I am deeply disturbed by an article by Lucy Kellaway in the Financial Times.
In it, based on research about sales people flattering customers, Kellaway concludes that public recognition is bad, and therefore, recognition of others should only be given in private.
Clearly, this is a flawed use of irrelevant research to underpin conclusions drawn based on personal experience.
Here’s the parallel drawn by Kellaway:
The office parallel is obvious: if you overhear someone from another department being flattered you will be unmoved but if the person sitting next to you is praised by your boss, the effect is roughly like drinking acid.
This means that most managers are getting it badly wrong. They have been taught that a vital part of their job is to stroll around the office dispensing praise here and there. They think they are justly celebrating the success of some and motivating others to try harder. What they are actually doing is creating resentment and making themselves deeply unpopular.
Likewise, all those schemes loved by ‘good’ employers – like choosing an employee of the week, or writing glowing profiles in company newsletters – create more harm than good.”
Kellaway does have a point. When the types of recognition Kellaway describes (employee of the month, irregular newsletter articles, manager as the primary giver of recognition) are the only or primary types of recognition, then the benefits of public, positive praise can be skewed.
The reason for this is simple – the winners’ circle is far too small.
Most of us work in deserts of recognition. In these situations, too much emphasis can be placed on the infrequent oasis of the recognition that does occur.
Stop limiting recognition like it’s a scarce resource. Goodwill and appreciation should be free-flowing in any organization.
How does public praise affect you? Are you empowered to recognize others?
You can find more from Derek Irvine on his Recognize This! blog.
