Reward
The Impact of Recognition on Employee Performance: Theory, Research and Practice
Fred Luthans University of Nebraska Department of Management Lincoln, NE 68588-0491 e-mail: fluthans@unl.edu
Alexander D. Stajkovic University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Management and Human Resources
The Impact of Recognition on Employee Performance: Theory, Research and Practice Introduction Although money receives the most attention as a reinforcer and incentive motivator, and is even equated with reward systems by practicing managers, there is increasing evidence that contingently administered recognition can be a powerful reinforcer to increase employee performance. The purpose of this paper is to provide reinforcement and social cognitive theoretical explanations and research results on recognition, explore the moderators of the relationship with performance, present some specific guidelines for effective implementation, and review representative applications. Theory and Research Background As a reward for employee performance, recognition is defined as acknowledgement, approval and genuine appreciation (not phony praise). This recognition can be set up on a formal basis (e.g., employee of the month or million dollars in sales round table) or informally used by a supervisor/team leader in managing individual employee or team behavior. It can be administered on a public (staff meeting, newsletter, or banquet) or on a one-on-one private level, verbally or written. There is a fine line between recognition as defined here and other positive reinforcers or rewards such as money and feedback. For example, providing a merit increase in pay or a bonus and feedback about performance can be considered forms of recognition. However, this paper focuses on nonfinancial recognition and does not necessarily contain information about performance, although some formal recognition programs may involve prizes, dinners or plaques that cost money and both formal and informal
Fred Luthans University of Nebraska Department of Management Lincoln, NE 68588-0491 e-mail: fluthans@unl.edu
Alexander D. Stajkovic University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Management and Human Resources
The Impact of Recognition on Employee Performance: Theory, Research and Practice Introduction Although money receives the most attention as a reinforcer and incentive motivator, and is even equated with reward systems by practicing managers, there is increasing evidence that contingently administered recognition can be a powerful reinforcer to increase employee performance. The purpose of this paper is to provide reinforcement and social cognitive theoretical explanations and research results on recognition, explore the moderators of the relationship with performance, present some specific guidelines for effective implementation, and review representative applications. Theory and Research Background As a reward for employee performance, recognition is defined as acknowledgement, approval and genuine appreciation (not phony praise). This recognition can be set up on a formal basis (e.g., employee of the month or million dollars in sales round table) or informally used by a supervisor/team leader in managing individual employee or team behavior. It can be administered on a public (staff meeting, newsletter, or banquet) or on a one-on-one private level, verbally or written. There is a fine line between recognition as defined here and other positive reinforcers or rewards such as money and feedback. For example, providing a merit increase in pay or a bonus and feedback about performance can be considered forms of recognition. However, this paper focuses on nonfinancial recognition and does not necessarily contain information about performance, although some formal recognition programs may involve prizes, dinners or plaques that cost money and both formal and informal
References: Allen, J. 1994. In Nelson, B. 1001 ways to reward employees: 25. New York: Workman. Bandura, A. 1999. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2: 21-41. 14 Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dolmat-Connell, J. 1999. Developing a reward strategy that delivers shareholder and employee value. Compensation & Benefits Review, March/April: 46-53. Hale, R. L., & Maehling, R.F. 1992. Recognition redefined: Building self-esteem at work. Minneapolis, MN: Tennant. Harter, J. K., & Creglow, A. 1999. A meta-analysis and utility analysis of the relationship between core employee opinions and business outcomes. In M. Buckingham & C. Coffman, First, break all the rules (255-267). New York: Simon & Schuster. HR Focus, 1999. April: 5. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F.L. 1990. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Komaki, J. 1986. Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 270-279. Komaki, J., Coombs, T., & Schepman, S. 1996. Motivational implications of reinforcement theory. In R.M. Steers, L.W. Porter, & G.A. Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and leadership at work: 34-52. New York: McGraw-Hill. Levering, R., Moskowitz, M., & Katz, M. 1985. The 100 best companies to work for in America. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Locke, E. A. 1997. The motivation to work: What we know. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 10: 375-412. Luthans, F. 1992. Organizational behavior (6th Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Luthans, F., Fox, M. L., & Davis, E. 1991. Improving the delivery of quality service: Behavioral management techniques. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 12(2): 3-6. Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. 1975. Organizational behavior modification. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. 1985. Organizational behavior modification and beyond. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. 15 Luthans, F., Maciag, W., & Rosenbrantz, S. 1983. O.B. Mod.: Meeting the productivity challenge with human resource management. Personnel, March-April: 28-36. Luthans, F., & Stajkovic, A.D. 1999. Reinforce for performance: The need to go beyond pay and even rewards. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2): 49-57. Maddux, J. E. 1995. Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Nelson, B. 1994. 1001 Ways to Reward Employees. New York: Workman Nelson, B. 1996. Secrets of successful employee recognition. Quality Digest, August: 26-28. Ottemann, R., & Luthans, F. 1975. An experimental analysis of the effectiveness of an organizational modification program in industry. In A. G. Bedeian, A. A. Armenakis, W. H. Holyer, Jr., & H. S. Field (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management: 140-142. Snyder, C. A., & Luthans, F. 1982. Using O.B. Mod. to increase hospital productivity. Personnel Administrator, 27(8): 67-73. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. 1999. The relative effects of different incentive motivators on work performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, San Diego, CA, 1998. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. 1998a. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124: 240-261. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. 1998b. Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Going beyond traditional motivational and behavioral approaches. Organizational Dynamics, 26: 62-74. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. 1997. A Meta-Analysis of the effects of organizational behavior modification on task performance, 1975-95. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1122-1149. Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work motivation. New York: Wiley. Welsh, D. H. B., Luthans, F., & Sommer, S. M. 1993. Managing Russian factory workers: The impact of U.S.-based behavioral and participative techniques. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 58-79. Wood, R. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37: 60-82. 16