You asked about: The Difference between Staff Recognition and Staff Appreciation

The Question: How is staff recognition different from staff appreciation?

The Answer: The answer depends on your personal definition of these words. That said, most experts in the field seem to agree with my thinking that appreciation is an emotion that motivates us to recognize others for how they contribute and what they achieve.

In my new book, Thanks, Again!, I ask “What is ‘Staff Recognition?” Several sources that I quote mention appreciation when defining recognition.

One, the Random House College Dictionary, says recognition is “Appreciation of achievement, merit, services, etc., or an expression of this.”

Sue Glasscock and Kimberly Gram (Workplace Recognition: Step-by-step examples of positive reinforcement strategy) say, in part, that the purpose of recognition is, “To acknowledge and appreciate those behaviours, practices and actions that move us toward our business goals and objectives.”

Dr. Bob Nelson (Recognizing and Engaging Employees for Dummies) writes that, “Recognition can take the form of acknowledgement, approval, or the expression of gratitude. It means appreciating someone for something he or she has done for you, your group or your organization.”

When referring to staff recognition, I stress that it must be Genuine if recipients are to find it meaningful. Recognition must be inspired by a sincere sense of appreciation for what someone did.

Gary Chapman and Paul White (The 5 Language of Appreciation in the Workplace) have a different view of recognition and appreciation. “We believe that there is a distinct difference between recognition and appreciation … we believe the focus of recognition and rewards is too narrow and has distinct limitations.”

One of the limitations they refer to is the emphasis on performance. “While recognition focuses primarily on performance or the achievement of certain goals, appreciation focuses on the value of the individual,” Chapman and White write. “While recognition focuses on what the person does, appreciation focuses on who the person is.”

Another limitation they cite is that most rewards programs include only two languages of appreciation (Words of Affirmation and Tangible Gifts). They also note that recognition programs take “an impersonal, top-down corporate policy approach. Employees know that the program is generated by upper-level management, rather than being personal and individualized.” Finally, they say that reward programs come with a significant cost.

If we accept Chapman and White’s view of what staff recognition is, I would agree with their conclusion that, “the vast majority of employee recognition programs aren’t working.”

I see staff recognition differently. Done properly, staff recognition demonstrates that people are valued for who they are and appreciated for how they contribute and what they achieve. It helps create a workplace where all feel they belong and where they want to stay.

Recognition need not be expensive and is most meaningful if delivered by immediate supervisors and peers. Thanks, Again! emphasizes simple, inexpensive ways that frontline leaders can recognize staff. 

Chapman and White write that recognition and reward programs exclude “40 to 50 per cent of employees whose language of appreciation is Quality Time  (“giving the person your focused attention”) or Acts of Service (“providing assistance to one’s colleague”).”

This need not be the case if leaders get to know staff members as individuals with unique interests, goals and recognition preferences, which leads to expressing appreciation in Appropriate ways.

==

Download a sample theme from Thanks, Again! More Simple, Inexpensive Ways for Busy Leaders to Recognize Staff (Staff Recognition’s Number One Tool: Thank-you Notes) when you sign up for updates on plans for this fall’s book launch. Learn how you can receive an autographed copy of Thanks, Again! and other valuable perks when you contribute to my crowdfunding campaign for this book. 

Discovering motive in the “final chapter” is too late when hiring

Today, in recognition of International Sherlock Holmes Day, I am returning to a theme that I explore from time to time—the similarities between how detectives of fiction, film and television solve crimes (usually murders) and the process of finding the right person to hire.

First designated in 2013, Sherlock Holmes Day occurs on the anniversary of the birth of the detective’s creator, writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It is a celebration of the creativity of Conan Doyle, who was born on May 22, 1859, and the acute observation and deductive skills of Holmes. Those skills are invaluable to those responsible for hiring the right person.

Holmes is believed to have been based on Dr. Joseph Bell, who Conan Doyle first encountered in 1877 when studying at Edinburgh University. “A Study in Scarlet,” the first Holmes short story, appeared in 1887.

Ever since Holmes was created, fiction’s detectives have looked for means, opportunity and motive before identifying the culprit in a book’s final chapter. Hiring managers also consider means (training and education), opportunities (experience) and motive (attitudes and values) when identifying who to hire.

In detective stories, the means (the cause of death) can be obvious—a bullet hole in a victim’s chest, a knife sticking out of a body, or a bloodied baseball bat lying nearby.

