Order Reprints

The Human Factor

By David Smith
President, The Employers’ Association
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

It seems that our society tends to minimize the importance of learning from failure by ensuring positive self-esteem and encouraging the concept of equality for all individuals. Schools often praise those who try, allowing those who actually succeed to find recognition on their own. “Outstanding Effort” certificates are given to individuals not academically gifted enough to earn “good” grades. Parents make the final decision whether a child advances (even if a teaching professional has evidence that the child has not mastered required subject matter). The feelings of “belonging” often outweigh the reality that a child is simply not ready to advance — trained educators almost always being overruled by emotional (and protective) parents. In sports, those who “try” and those who “produce” are given equal playing time unless advanced opportunities are available outside of our “normal” activities. Business is not exempt from the “first to lose” mentality as we tend to elevate the incompetent to their highest level of inadequacy. Sadly, even politics is stepping into the “prop-up self-esteem arena” by taking both opportunity and resources from those who “have” then giving what is deemed necessary to those that “do not have” (regardless of the reason they might not be as successful). Someday we must collar this beast called self-esteem and lead it to improvement rather than covering up its flaws.

Successful people tend to have enough confidence in their own abilities to take risks. We reduce this confidence, however, when we treat individuals equally rather than equitably — when rewards are given “across the board” rather than being proportionate to the effort that went into achieving something and the magnitude of what was achieved. “Grade inflation” or “grade creep” in schools accomplishes this leveling — as does “cost of living” or “across the board” increases to pay in business. Equally distributing rewards without acknowledging an individual’s investment or accomplishment leads to a society of entitlement rather than one of ongoing contributions. As we look around us, it seems that the concepts of a “positive self-esteem” and “equality for all” have become the driving force in our daily lives at the expense of individual success and accomplishment. Perhaps it is finally time to consider ways that self-esteem can be molded without negatively impacting either the development of leaders or the ability of people to learn by failing — without being rescued before feeling the discomfort that would make them want to avoid the same mistake twice.

Employers avoid conflict by giving “across the board” increases that reward without consideration of effort, ability or accomplishment. It is odd how many managers will say all their people are exceptional when rating their performance but would have no problem identifying who should leave during a workforce reduction.

Students receiving praise for working hard yet failing to produce the right answer will not learn the process needed to succeed. Workers receiving a small raise for doing “most of an assigned project” — being paid for “time in grade” rather than for results produced — will find very little reason to move beyond what is minimally acceptable (and rewarded). Perhaps more importantly, why would a high-achiever (whom, by necessity, generates his or her own internal recognition) stay in an environment rewarding mediocrity?

When we treat people equitability rather than equally and reward expressed/proven abilities rather than deeply hidden potential, self-esteem can thrive. We must take care, however, to create situations that maximize the chance of success while minimizing the potential for repeated and ongoing failure. We should:

• Acknowledge and encourage superior results rather than reward effort and/or the mere willingness to accept new responsibilities without assigning accountability for performance;
• Reward individuals for accomplishment and excellence rather than for stepping forward to “take a chance” in positions for which they are not qualified.
• Reward lavishly those who have demonstrated they can achieve and produce rather than excessively praising individuals for trying hard with the hopes that it will encourage better performance down the road.

I would offer that success creates a good self-concept much more readily than does a good self-concept breed success. I would offer that rewarding an individual’s accomplishments, while constructively addressing unacceptable efforts, builds a self-confidence that fosters creativity and encourages risk-taking behavior much more readily than would rewarding effort in the hopes one might stumble upon success. It is good to think about a person’s “self-esteem,” but I have never seen life reward someone for “almost winning.”

  Order Reprints

TAGS:

• column
• david smith
• human resources
• the employers’ association
• the human factor