Businesses employ both offensive and defensive strategies. However, when it comes to rewards, it is the offense that gets all the attention. If my company makes a sale through the results of my actions, it is not uncommon to receive a reward or commission. However, if I prevent a sale to a customer who would consequently cause the company to lose money or potentially hurt its reputation, in the long run, no recognition or compensation is ever considered. Why is that?
We often read that the customer is always right, and as a result, we will go to great lengths to make them happy often at a loss to the business in an effort to save its reputation. What if our company rewarded the person that prevented the potentially bad customer from ever becoming a customer in the first place?
Most often, the customers that complain are habitual complainers. It is often said that an unhappy customer will tell 10 people about their bad experience while a satisfied customer usually tells no one. Would it not make more sense to find ways to identify the customers unfit for your product or service and encourage them not to buy and reward the salesperson for a non-sale? In actual practice, however, we never reward the non-sale and all too often encourage sales of any type even if it hurts the company in the end.
Consider the case of Worldcom and Enron Company executives who were rewarded for sales even when the results of the sales they knew would have an overall negative effect on the business. Even when we conduct performance reviews as supervisors, we are quick to reward a good behavior and never consider if the employee corrected a bad behavior. What if, rather than rewarding a good behavior, you rewarded a person for getting rid of a bad behavior?
How can you change up your reward system to not only recognize good outcomes but to also recognize contributions that shed or avoid bad ones?
