Study finds older managers less likely to practice non-monetary recognition
Although the concept of positive reinforcement and the related principle that you get what you reward are well-founded in the psychology literature, the effective use of positive reinforcement by managers is uneven and often totally lacking in day-to-day business operations.
The conditions that enable or inhibit the use by managers of non-monetary recognition (NMR) were explored in a study conducted for my doctorate thesis.
The study
For each of 34 organizations, a set of managers who were identified as frequent users of non-monetary recognition were matched against a set of managers who were infrequent users of the tactic. The managers’ placement in either of the two groups (high-users or low-users) was determined by three methods: they were initially identified by an organizational sponsor, they rated themselves, and were also assessed by at least three employees who reported to each manager.
A broad-based survey, based on the motivation literature, was conducted of all managers in the sample. Survey questions explored the motivation for the use of non-monetary recognition, ranging from past experience with the behaviour (social learning theory) to present reinforcement of the behaviour (reinforcement theory) to future expectations from the behaviour (expectancy theory).
Reinforcement theory
Reinforcement theory provided the strongest support for explaining differences in the use of NMR: High-use managers were reinforced for using NMR (most notably by their employees), while low-use managers were not reinforced for using the behaviour, perhaps in part because they seldom displayed the behaviour.
Social learning theory
Social learning theory provided uneven support: High-use managers were significantly more likely to have had parents who modeled NMR, although neither high-use nor low-use managers reported their own superiors modelling the behaviour. High-use managers clearly internalized the importance of the activity and made intentional plans to practice its use on a daily basis, whereas low-use managers felt strongly that the behaviour was not important, thus did not seek to make plans to use the behaviour.
Expectancy theory
Expectancy theory provided strong support: High-use managers had the skills and confidence to use NMR and felt strongly that doing so would lead to desired outcomes, whereas low-use managers did not know how to effectively provide NMR and felt strongly that its use would lead to undesired outcomes.
In addition, the study found a manager’s age to be the only highly significant demographic variable that distinguished the two groups. Older managers were less likely to practice NMR or feel its use was important today. Neither gender nor personality type was found to be significant in distinguishing high-use from low-use managers in this study.
Emergent patterns
In looking at these findings, a pattern emerged of behaviour cycles that differentiate managers who use recognition from those who do not. Managers who are high-users tend to have an initial positive experience with the behaviour, which makes them more likely to use NMR with those they manage. The managers were reinforced for the use of NMR by (in order of significance): their employees, themselves, other colleagues, suppliers, and their own managers.
They also obtained the results they desired in using NMR, which included increased performance and morale on the part of their employees. Based on this success, they were more likely to use the behaviour again, internalizing the importance of the behaviour and increasing their skills and confidence so that it becomes a daily part of their behavioural repertoire as a manager.
Negative cycle
For managers who did not use NMR, a negative cycle seems evident: Managers did not have an initial positive experience with the use of NMR and thus were inclined not to use it. Since they didn’t use NMR, they had little or no chance of being reinforced for the behaviour. No benefits were thus derived, and any concerns or fears about the behaviour essentially became excuses for not doing the behaviour, thus neither skills nor confidence were enhanced, and the behaviour was not internalized.
To take just one sample excuse, low-users said they didn’t have time to use NMR, whereas high-users cited “time” as one of the top reasons they used NMR, in that they could have a significant impact on employees and performance with very little time through the effective use of NMR.
These findings further suggest that to trigger a positive cycle of NMR on the part of managers, it may be more important for them to have a positive personal experience in the use of NMR, more so than available programs, tools or other resources for providing recognition to employees.
Bob Nelson is president of Nelson Motivation, Inc., located in San Diego. A well-known recognition speaker and author, his latest book is Please Don’t Just Do What I Tell You! Do What Needs to be Done (published in 2001 by Hyperion). He can be reached at (858) 673-0690, [email protected] or visit www.nelson-motivation.com.
The conditions that enable or inhibit the use by managers of non-monetary recognition (NMR) were explored in a study conducted for my doctorate thesis.
The study
For each of 34 organizations, a set of managers who were identified as frequent users of non-monetary recognition were matched against a set of managers who were infrequent users of the tactic. The managers’ placement in either of the two groups (high-users or low-users) was determined by three methods: they were initially identified by an organizational sponsor, they rated themselves, and were also assessed by at least three employees who reported to each manager.
A broad-based survey, based on the motivation literature, was conducted of all managers in the sample. Survey questions explored the motivation for the use of non-monetary recognition, ranging from past experience with the behaviour (social learning theory) to present reinforcement of the behaviour (reinforcement theory) to future expectations from the behaviour (expectancy theory).
Reinforcement theory
Reinforcement theory provided the strongest support for explaining differences in the use of NMR: High-use managers were reinforced for using NMR (most notably by their employees), while low-use managers were not reinforced for using the behaviour, perhaps in part because they seldom displayed the behaviour.
Social learning theory
Social learning theory provided uneven support: High-use managers were significantly more likely to have had parents who modeled NMR, although neither high-use nor low-use managers reported their own superiors modelling the behaviour. High-use managers clearly internalized the importance of the activity and made intentional plans to practice its use on a daily basis, whereas low-use managers felt strongly that the behaviour was not important, thus did not seek to make plans to use the behaviour.
Expectancy theory
Expectancy theory provided strong support: High-use managers had the skills and confidence to use NMR and felt strongly that doing so would lead to desired outcomes, whereas low-use managers did not know how to effectively provide NMR and felt strongly that its use would lead to undesired outcomes.
In addition, the study found a manager’s age to be the only highly significant demographic variable that distinguished the two groups. Older managers were less likely to practice NMR or feel its use was important today. Neither gender nor personality type was found to be significant in distinguishing high-use from low-use managers in this study.
Emergent patterns
In looking at these findings, a pattern emerged of behaviour cycles that differentiate managers who use recognition from those who do not. Managers who are high-users tend to have an initial positive experience with the behaviour, which makes them more likely to use NMR with those they manage. The managers were reinforced for the use of NMR by (in order of significance): their employees, themselves, other colleagues, suppliers, and their own managers.
They also obtained the results they desired in using NMR, which included increased performance and morale on the part of their employees. Based on this success, they were more likely to use the behaviour again, internalizing the importance of the behaviour and increasing their skills and confidence so that it becomes a daily part of their behavioural repertoire as a manager.
Negative cycle
For managers who did not use NMR, a negative cycle seems evident: Managers did not have an initial positive experience with the use of NMR and thus were inclined not to use it. Since they didn’t use NMR, they had little or no chance of being reinforced for the behaviour. No benefits were thus derived, and any concerns or fears about the behaviour essentially became excuses for not doing the behaviour, thus neither skills nor confidence were enhanced, and the behaviour was not internalized.
To take just one sample excuse, low-users said they didn’t have time to use NMR, whereas high-users cited “time” as one of the top reasons they used NMR, in that they could have a significant impact on employees and performance with very little time through the effective use of NMR.
These findings further suggest that to trigger a positive cycle of NMR on the part of managers, it may be more important for them to have a positive personal experience in the use of NMR, more so than available programs, tools or other resources for providing recognition to employees.
Bob Nelson is president of Nelson Motivation, Inc., located in San Diego. A well-known recognition speaker and author, his latest book is Please Don’t Just Do What I Tell You! Do What Needs to be Done (published in 2001 by Hyperion). He can be reached at (858) 673-0690, [email protected] or visit www.nelson-motivation.com.
