Staff motivation - Vision Realization

Year-round staff (goals and pay)
To avoid de-motivation, and provide motivation, goals and targets should be both
mutually agreed upon and flexible. Rarely are these two criteria met in a wholehearted way,
which sows the seeds for problems over the course of the year. The goals for the upcoming
year should involve a discussion, where both people feel heard. If there is a disagreement of
significance that isn’t resolved through discussion (e.g., return rate or budget numbers),
bringing in a tie-breaker/arbitrator will provide the third opinion and establish equity. As far as
flexibility is concerned, the environment is likely to change over the course of a whole year,
perspectives might shift, or other priorities may surface. In each case, it should be possible to
change the goals so that the performance standards are not static. The ancillary benefit of that
flexibility is that it promotes innovation, and the ability to be formally recognized for it.
For summer staff, pay is less of an issue, because returning bonuses are usually set
formulas not based on previous performance. One camp, however, tied the returning bonus to
the following year’s return rate. For counselors, it varied from $100 - $300 more, which was
paid for by the higher returning number of campers. For year-round staff, performance reviews
and pay raises often go together – better performance equals better pay. The problem with that
is the implicit assumption that the employee is externally motivated by money – usually around
$500 – $1500 as the range outside of the 4% average raise they could expect to get. If the
potential of that extra money truly motivates the employee to higher performance, you’ve got
the wrong person for the job. It also puts the superior in the position of being both judge and
coach, which is very difficult to carry out well. Recognizing this, many organizations rated as
being a “Best Place to Work” don’t tie raises to individual performance. Instead, sometimes
they utilize profit or gain sharing, which sends a team message – “if we do well, then we’ll
benefit.” On this point, however, it appears that either way you go is unlikely to budge
motivation greatly; within the normal range, money isn’t very motivating.
Wrapping up
An example evaluation form exists in Part II under the setting staff expectations section
– Page 95. All forms and methods have drawbacks and limitations, but I think that this one
creates a good balance. The criteria/statements are not as tidy as they could be, but being more
precise is costly in terms of length and cumbersomeness. Also, each statement could be directly
accompanied by behavioral criteria for the scale scores, but again that would create a lengthy
form and process. Even the best form won’t solve several sticky performance review problems
noted previously. Instead, the form should be used as a tool for fruitful discussions of
observations with a focus on development through support and coaching.
Is such a humane method of performance evaluations as described above effective?
Doesn’t it create a system where people are not really motivated to change their lagging
behavior? The answer is yes, if the hired person sitting across from you doesn’t really, deep
down, have the goals of the camp as their own personal goals. Even in that case, which is a
hiring failure the camp needs to take responsibility for, the individual can often be reached on a
character level – caring, honesty, and responsibility. For people in line with your mission, the
above performance evaluation system will help and inspire them to reach higher goals for
themselves and the camp. That’s an excellent way to leave a performance evaluation session.
© 2004 Randall Grayson, Ph.D. 34