (tracking results for your newer initiates.) The world has changed, and communication and administration have fused. Online is now a mash up of reporting and communication, so your off-line communication may need to be more than 15 percent if you want to get anyone's attention. Award costs should be dropping—and therefore, the budget allocation—with more efficient distribution, increased use of drop-shipping and the automation of many incentive agency services used to manage manually. Program objectives are now variable and, as such, the budgets to achieve them should also be flexible. There are no "rules" to follow when it comes to budgeting anymore.
• Programs need to target results in order for them to be effective. Programs target people and their behaviors, not results. Paying for results only gets you quick•not to mention, short-term•fixes that will be need to be rewarded again just as soon as the "result" you paid for drops again. Think about safety programs tied to reduced costs. The only way for the program to pay off is if there is a good year followed by a bad year. The program by design will create more costs in one year in order for people to get rewarded the following year. If you pay for behaviors, they become ingrained over time.
• Programs must have an ROI. Again, I've railed on this before in one of my previous columns, "Incentive ROI & The Myth of Fingerprints." Some programs don't tie to money—some are about culture, attitude and ethics. These programs may never have an ROI, but they are the right things to do. Also, you can never segment the impact of a specific pogram from the entire marketing and business ecosystem. Anyone who is selling an ROI needs to be challenged.
• Merchandise is better than cash. I can hear the sacred cow bellowing on this one. I can probably come up with ten different ways to use cash more effectively than merchandise if given a situation. Granted, I don't think cash is the "only" answer, but it has a place. I've heard people try to justify a group travel award to Hawaii for an audience that doesn't make enough income to afford Aspirin in the hotel gift shop in order to avoid a cash-based program.
The Root of the Issue
The problem with all of these "consensus" elements is that as long as everyone’s doing it, it doesn’t need to change. I can look a client straight in the eye and say, "95 percent of the programs use merchandise therefore, it is the best practice." But the truth is that there is no "best practice:" There is only "rest practice," as in "This is what the rest of the folks are doing."
As I told the person in my research meeting: "In the 1400's, the consensus was the earth was flat. That didn't make it right—simply, the consensus."
Paul Hebert is currently the Executive Director at Excellence In Motivation, Inc., (www.eim-inc.com) and is responsible for new client solution development. Over the past 20-plus years, Paul has worked with many Fortune 100 clients to develop non-cash reward and recognition strategies within an overall audience engagement plan. Paul writes a monthly online column for Incentive magazine on incentive industry trends, and he blogs about the incentive industry and how to best engage your target audiences at his own blog, Incentive Intelligence.
|
RSS
