In today’s multifaceted and trend-disruptive marketplace, is there still a place for high-performing, "ROI"-driven, merit-based cultures within organisations focused on actually realising tangible strategic benefits. Can emphasising merit foster a culture of excellence, where talent, focused effort, and results are rewarded.
Does this approach drive innovation and productivity; by valuing results based merit, can organisations attract and retain top project talent, thereby supporting ongoing growth? If so, how can we build and support these teams - or are there other ways to get there?
Yes, there is still a place for high-performing, ROI-driven, merit-based cultures in today’s marketplace. Emphasizing merit can foster a culture of excellence by rewarding talent, focused effort, and results, which in turn drives innovation, productivity, and attracts top talent. When organizations prioritize performance and outcomes, they create an environment where individuals are motivated to contribute their best work, supporting long-term growth. However, it’s important to view performance metrics not as a "final judgment," but as reference points, insights, or indicators to guide development. This ensures that metrics are used constructively, helping individuals and teams improve rather than demoralizing them. Balancing merit-based recognition with a focus on human potential, growth, and collaboration is key to sustaining a thriving, high-performance culture.
...
1 reply by Mark Sice
Nov 17, 2024 5:05 PM
Mark Sice
...
Thanks Danny, yes agreed. At the bottom of it all is a "team" based culture where individuals sharpen each other, and wins are celebrated.
So long as there is a balance between achieving results and HOW those were achieved, I'd agree with you. Certainly, top performers will be motivated by a merit-driven culture, but we need to remember that innovation and creativity involve many steps back as well as steps forward and so learning needs to be recognized and encouraged in addition to achieving lofty goals.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Mark Sice
Nov 17, 2024 5:08 PM
Mark Sice
...
Hi Kiron, thank you for your insights and agree on the balance. We should not lose sight of the human attributes and needs to develop Teams that bond.
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Mark,
There is a place for these types of rewards, and in the past, we called them “MBO programs” (Management by Objective). Unfortunately, from my perspective, they “fizzled out” after the 2008 financial crisis, jettisoned with pensions and other forms of incentives.
I’ve personally seen these programs, and they do drive innovation and productivity. But to those enterprises who cut “incentive-based programs” and still have project organizations that deliver excellence, there is little motivation to change course.
George
...
1 reply by Mark Sice
Nov 17, 2024 5:18 PM
Mark Sice
...
Hi George, thanks for this background and "Management by Objective" I will do some research. Also, I am not suggesting Merit is the only criteria to a systems view of project management from the why are we doing this, to the how do we know we are successful and the necessary resources to achieve. Those Orgs who are still having success while not necessarily hiring, rewarding or promoting people based on merit what strategies or tactics are they using?
There is a place for merit based organizational cultures but sometimes environmental factors make it difficult and prioritizing the wrong thing can have negative results.
It conflicts with cultures where seniority is everything. I have seen labor unions strike over merit based pay and job assignments, especially where there is an older workforce. Hard workers make average workers look bad so going above and beyond is not appreciated within the labor culture.
It can also incentivize bad behavior. If the primary KPI is on-time performance, teams may sacrifice quality to meet schedule because that is how they are measured. In both construction and manufacturing, I have seen cases where Team A installs wires and plumbing, and then Team B puts the walls in enclosing the systems. Team B will install the walls without the systems installed to meet their schedule goal even if it must be all taken apart and redone to finish the systems. Merit objectives must not sub-optimize based on the wrong metrics.
...
1 reply by Mark Sice
Nov 17, 2024 5:21 PM
Mark Sice
...
Hi Keith, some more great feedback from yourself and noted a balance needs to be maintained so quality is maintained, and the groups work together and programs to not promote a winner takes all attitude at the expense of the benefits/ desired outputs and IP.
Yes, there is still a place for high-performing, ROI-driven, merit-based cultures in today’s marketplace. Emphasizing merit can foster a culture of excellence by rewarding talent, focused effort, and results, which in turn drives innovation, productivity, and attracts top talent. When organizations prioritize performance and outcomes, they create an environment where individuals are motivated to contribute their best work, supporting long-term growth. However, it’s important to view performance metrics not as a "final judgment," but as reference points, insights, or indicators to guide development. This ensures that metrics are used constructively, helping individuals and teams improve rather than demoralizing them. Balancing merit-based recognition with a focus on human potential, growth, and collaboration is key to sustaining a thriving, high-performance culture.
Thanks Danny, yes agreed. At the bottom of it all is a "team" based culture where individuals sharpen each other, and wins are celebrated. Saving Changes...
So long as there is a balance between achieving results and HOW those were achieved, I'd agree with you. Certainly, top performers will be motivated by a merit-driven culture, but we need to remember that innovation and creativity involve many steps back as well as steps forward and so learning needs to be recognized and encouraged in addition to achieving lofty goals.
Kiron
Hi Kiron, thank you for your insights and agree on the balance. We should not lose sight of the human attributes and needs to develop Teams that bond. Saving Changes...
There is a place for these types of rewards, and in the past, we called them “MBO programs” (Management by Objective). Unfortunately, from my perspective, they “fizzled out” after the 2008 financial crisis, jettisoned with pensions and other forms of incentives.
I’ve personally seen these programs, and they do drive innovation and productivity. But to those enterprises who cut “incentive-based programs” and still have project organizations that deliver excellence, there is little motivation to change course.
George
Hi George, thanks for this background and "Management by Objective" I will do some research. Also, I am not suggesting Merit is the only criteria to a systems view of project management from the why are we doing this, to the how do we know we are successful and the necessary resources to achieve. Those Orgs who are still having success while not necessarily hiring, rewarding or promoting people based on merit what strategies or tactics are they using? Saving Changes...
There is a place for merit based organizational cultures but sometimes environmental factors make it difficult and prioritizing the wrong thing can have negative results.
It conflicts with cultures where seniority is everything. I have seen labor unions strike over merit based pay and job assignments, especially where there is an older workforce. Hard workers make average workers look bad so going above and beyond is not appreciated within the labor culture.
It can also incentivize bad behavior. If the primary KPI is on-time performance, teams may sacrifice quality to meet schedule because that is how they are measured. In both construction and manufacturing, I have seen cases where Team A installs wires and plumbing, and then Team B puts the walls in enclosing the systems. Team B will install the walls without the systems installed to meet their schedule goal even if it must be all taken apart and redone to finish the systems. Merit objectives must not sub-optimize based on the wrong metrics.
Hi Keith, some more great feedback from yourself and noted a balance needs to be maintained so quality is maintained, and the groups work together and programs to not promote a winner takes all attitude at the expense of the benefits/ desired outputs and IP. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