The question of whether applicants have the means to do the job is answered early in the hiring process by scanning resumes or application forms to discover which applicants have the training and education necessary. This exercise leads to a short list of candidates to be interviewed.

As murder mysteries build to the culprit’s reveal in the final chapter, the detective and readers (or viewers) discover that several suspects have had the opportunity to commit the crime. But the motive for wanting the victim dead is not as easily identified.

“Two of the classic murder trinity—means and opportunity—weren’t difficult to pin on her,” says Chief Inspector Peter Diamond in the novel Showstopper by Peter Lovesey. “The motive was the elusive one.”

Meeting the famous detective at the Sherlock Holmes Museum at 221B Baker Street, London

Early in their investigation, detectives will ask friends and relatives if the victim had any enemies or if there was anyone who would want them dead.

“We must seek for a motive,” Hercule Poriot says in The Cornish Mystery by Agatha Christie. “Your husband, he would not poison you just pour passer le temps! Do you know of any reason why he should wish you out of the way?”

While these inquiries may be made early in the story, the motive is seldom revealed to readers or viewers until after the culprit is identified in the book’s final chapter or the movie’s final scenes.

That may be a useful convention of murder mysteries, but it’s not practical in the real world. Here, the “final chapter” usually occurs after someone has been hired and is on the job. That is too late to discover the attitudes and values that motivate how the new hire performs on the job.

Interviews and reference checks are your investigative tools. Through questioning, you gather evidence of how the candidate performed in circumstances similar to those that your staff encounter regularly (opportunity) and the values and attitudes that guide their behaviour. 

Have they done the right things in the right way—as you would wish them to and as your top performers do—for the right reasons (motive)?

When the answer is yes, your observations (what you learned during the interview and reference checks) and deductive skills will have identified the right person to hire.

SIDEBAR:

Questions to Discover Motive

[Integrity] If you have played Monopoly, you may recall a Community Chest card that reads: “Bank error in your favour. Collect $200.” Describe a time when an error of any kind was made in your favour, whether it involved money, products or services.

[Teamwork] Describe a time when teamwork made a difference. Without teamwork, it’s unlikely the job would have been done.

[Anticipating Change] Some changes are unexpected, but there are others we see coming. Describe a workplace change that you anticipated and how you prepared for that change.

[Customer Service] Customers have different service expectations. Some want to quickly grab a coffee and be on their way, while others are seeking a break from their hectic lives. How have you changed how you serve customers based on what you sensed about their expectations?

[Teamwork] Give us an example of how you worked with one or more colleagues to accomplish a work-related goal.

[Innovation] Describe a new idea that you brought to your current job that was based on your training, something you read, or your previous work experience.

[Perseverance] Give me an example of how you persevered in a difficult situation and accomplished your goal in spite of it.

==

Writing questions to find evidence of motive is one of the topic included in my day-long Interview Right to Hire Right workshops. Contact me (nmscott@telus.net or 780-232-3828) to schedule a workshop for your leadership team or to learn more.

A candidate’s decision prompted a rethink of roles on interview panels

A moment of truth in the hiring process comes when a job is offered. Will the candidate accept?

Most say “Yes,” but for a variety of reasons, some don’t.

They may feel that what’s offered is not a significant improvement from what they would be leaving. A better offer may come along. It’s not the right time for a family move. They find that the hours they will be required to work are unattractive.

The reason that surprised me a few years ago was when a candidate turned down the job because he was uncomfortable with how the interview was structured.

“I didn’t accept the offer because I felt that I was unable to connect with the board members because of the way the interview was conducted,” a candidate for a position of CEO said. “I didn’t like the fact that the consultant hired to manage the hiring process was the only one asking the questions.”

I was that consultant.

The board that hired me to manage the recruitment process for them decided the process would go better if they collaborated with me to develop the questions that I would ask on their behalf. They were in the room to take notes and ask followup questions to clarify what the candidates said.

This type of specialization is something that I include in my tips for creating effective interview panels. 

Allowing each panel member to concentrate on a specific task is one of the advantages of forming an interview panel. It can be frustrating when everyone is asking questions and trying to keep track of what candidates say.

From the candidates’perspective, when they don’t know who will pop up to ask the next question, they may feel like they are sitting in front of a carnival arcade Whac-a-Mole game. This adds to the stress already inherent in interviews, even as you are trying to reduce the candidate’s stress so they will be comfortable answering questions.

