Three Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 1Slides 23•One of the most popular•Giving credit to deserving individuals•Boosting morale•Motivating excellence by providing
positive examples
Despite its popularity in press andpractice, there are still a number ofindividuals who argue against EOMThree Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 4

•Based on results, without
consideration of behaviors that
produced those results•Unethical behavior such as sabotaging
other employees or undesirablebehavior such as working unsafely•Employees are unclear on how to getthe EOM reward•But, probably the most criticized
aspect of EOM programs are their…

Slide 5•Many employees may end up not
being rewarded, despite potentiallysmall differences in performance•Good and valued performance mayend up being extinguished•Generates a type of competition thatis unhealthy and unproductive•If you award EOM to employee whotruly is the top ranked, run the risk ofrewarding just one employee in theorganization month in, month out

There are potential problems with awinner takes all structure

Slide 6

•Ultimately, all of the precedingarguments for and against are based onassumptions•The question of whether EOM inspires
or extinguishes performance is bestanswered through empirical means•The number of published empiricalstudies on EOM within the disciplinesof psychology, management, andeconomics? Zero

Three Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TXCorrespondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 7

The positive motives of the
pride and prestige ofbeing an example setter

Slides 89

Experiment 1•Incentive effects of having the photoof the team member who contributed
the most shown to the entire team•Compared against the use of smallmonetary incentives•Public identification may have manypotential motivating effects•Prestige of being a high contributor•Pride derived from the potential
recognition from others•Signal cooperative behavior to evoke
higher contributions from other teammembers•Players motivated by the positive
motives of pride and prestige, so-called‘leaders’ or ‘example setters’,•Play an important role in determining
the behavior of ‘followers’ in the group•Teams consisting of six team members
each•Task was complicated economics
investment task
•Similar to a situation in which anindividual employee invests a certain
amount of his or her own time orresources into a team project•All may receive some return on thisinvestment, only the perceived topcontributor receives additional
incentives when an EOM program is inplace•As such, the top contributor receives
the strongest return on theirinvestment•All other employees remaining largely
unrecognized for any extra efforts

Three Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com•For two of the groups, participants
were exposed to the conditions in an
ABCD sequence(baseline/incentives/photo/incentive +photo)•The remaining two groups were in an
ACBD sequence.

Slide 10
• A: Baseline– no incentives• B: Monetary incentive alone– highest contributor received money• C: Photo alone– photo of highest contributor displayed to team

• D: Monetary incentives and photo– combination

Slide 11012345678

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

16

Photo alone

Baseline
14

Monetary incentivealone

Monetary incentive& photoAverage Contribution

121086420012345678

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Round

Slide 120123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

16Baseline

Photo alone

Monetary incentives
alone

14

Monetary incentives &photoAverage Contribution

121086420012345678

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
RoundThree Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 13012345678

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

16Baseline

Monetary incentivesalone

14

Photo alone

Monetary incentives &photoAverage Contribution

1210864200123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32RoundSlide 140123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 3316Baseline

Monetary incentivesalone

14Photo alone

Monetary incentives &photoAverage Contribution

1210864200123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32RoundThree Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of TechnologyMay 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 15

Someshortcomings ofthe study

Slide 16

Some shortcomings:•Big confound – team composition andincentive system changed at same time
•Two interpretations:•Team members may thought
they had a chance at winningwith new team (hencetemporary increase). Eventuallylearned that they were NOT the
best performer, thus all-but-one
reduced contribution (overallteam decline)•Novelty effect of newintervention•Also, doesn’t show what is happening
at individual level•While groups are our typical unit ofanalysis in OBM, to understand themechanism of action it may help toanalyze individuals who make up thegroups•Next two experiments address some ofthese concerns•Everybody gets recognized at somepoint

Three Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 17

•Some try to sidestep this issue by
allowing a person to win just once peryear•What about that 13th employee, whomight still be good?
•Does an excellent employee deserve
recognition only once?
•Now you can just wait your turn
•Is it really a sign of excellence ifeveryone gets it eventually?
•Does receiving a typical EOM-type
incentive within a revolving format
strengthen performance?

Slide 18

•Published in:•Johnson, D. A., & Dickinson, A. M.
(2010). Employee-of-the-MonthPrograms: Do They Really Work?
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 30, 308-324.

Experiment 2

Three Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 19

•6 college students working separately•Told they were members of teams•Team composition does not change•Computerized data entry task modeled
after the job of a check processor in abank•Number of checks processed correctly

Slide 20

•Being informed that they won the“Check Processor of the Week” award
for their efforts during the previousweek (EOM analog)•Informed they could win this award
once during the study (similar to once
per year with monthly EOM)•Shown listing of all people on theirteam, with the name of the winner at
the top•Performance prior to and after
winning the award

Slide 21

•Thought they were members oftwenty person teams, with several
different teams in the study•Thought receipt of CPW was based onperformance

Thought they were part of teamThree Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com•Truth: 19 fake names plus themselves•Only one actual participant per team

Slide 22

Nope, just them!

Slide 23

Instructional script•“I want to remind you that you will earn $5.25 for this session and all theremaining sessions and I will pay you in cash at the end of the study. If you
have a cell phone or pager, please turn it off during the session. Also I
want to remind you that we will award ‘Check Processor of the Week’ forone member of your team next week. There are 20 members in yourteam, including yourself. No team member will earn this recognition morethan once. This recognition will be provided for:– Improving performance– Going the extra mile
– Positively embracing the values of passion, trust, and commitment– Making an outstanding contribution to the team– And other deserving accomplishments•You may take a break whenever you like for as long as you like. You may
play one of the computer games as a break, or you may also just stretch
and relax. After I start the check task, I will be available on the other sideof the cubicle wall. If you need anything during the session, just come getme. Do you have any questions?”

