Nick said...
I think JJ's posting points at the key issue. If bonuses, salary increases etc are directly tied to performance appraisals and the like, we risk getting an endless stream of bull - from both employer and employee. Furthermore, where organisations tie reward directly into performance, we end up focusing on assessment in appraisals to the usual exclusion of development.

Similarly of course, it is manifestly the case that if you don't reward the kind of behaviours you are looking to bring about, it will typically take longer to bring those behaviours about.

There is, though, a difficulty with JJ's suggestion. If it just about hitting your objectives, then unless those are spectacularly well-crafted, which just ain't that likely - you risk generatinh the 'high performer' who hits all his targets but does so in such a way that everyone else in team resigns. This is where a blended approach between competencies and objectives becomes very important. I have written about this elsewhere.

In both cases,as so often in life, it is about balance - either side of the extreme brings is a little dangerous.

J.J. said...
...it's one simple reason. Many people at many companies are utterly INCAPABLE of directly telling their staff what they're doing well and not doing well. They're either so afraid that they'll offend people or tick them off that they forego incentives in the first place or give the same ones or they're so uncommitted to incentivizing staff that they tie in a "company performance" to the bonus that generally is just a front for being cheap when times are tight.

If they'd just make goals clear at the beginning of a bonus period and rewards clear if they complete them, everyone would be more motivated to reach them!

"360° Feedback For Managers - A Practical Guide": Get Your Free Copy Here