激勵 - 你的激勵制度產生反效果時

你的激勵制度產生反效果時

When Your Incentive System Backfires

維傑．高文達拉簡, 史利坎斯．史利尼華斯（Vijay Govindarajan and Srikanth Srinivas）

高文達拉簡是達特茅斯（Dartmouth）的塔克商學院（Tuck School of Business）國際企業講座教授。他與人合著了《逆向創新》（Reverse Innovation, 哈佛商業評論出版社，2012年）。史利尼華斯是已退休的管理顧問，著有《驚人的速度》（Shocking Velocity）。

有多少次你看到激勵制度激發的行為和你所期望的恰恰相反？為什麼會這樣？組織為什麼沒有看到這個問題？更別提加以解決了。

例如，有一次我（史利坎斯）到亞洲一個城市去拜訪客戶。我下榻在城中一家飯店，必須到距離很遠的客戶工廠去和他會面。客戶建議我搭公車，並告訴我怎麼走。我去公車站候車。有幾輛公車開近站牌，颼的一聲呼嘯而過，都沒有停下來。但車上並沒有客滿，其實還有很多空位。六輛公車吊人胃口地開近又開走，都沒有停下來載客。最後我招了一輛計程車。我抵達工廠時已比預定時間遲了，我向客戶道歉，並告訴他我遲到的原因。這位客戶笑著說，「司機的獎金取決於他是否準時抵達目的地。因此，在尖峰時間他們發現自己的行程落後時，就不願停車載客了！」

這真是愚蠢至極的激勵制度，它的成功一定會使得原本的目的無法達成。在尖峰時間，正是較多乘客需要搭車時，但對司機來說，空車反而比較有利。市民不滿，公車營收受損和成本增加，這一切都歸因於這個激勵制度和司機想獲得最大私益的願望。此外，似乎大家都知道這個問題，只有經營公車的那個機構不知道。不然就是他們也知道這事，只是選擇視若無睹，這一點同樣令人費解。

在這次事件之後，我們變得更能辨識出人們的作為（準時抵達目的地），及其根本目的（載運乘客到他們的目的地）之間的誤差。事實證明，這種誤差遠比我們意識到的更廣泛：

銀行家把他們的獎金提高到最大限度，忘記了金融體系的健全與完整。

電話客服中心員工催你或把你的電話轉給別人，以便他們能達到每小時接聽電話數量的配額。

銷售人員把自己的佣金最大化，忘記了什麼最能滿足客戶的需求（他們「向上銷售」〔upsell〕、「超大化」〔supersize〕）或促銷最有可能獲得佣金者），也忘了什麼是最符合企業能力的（他們出售的是不完全存在的東西，許多軟體公司正是如此）。如果是「長字輩」受到激勵要把他們的獎金與股票選擇權提高到最大程度，其結果是「塞貨給分銷商」（’’channel stuffing’’）: 就在提出財報之前把超量貨物塞給零售商，莎莉集團（Sara Lee）就是一例。

無論是以生產數量或單位成本做為獎勵的依據，組織的生產量都愈來愈大。結果是有較多庫存及較多現金卡在存貨中，同時，因應需求變化的靈活性也降低了。

環顧四周，你會意識到，我們在這裡列出的只是冰山一角，我們相信你會開始注意到周遭及各層級的激勵制度與目的有誤差的情況。史帝夫．柯爾（Steve Kerr）在一篇非常風行的學術論文中提到幾種這類不當激勵機制的例子。

為什麼組織沒有察覺到這些令人沮喪、成本高昂的錯誤作法？

對這個問題的認識，可以幫助企業採取下一步：糾正錯誤的有效措施。一旦管理團隊了解他們的措施與獎勵制度所促使的行為，就應該進行校準，以確保他們激勵的行為正是他們對員工的期許。他們應該一併提醒經理人與員工，要評量及獎勵什麼樣的行為。他們也應該警惕及注意不良行為，並追蹤其與獎勵制度的關係。

但即使是設計得最好的激勵制度，也只能做到這樣。在作最後分析時，很重要的一點是領導人必須有強烈的內在指南針，不管評量和激勵制度如何，也能做出正確的事。目的必須清楚展現。賀魯達雅拉亞（Narayana Hrudayalaya）醫院（NH）就是這樣一個組織，醫院的目的清楚展現在他們所做的一切事情上：「大眾負擔得起的優質的心臟照護。」儘管只有40％的患者付清費用，而且那些費用比印度同類的醫院便宜了至少50％（按國際標準更是便宜得多），這家醫院仍然有盈餘。他們是如何做到的？因為他們是由這個問題著手：「我們如何提供大眾優質的、負擔得起的照護？」而不是「我們如何制定正確的激勵機制，以提高股東報酬到最高程度？」這使得他們採取一項策略，以提供優質服務的聲譽來吸引付費患者，同時積極努力降低成本；並使用來自付費患者的盈餘補貼其餘的患者。由於他們施行了大量的手術，而且有專業化的外科醫生，醫院的生產力與品質是世界一流的，而且費用很低。他們沒有根據外科醫生或員工的工作量或營收訂定激勵辦法。目的是驅動力。實現他們的夢想就是獲得利潤了。