When freed from the burden of keeping notes, the person assigned responsibility for asking questions can focus on listening to the responses to determine if followup questions are required. Other panel members can concentrate on creating an accurate record of the candidate’s responses when they don’t have to think about the next question they are scheduled to ask.

Since learning why the person declined the interview panel’s offer, I have pondered what could have been done differently that might have changed the outcome. How could I have taken a less prominent role in the process? What different advice would I now offer other interview panels?

Panels could decide that more than one person will ask questions. In that case, panels can avoid the Whac-a-Mole scenario by blocking questions. Instead of jumping from one panel member to the next, each would ask a series of questions before yielding the floor to the next panel member.

Prior to the interview, a representative of the panel should advise the candidate how the interview will be structured.

“Three of us will be asking you a series of questions, beginning with our department head Jacob, who will be followed by our manager Jennifer and finally myself.”

After asking his questions, Jacob will signal the change. “Now, my colleague Jennifer has some questions for you.”

Responsibility for note taking will pass to those not asking questions. When it’s their turn to ask questions, panel members will only focus on listening to what the candidate says and determining if followup questions are required.

Would this approach have led to a different outcome in the interview I described earlier? Would the board’s preferred candidate have said yes to the job offer?

Perhaps, but that doesn’t really matter. What is important, whether it’s one person or more, whoever is asking questions should focus only on that task—listening to the candidate’s answers and making followup inquiries as necessary—and leave it to other panel members to take accurate notes of what is said. Specialization on interview panels results in the right person being hired more often.

==

Creating interview panels that are effective and right for your organization is one of the topics explored during my full-day Interview Right to Hire Right workshops. Contact me to schedule a workshop for your leadership team or to learn more. (nmscott@telus.net or 780-232-3828).

You Asked About: Using the Acronym GREAT as a Guide to Feedback for Underperformance

The Question: Could the same components that make staff recognition “GREAT” also be applied when providing feedback related to poor performance?

Answer: The simple answer is, “Yes.” All the ingredients that are part of meaningful staff recognition could also be used to provide effective feedback when a staff member’s performance falls short of expectations.

Before we get to that, a quick recap: The acronym GREAT minds us of the five ingredients of meaningful staff recognition. Recognition must be Genuine—inspired by a sincere sense of appreciation. You make your message of gratitude stronger when you include one or more of the other ingredients—Relevant, Explicit, Appropriate and Timely.

Providing Genuine feedback is rooted in fairness. When staff members perform well, praise them. When they don’t, let them know that you are not satisfied, that you expect better and that you are committed to supporting their efforts to improve.

When you recognize staff members when they do well and criticize them when they don’t, you make both types of feedback credible. Both recognition and criticism seem Genuine.

Both types of feedback should be linked to what the organization says is important, as captured in its mission and vision statements, values and goals. That is, all feedback should be Relevant. Show staff members how their behaviour reflects the values of the organization or helps it achieve its goals with recognition. Let them know when behaviour is inconsistent with the organization’s values or makes achieving its goals more difficult.

Recognition is more meaningful when your specific description of the behaviour makes the recognition Explicit. It shows you are paying attention. Feedback for underperformance should include facts. To generate improved performance, you and the staff member need to reach a mutual understanding of the behaviour you observed before you are able to provide your assessment and you and the staff member can identify a course to improvement.

There are more opportunities to deliver Appropriate staff recognition than there are to make negative feedback appropriate. Appropriate recognition is tied to what’s important to the recipient—their interests and hobbies, the treats they enjoy, their career goals, etc.—and their preference for recognition that is public or delivered in private. 

Certainly, it is never appropriate to criticize performance in public. Negative feedback should always be delivered in private.

Negative feedback can be made Appropriate by highlighting the positive impact of improved performance on an individual’s ability to achieve their career goals.

Finally, all feedback should be Timely—delivered soon after the action that prompted the feedback. The greater the gap between performance and feedback the less effective it becomes. When feedback is delayed, the memory of the behaviour that inspired it fades.

Apart from during performance reviews, where both types of feedback are expected, recognition and criticism should be kept separate. In particular, avoid using praise to buffer criticism.

For example, never follow praise with the word “but,” such as, “You did a good job on this report, but it was late.” Used this way, but becomes a verbal eraser that diminishes the positive message that proceeded it. The focus is only on what didn’t meet expectations.

