Dog Treats and Corporate Rewards

Speaking with a colleague about our shared interest in dog training, we discussed various ways to reward behaviours, treats and praise to encourage desired behaviours in the future. With Denby, our German Shepherd - Border Collie cross, we've mostly used praise - goofy, high-pitched "good puppy, oh yesss, you're suuuch a gooood girl" - as she wags her tail with delight. Regardless of what method we use, I've got to say that I've never seen Denby respond negatively to a treat - a cookie is a cookie is a cookie - treat's are always good, positive and exciting from her point of view (unless she's really full, or feeling sick).

There are a lot of people who embrace the idea that rewards encourage behaviours, rooted in B.F. Skinner's research with pigeons and Ivan Pavolv's research with dogs. The whole stimulus-response pattern seems so sensible, so well-established, that it has come to serve as the basis of our HR best-practices.

But, Houston (and everywhere else), we have a problem.

When a dog sees and smells a dog treat, it reacts directly to the stimulus. In The Dog World, the stimulus "cookie detected" directly triggers the response "good, yum, eat". There's a pretty direct neural connection between the stimulus and the response. Not so, in The People World.

In The People World, we actively interpret stimuli as symbols, we attach meaning to things, we filter them through our memories, through our world views. If I offer you a treat, you don't react directly to the treat as a dog would; instead, you consider the meaning of the treat, the symbolism it conjures up in your mind, and you react to that. Let's play with an example.

Let's imagine that I'm your direct supervisor, and I give you a reward, a stimulus, of $100 cash. You would obviously be happy and motivated by that, wouldn't you? Perhaps. But take a minute and imagine how you might feel with that $100 reward in the following situations:

1. You did good work and weren't expecting anything additional.
2. You directly saved the company $1 million with your idea last year.
3. You worked closely with a team that you cared for and relied on, yet you were the only one who was publicly singled out to receive the $100 reward.
4. You worked closely with a team, and the others on the team received a $200 reward.
5. You were told you'd be getting a $500 reward, but you only got $100.
6. I present the $100 with a sneer and tell you that you don't really deserve it.
7. You've received a $100 reward every year for the last ten years.
8. You've received a $200 reward every year for the last ten years.
9. You know that a coworker had received a $1,000 reward.
10. You worked fifty hours of unpaid overtime to help get the project done.
11. You privately think that the work you'd done on the project wasn't very good.
12. You know that you've been goofing off at work, you hate your job, you don't respect me or the company, and you've been actively looking for another job.

Now, you'll interpret these situations based on your personal values and how you understand what I've presented, but I think you'll see that each of these $100 rewards are quite different. The point is that the simple stimulus of $100 is not a simple stimulus at all. As humans, part of how we work is to attach meaning to everything; we actively convert the stimulus into a symbol, and react to that symbol.

Surprisingly enough, people are not actually pigeons. And most people are not dogs. So stop trying to use treats to motivate your people.

Work! Sit! Be creative! Stay! Here's a cookie! Ooohhhhh yes, you're suuuuch a gooood worker, aren't you! Gooood boy!