顯然沒有簡單的答案。一方面，良好的評量制度需要追蹤進展情況，而且有賴激勵制度來激勵員工並讓大家齊一目的。另一方面，真誠地守護目的是更為重要的。我們認為鐘擺已經向一端擺得太遠，需要恢復平衡。（侯秀琴譯）

https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/blog_content_147_1.html

When your incentive system backfires

Vijay Govindarajan is a professor of international business at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. He is the co-author, with Chris Trimble, of ‘Reverse Innovation’. Srikanth Srinivas is a retired management consultant. He is the author of ‘Shocking Velocity’.

How many times have you seen an incentive system produce the exact opposite of the desired behaviour? Why does this happen? And why can’t organisations see, let alone fix, these problems?

Here’s one example of how incentive systems can backfire. Srikanth went to visit a client in an Asian city. He stayed in a hotel in the middle of town, and had to meet the client at a factory that was located far away. The client suggested that Srikanth catch a bus and gave him instructions on how to do so. Srikanth went to the bus stop and waited. Several buses whizzed by without stopping – even though they all had plenty of empty seats. After half a dozen buses failed to stop, Srikanth finally caught a cab.

Upon arriving late at the factory, he apologised to the client and told him the cause for his delay. The client laughed and said, “The driver’s bonus depends on whether or not he reaches his destination on time. So when drivers find that they’re running behind schedule during peak traffic hours, they don’t bother picking up passengers.”

This was the height of insanity – an incentive system that succeeded only in defeating its purpose. During rush hour, the exact time when more passengers needed to be picked up, it was better for the driver to leave them on the curb. Frustrated citizens, lost revenue and increased costs – all thanks to a misaligned incentive system. Furthermore, everyone seemed to be aware of the problem except the organisation that ran the buses. Or, equally baffling, the company knew about the issue but chose to ignore it.

Ever since this incident, we have become more attuned to seeing misalignments between a company’s purpose and what its employees actually do. And it turns out this problem is far more widespread than we realised. Here are a few common examples:

— Bankers maximise their bonuses while forgetting about the health and integrity of the financial system.

— Call centre staff hurry customers off the line or transfer them so the employees can meet their quota of calls per hour.

— Salespeople maximise their commissions and forget about what best meets the client’s needs, or what is best aligned with the firm’s capabilities. When top sales executives are incentivised to maximise their bonuses and options, the result is “channel stuffing” – overloading retailers with goods just before the end of reporting periods.

— Whenever production is incentivised in terms of the number of units produced or the cost per unit, the result is simply more inventory, more cash tied up in inventory and less flexibility in coping with changing demand.

Clearly what we’ve listed here is just the tip of the iceberg. So what can organisations do to correct these mismatches?

The first step is simply awareness. Once management teams understand the behaviours that are driven by their measurement and reward systems, they can calibrate them to make sure they’re incentivising exactly the outcomes the firm desires. Executives should remind managers and employees alike of what should be measured and rewarded. They should also be on the lookout for any undesirable behaviours to see if they can be traced back to the company’s reward systems.

But even the best designed incentive systems can only go so far. In the final analysis, it is essential that leaders have a strong inner compass to do the right thing, regardless of any measurement system. Purpose must shine through loud and clear.

Bangalore’s Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital is one such organisation. Its vision, as articulated on its website, is “affordable, quality healthcare for the masses worldwide.” Despite the fact that it is much cheaper than comparable Indian hospitals, and only 40% of its patients pay the full fees for care, Narayana Hrudayalaya is a profitable organisation.

Why? The hospital started with the question, “How can we provide quality, affordable care to the masses?” – not with, “How do we maximise stockholder returns by designing the right incentives?” That has led to a strategy focused on both lowering costs and attracting paying patients by leveraging the hospital’s reputation for high-quality care. The surplus gained from these full-paying patients helps subsidise the cost of care for everyone else.

With the specialisation of its surgeons and the large volume of operations they perform, Narayana Hrudayalaya is able to produce world-class outcomes at a fraction of the cost at other hospitals. There are no incentives based on volume or revenue for its surgeons and other employees. Purpose is the driver; profits are the enabler.

In the end, there are no easy answers. On one hand, good measurement systems are needed to track progress, and incentive systems are needed to motivate and align people. On the other hand, it is far more important to stay true to your organisation’s purpose. We believe the pendulum has swung too far toward incentives, and that balance must be restored.