Creating the Conditions for Improvement & Innovation (or First Remove the Large Rocks ...)

How far can an incentive program go in driving the efforts and behaviors necessary for improvement and innovation, when the organization itself has placed large rocks in the way?

Paul Hebert of Incentive Intelligence has written a couple of great posts (see here and here), the latest just today, on motivating people to be innovative.  One of Paul's key points - and I agree - is the importance of creating an environment in which innovation can take hold.  And it is here where organizations often become their own worst enemy, whether in regard to motivating innovation or just driving improvements in performance.  Paul nicely sums up the dilemma of trying to create the conditions for motivation under these circumstances:

My concern - from a motivation standpoint - am I pushing the proverbial rock up the hill to create incentive and recognition programs to drive innovation when the organization that the program resides within is designed to thwart my efforts? Or can my recommendations actually help a company break some of the boundaries the hierarchy imposes - creating an overlay structure that drives innovation?

I encounter this problem often in organizations that are seeking to implement an incentive plan to address an improvement need.  My initial assessment of the situation (I always start by asking a lot of questions) often results in conversation that go like this:

* * * * * * * * * *

Scene 1: Initial interview with top management

Me:  So tell me exactly what you are looking to accomplish with an incentive plan for your patient service providers (PSPs)?

Top Management:  We need to improve their productivity, which we measure as the ratio of patient hours to total hours worked.  Our reimbursement levels, and ultimately our financial viability, depend on improving this.  Our success rides on incenting these employee to be more productive with their time.

Fast forward to Scene 2:  Conversations with PSPs

Me:  What prevents you from being as productive as possible, from seeing more patients during the course of an average day?

PSPs:  We always strive to fill our schedules to the degree possible.  We understand that this is important.  The biggest obstacle we face is Scheduling.  They book all our patient appointments, but they leave holes in our schedules and we can't get them to fill these holes.  And if a patient cancels, we often get on the phone to Scheduling to see if we can fit someone else into that empty hour, but it is difficult to get them to act.

Me:  Schedulers?  Are they part of the Patient Service Division?

PSPs:  No, they report into the Central Administration Division.

Fast forward to Scene 3:  Conversations with Schedulers

Me:  Tell me how you work with the PSPs in scheduling their patients.

Schedulers:  PSPs are always after us to squeeze in more patients, even at times that are not the most convenient.  We strive for happy and satisfied patients, and try to always give them their first choice of appointment times, no matter what.  Just because a PSP wants to fill an opening in their schedule, that doesn't mean that it is a convenient time for the patient to come...

* * * * * * * * * *

And this is just the beginning, but you probably get the drift.  Without deeply understanding the nature of the performance problem, along with the structural impediments and competing objectives that underlie it, it would be pointless - and perhaps counterproductive - to simply plop in an incentive plan.  The best value that an HR or reward professional can contribute under these circumstances, I believe, is to clearly define the obstacles and help define a plan for creating the conditions under which improvement or innovation is more likely to occur.  And then - and probably only then - introduce a reward plan that helps focus employees on the the efforts and behaviors most likely to produce success.

Comments

[Wally Bock]

In my experience, people will innovate their little hearts out if you let them. The problem in many workplaces is that ideas that come from anywhere but the top are not honored and there is no budget or other freedom to try new things.

[Ann Bares]

Good point, Wally. Calls to mind a policy of an organization here in the Twin Cities - 3M - which is widely recognized for innovation. 3M has something called the "15% rule", whereby technical people are required to spend 15% of their time on projects of their own choosing or initiative. It is commitments like that which create the conditions for people to "innovate their hearts out"!

Thanks for the comment!

[Wally Bock]

3M is also known for having separate tracks so that people who don't want to move "up" to management can have a career without doing so.

Your comment reminded me of when I helped developed a creativity and innovation course for a large oil company. We'd have geologists come to class who had several patents in their outside lives but who didn't have any work "innovations" to their credit. The most common reason, "My boss didn't listen when I suggested things, so I stopped."

[Ann Bares]

I hear so many stories of people who end up directing their best efforts and creative energies outside their employers, because their managers (or the organization as a whole)does not value or appreciate what they bring to the table. What a tragedy.

[Career Encourager]

Wow - love the new look of your blog!

[almostgotit]

Career Encourager beat me to it, but yes, blog looks great Ann! What a great way to further accentuate the consistently good -- and widely applicable -- contributions you alrady make with your writing.

Willing to share how/where you get your images??

[Ann Bares]

Almost:

While I'd like to claim creative credit, the new blog is simply a new design template offered by my blog service, Typepad. I appreciate the compliment from someone whose blog look I have always admired!