The Author Replies;

 

When Tom Peters argues that the problem in the real world is too little positive reinforcement rather than too much, he is doing two things at once. He is describing what's going on, and he is prescribing what needs to be done instead. I have no quarrel with the first. But the cartoon phrase "Oh, if only it were so simple . . ." seems more appropriate to Peters's prescription -- that we should just crank up the positive reinforcement -- than to my review of the hidden problems with this tactic.

I do not dispute his argument that praise is better than punishment. Likewise, I say "amen" to his call for more goodies to find their way to workers instead of executives. The research shows quite clearly, however, that -- when people feel controlled by praise, or when they come to think of themselves as working for extrinsic rewards -- quality is likely to suffer. Peters's suggestion that we simply base those rewards on quality rather then quantity will not solve the problem. It may well be true that we have the capability to "keep score on quality," but it is clearly untrue that "the sheer act of keeping score will provide a positive stimulant to improvement."

The problem is not just that an artificial incentive for doing a job well is a less effective motivator than intrinsic interest in the job. It's that the incentive can actually do substantial damage by eroding that interest. And the more a task involves creativity, the more a manager must take care in handing out bonuses and praise. All else being equal, concentrating on the score is probably an obstacle to improved performance in the long run, at least for tasks more complicated than licking envelopes.

Up to this point in the discussion, though, my differences with Peters are probably more a matter of emphasis than of substance. I agree that workers ought to be recognized more for their efforts, and he agrees that rewards can stifle innovation. But we part company, and I think Peters parts company with the data as well, on the question of competition. As I tried to show in an earlier column ("No Contest," November 1987), the best amount of competition in a company -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- is none at all.

Even though it's well supported by the evidence, this fact flies in the face of everything we were raised to believe. It's hard to accept the painful truth that we are all made losers by the race to win, that excellence has nothing to do with beating others, that any win/lose arrangement not only is psychologically destructive and ruinous to relationships, but also inherently counterproductive.

A close reading of Peters's examples shows that he wonderful results he cites were not really a result of competition at all. Is social comparison or learning by observing useful? In moderation, yes. But benefiting from others' example isn't at all the same thing as trying to defeat them. Does the Toyota-General Motors collaboration seem to be successful? If so, it's because of the employee involvement Peters describes. I'd be willing to bet that the workers (and their productivity) are thriving in spite of the additional element of group competition, not because of it.

It baffles me that someone with Tom Peters's expertise would help perpetuate the myth that "we have far more to fear from too little than from too much competition." What we have to fear is too little attention to quality, and competition is to quality as sugar is to teeth. Its effect on self-esteem is similar.

The research to back this up (which I review in my book, No Contest: The Case Against Competition) is so persuasive that I'd say the single most damaging mistake a company can make in devising an incentive plan is to set it up competitively. If a bonus is to be made available to employees, any individual (or, better yet, any team) that reaches a certain level of performance should receive that bonus. A contest sets us against one another, so that my success makes yours less likely. In reality, we have a great deal to fear from too much competition, and any amount is too much.