Slide 24

Number of checks

0

1

2

3

4

5

Pre-CPW

1200
1000
800
600
40020001200
1000
800
600
400
20001200
1000
800
600
400
2000
1200
1000
800
600
40020001200100080060040020001200
1000
800600400200

6789108910Post-CPW

BobCarlaFrancesGreg

DebHelen0012345Session

67•Purposely vague•Modeled after language used in actual
EOM programs

Three Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com•Average group data:•Pre-CPW (713)•Post-CPW (593)

Slide 25
800700600500
4003002001000Pre-CPW

Post-CPW

Slide 26

•Perhaps EOM can be effective with amore valuable prize (manyorganizations supplement recognition)•If they knew they had unlimited
opportunities to win•Maybe if it was clearer what they had
to doSlide 27

•Indeed, seems plausible it would workwith top ranked winner•I was more interested in everybody
else, the bulk of the workforce•What is the effect of calling 99% ofyour workforce losers on a monthlybasis?
•When the format isn’t revolving, there
are clear performance expectations,and the EOM prize is valued, howeffective is EOM at sustaining
performance?

What is theeffect on themajority?
(i.e., what happens
when you call 99% ofyour workforce losers
every month?)Three Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 28

Slapping
everyone else

•Supposedly a reward for top ranked
employee, but is also a slap in the faceto everybody elsein the face may
not be the bestorganizational
strategy

Slide 29

Experiment 3

Slide 30

•Same setting, apparatus, and design asprevious experiment•Also published in:•Johnson, D. A., & Dickinson, A. M.
(2010). Employee-of-the-MonthPrograms: Do They Really Work?
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 30, 308-324.

•Different participants, but most of theexperimental setup the same
•One difference, participants earned a$50 bonus if called CPW•Told CPW would be whoever had thehighest number of checks processedcorrectly•Told you could win multiple times

Three Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 31

The game was rigged (awww)Slide 32

Number of checks

0123456Baseline

1400
1200
1000
80060040020001400
1200
1000
80060040020001400
1200
1000
80060040020001400
1200
1000
800
600
40020001400
1200
1000
800
600
4002000
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
2000

789101112101112

Enhanced CPW

Barb

Andrea

Erin

Gina

Chuck

Dawn
0

1

2

34567

Session89•Again, 19 fake teammates for each real
participant•Game was rigged so that participants
never won
•One of the fake participants would
consistently outperform them
•Real participant always told between
2nd and 5th place•Top performer’s fake data arranged sothat it was between 15 and 30% above
real participant’s highest performance•Thus, participants performed well, butcould never catch up to theorganization’s best worker

Three Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com

Slide 330

Number of checks123456Baseline

1400
1200
1000
80060040020001400
1200
1000
80060040020001400
1200
1000
80060040020001400
1200
1000
80060040020001400
1200
1000
80060040020001400
1200
1000
8006004002000789101112

Enhanced CPW“I was trying to compete withother team members for the$50 bonus”

Barb“I was trying to compete withother team members for the$50 bonus”
Andrea“I was trying to compete withmyself to beat my own
performance”
Erin“I was trying to compete withother team members for the$50 bonus”

Gina“I was trying to compete withother team members for the$50 bonus”

Chuck“I was trying to compete withother team members for the$50 bonus”

Dawn012345678910111289101112

SessionSlide 34

0

Number of checks

12

3

4

56

Baseline

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
2000
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
2000
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
2000
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
2000
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

7

Enhanced CPW“I was trying to compete withother team members for the$50 bonus”

Barb“I wasn’t trying to compete atall”
Andrea“I was trying to compete withmyself to beat my own
performance”

Erin

I wasn’t trying to compete atall”•Some of these good performances
could have been achieved with just agood performance feedback system•Note that these are the optimal
conditions for EOM, with participants
being ranked relatively highGina

“I was trying to compete withother team members for the$50 bonus”

Chuck

I was trying to compete withmyself to beat my own
performance”

Dawn
012

3

4

56789101112

SessionSlide 35

1000
900

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
1000

Final baselineFirst enhanced CPW Last enhanced CPW•Average final data point in baseline(732)•Average initial performance postintervention (939)•Average final data point postintervention (735)•May partially account for why people
keep implementing EOM:
•Initial success•Or ask the winner, who is happy•Or just seems to intuitive make sense(extra reward is good, right?)

Three Empirical Examinations of Employee of the MonthDOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, Markus Arnold, Eva Ponick, and Heike Schenk-Mathes
Operant-Tech Consulting, Western Michigan University, University of Hamburg, and Clausthal University of Technology
May 30th, 2010
Association for Behavior Analysis International 36th Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX
Correspondence: djohnson@operant-tech.com•Typical EOM doesn’t improve
performance•Enhanced EOM doesn’t sustain
performance•Based on these studies, EOM appears
to be an ineffective motivational toolthat may even have detrimental effects

Slide 36

EOM appears to be anineffective motivational
tool that may even havedetrimental effects

Slide 37

CONTACT
Doug Johnson, Ph.D.
Western Michigan University
Operant-Tech Consulting
E-MAIL: djohnson@operant-tech.com
WEBSITE: www.operant-tech.com