Another practice to avoid is the advice to, “Always sandwich criticism between two layers of praise.” Repeated exposure to this “sandwich technique” causes staff to listen for the other shoe to fall because if praise is often followed by criticism. They will ignore the praise that sandwiches the criticism because they believe that only what’s in middle of the sandwich matters to you.

As a leader, you will need to deliver both positive and negative feedback. You should praise behaviour you want to see more often and criticize behaviour that you wish to see less often. When you apply the acronym GREAT, you make staff recognition more meaningful and performance feedback aimed at improvement is more effective. 

==

When you read my new book Thanks, Again! More Simple, Inexpensive Ways for Busy Leaders to Recognize Staff, you will discover a section devoted to the barriers to meaningful staff recognition—words and practices that diminish the impact of messages of appreciation. Sign up to receive regular updates on the progress toward the book’s launch and to immediately.

“Dear Occupant” letters are a poor substitute for meaningful staff recognition

Someone who knows that I am less than enthusiastic about treat-everyone-the-same service awards forwarded an email that she received from her employer.

It’s an example of a well-intended gesture that was meaningless in the eyes of the recipient. 

“Look what I got for working at _______ for 10 years!” she wrote. “Yippee!”

I have omitted the name of the organization for which this individual works, because with only a few changes this letter could have been—but never should be—sent to employees of any large organization.

The letter, “to congratulate you on your 10 years of service,” bore the signatures of the CEO and chair of the board, neither of whom the recipient had ever met. 

It didn’t have its intended impact. It actually demonstrates that it may be best to ignore service anniversaries rather than attempt to recognize the milestone with a form letter.

With only the name of the individual being “honoured” changed, this same letter likely went to hundreds of others who had only one thing in common. They all began working for the organization in 2013.

While the board chair and CEO are probably sincere in their wish to congratulate employees for reaching their 10-year service anniversary, what they can do is limited. 

They want to express appreciation to frontline staff members for what do, but they are too far removed from the action to do so in any meaningful way. 

They don’t know individual staff members or what they do. They don’t know how staff members wish to be addressed.

This letter used the recipient’s given name, which she only uses on legal documents. No one who knows her would ever dare use this name.

The recipient is thanked for “your contributions,” without any specific reference to what those contributions were. This is equivalent to thanking employees for nothing in particular. Such generalizations are evidence that the writer is either not paying attention, or was far removed from the action. (Or, worse, that they didn’t write the letter at all, merely signed copy crafted by an underling who was even less invested.)

There are ways for senior leaders such as this board chair and CEO—who understand that recognizing frontline staff is important—to ensure that the recognition that staff receives is meaningful:

First off, stop thinking you can do this. You can’t. There are too many staff members making valuable contributions every day that you aren’t there to see. Instead, set an expectation that all supervisors and managers up and down the hierarchy are responsible for acknowledging the contributions and achievements of staff on a daily basis.

Become a role model by frequently recognizing staff who report to you for what they do well. People who are recognized are more likely to recognize others.

Provide managers and supervisors with training on how to recognize staff and the resources and tools they need to do so.

During one-on-one meetings with the leaders who report to you, ask how they have recognized managers and supervisors who report to them. Encourage them to ask the same question during their one-on-one meetings with frontline leaders.

When you visit your organization’s front line, ask the leaders there if they have a message of appreciation that they would like you to deliver to individuals or teams. Prepare to deliver those messaging by asking questions to ensure that you can be specific about the contributions for which you are praising individuals or teams.

Recognize those who do a good job of recognizing others. You will be praising them for  a behaviour that you want to see repeated.

And please, stop sending “Dear Occupant” letters to mark service anniversaries. They generate cynicism in the minds of staff rather than a sense of being appreciated for what they do.

==

This article relates to two themes in my new book, Thanks, Again! More Simple, Inexpensive Ways for Busy Leaders to Recognize Staff. Theme #4: Senior Executives, Frontline Staff and Recognition suggests how senior leaders can champion staff recognition throughout the organization. Theme #16: Add Meaning to Formal Recognition includes at least 15 simple, inexpensive ways to celebrate service anniversaries and other achievements. Click here to sign up to receive regular updates on my progress toward the book’s launch and you will be able to  immediately download a sample from the book—Theme #6: Staff Recognition’s Number One Tool: Thank-You Notes—plus bonus content.