The Perks That Money Just Can't Buy

Another downside to bonuses is that employees typically receive them for what they've already done, raising the question of how well they motivate people to rise to the next challenge. Better are the kinds of recognitions that spur ambition - things like landing a plum assignment on a high-profile project or being given a chance to attend a training course to develop a new, marketable skill. The latter two perks have another advantage over monetary rewards: They don't foster jealousy. Everyone likes money, but it's only the most ambitious who covet the additional time and energy a new assignment or a class requires.

According to Dean Schroeder, director of the MBA program at Valparaiso University, extra dollars given to acknowledged standouts are likely to create an atmosphere rife with backstabbing, resentment and other nasty organizational dysfunctions. The reason? Those employees who don't get the cash often feel that they contributed to the success of their rewarded colleague. Human nature being what it is, the passed-over employees - those denied recognition for their accomplishments - may at best lose enthusiasm for the job or at worst actively undermine the work of their more fortunate peers. "While bonuses for individuals do create some positive results for an organization - which they get credit for - they don't get blamed for some of the dysfunction that results from them," Schroeder says. Coffman concurs, adding that bonuses often create a culture of entitlement that once established is hard to crack.

And let's face it; bonuses alone are somewhat impersonal and don't require much thought on the part of managers who bestow them. "Money is easy and doesn't require a lot of creativity," says Schroeder. When facing overworked, disgruntled employees, CIOs tend to do what most managers do: They "throw money at a problem instead of creativity", Schroeder says.

What's Good for the CIO Is Good for the Employee

IT for the foreseeable future will probably remain under a budget crunch. So CIOs need to become more creative in terms of finding ways to motivate their employees. That shouldn't be hard to do, according to Schroeder, who suggests that CIOs borrow a page from their own experiences. For years, CIOs have bemoaned their status as interlopers at the executive table (if they got a seat at all). They believe (as we do) that they contribute mightily to the strategic success of a company, yet the recognition they receive all too often centres on their ability to keep the computers up and running. What CIOs want - for their peers and superiors to listen to them and recognize them for their contributions to the business - are the same things their employees want. In that vein, Schroeder advises CIOs: "Ask your employees for ideas, and listen to their suggestions, because they are the ones who work with the systems and the customers every day." Getting feedback from your staff serves two purposes: it shows them that you care about them and the job they do, and it also lightens your load in terms of managing them. "Ideas from the employees destresses the manager's job," says Schroeder.

In essence, says Coffman, CIOs shouldn't fixate on money. How best then to motivate? CIOs need to establish relationships with the people who work for them, particularly the most talented who have the most options job-wise. "Pay is important for everyone," says Coffman, "but it's not the best motivational tool for the best employees." What top performers crave is attention from their managers, opportunities to reach their potential and - despite the perception that everyone is already overworked - more and higher profile assignments.

In the end, throwing money at your employees won't work; it will simply encourage them to jump ship for the next organization that comes along with more green to throw their way. To keep employees motivated and on board, CIOs need to forge a personal connection between themselves and their staffs. Granted, that's not as easy as cutting a cheque, but it's what makes the difference between an adequate manager and a great one.