Shawnee Love   •  
June 20, 2014

I am a strong proponent of recognizing employees for a job well done and paying people based on merit rather than seniority, but I have witnessed this philosophy go awry when merit is improperly defined.

Consider a scientist or researcher position. It doesn’t make sense to only reward the scientist or researcher who discovers the cure.  We also need to recognize the incremental ruling out of other possibilities and dreaming up new ones not to mention the basic groundwork done by colleagues and direct reports which the successful researcher or scientist builds upon.

As Isaac Newton said: if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

The key with merit is accurately diagnosing all that merit is based on. For example, in the banking world, merit shouldn’t be just about short term gains.  Long term growth and success (and ethics in my opinion) are also critical as we observed in 2008.

If management forgets the quiet contributions of the people who don’t score big wins, they might forget to recognize and reward them in a meritocracy.  However, those people who work behind the scenes to keep the systems working, maintain relationships, cheerlead, foster communication and teamwork, act as a sounding board, etc. are critical and at risk of leaving if they feel unappreciated in a system which only rewards its stars.

That is why, if you are thinking about merit pay, it is imperative that you carefully consider the entire system that creates success. Because as the saying goes, you get what you reward.