I've heard it said that your reward for a job well done is a sum of money being deposited into your bank account every other week.  The only reward that a person should expect from doing their job is their negotiated salary or hourly rate.

When I was younger and not in a "professional" status in my career development, I agreed with that philosophy.  But as I have grown older, and hopefully wiser, I realized that this is not necessarily the best approach to bring out the best performance in people.

I have worked in many environments: Manufacturing, Constructions, Sales, Logistics, Support, Engineering, Research and Development, Management, as a Consultant, and more... Both union and non union environments.

One of the many things I have learned from 25+ years of work history is that most people will rise to meet their lowest common denominator.

What does that mean?  Well, it means that most people will assess what they need to do to keep their job and do that.  They will do what they have to do, they will meet the minimum job requirements. 

Many positions in the workforce are dead-end go-no-where jobs.  In those positions there is no opportunity for advancement.  It is unlikely that the guy stocking shelves at the local retailer will ever be a member of that corporation's executive team.  It is unlikely that the guy shoveling dirt out of a trench will ever be directing multiple crews.  It is unlikely that the person who attached that fender to the car in the factory will ever be the shift foreman.  The vast majority of these positions are singular in nature.  There is no advancement and the rate of compensation will never change much.

Even in higher level positions, such a computer network or systems support, there are many positions that will never offer advancement opportunity.  This is the reason so many IT professionals change jobs every 2-3 years.

Lets face it, there are only so many management positions open, and only a few people want that type of role.  Advancement opportunities come with more money, but also more headaches.  Those headaches vary by industry, but they are always there.  Physical labor goes down with advancement, sometimes even the mental work goes down, but stress is almost always higher.

Because of the bottle neck for advancement, many just give up on ever reaching for more.  They see their job as just that, a job.  Not a career.  No future with a comfortable retirement, just a life of survival.  There is no incentive to do or perform better than the minimum requirements.

In many industries management says that your paycheck is your reward for a job well done.  Is it?  Or is it the agreed upon compensation for meeting minimum SLA requirements for the job that was agreed upon?

Most of us enter into new employment negotiations at the disadvantage of not being employed at the time.  We may be willing to take a lower rate just to have a job.  Most company representatives that negotiate salary know just how to exploit this.  This puts the hired individual in the position of being thankful they have a job, and resentful that they are not really being fairly compensated.

Unless they receive significant raises after demonstrating their value to the company, it is unlikely that the individual will stay for more than two to three years.  They will remain just long enough to not harm their employment history.  Even with reasonable increases in salary, they may leave because of the sense of unfairness they experienced in their initial hire.  A low salary offer to a prospect may initially look good on the company budget, but may not help the bottom line over time.

Even with a fair initial salary, what incentive is there for for the person to deliver the best of the best?  They may have the capability, even the tools, but what is their incentive for that extra effort?  Their paycheck is really contractual minimal SLA compensation, unless they are in the upper tier of their professional scale for their region. 

Some may say that I am just looking for an excuse to be lazy or to be greedy.  That is not the case.  My consulting firm was hired to perform a task for a company for a certain set of deliverables under certain conditions with certain resources in a certain time frame for a fixed price.  After entering into the work the conditions, resources, and time frame all changed.  This altered the cost of reaching the deliverables.  As a result the cost to the client was different than initially agreed upon.  In another instance, a bonus was offered for completion of the deliverables ahead of schedule.  The bonus gave incentive and resources to get the deliverables completed ahead of the intially agreed upon delivery date.

The same applies to an employee who is in the mid to lower tier of salaries for the type of work he is doing.  If the employer's expectations of him increase, his job responsibilities increase, or circumstances arise that make performing the job more difficult - he may not think his current compensation is sufficient to cover the increased load.  If the cost of living increases, just as in business, his salary may not be sufficient to cover his cost of operation.  He may have taken the lower pay with the expectation that this kind of load would not be expected. 

To get the best out of an employee, they need to be rewarded.  To get that extra initiative, there needs to be additional benefit.  If there is no reward, the employee may never make the effort to improve the way work is done or to take that extra effort to ensure that the job is not just done, but done in an extraordinary way.

In the same way, a company does not generally provide extra services to their clients beyond that which has been written into the contract without additional compensation.

If an employer simply wants their minimum SLA for a given job met, then don't give bonuses.  Take away local manager's abilities to spot a bonus or comp a day.  Give minimal salaries.  You will get your SLA (maybe) - but that is all.

If you want your staff to make that extra effort, to be the best of the best, to not drag a job out just to get a little over time, then reward them for their efforts. Let them know they are appreciated and that their efforts do not go unnoticed.  A $500 dollar spot bonus may not seem like much in a large corporate or departmental budget, but it will mean the world to an individual employee. The other team members will see it and will work harder to excel as well.

If there is no budget for that, then give a comp-day.  In a properly staffed company this will have little impact on production and profound impact in the employee's performance, attitude, and personal life.

Most staff have families.  They have ever increasing bills.  Yet their income does not usual make any kind of significant increase - unless they change employers while still working.  

Most companies have only annual salary reviews, limiting the employee's opportunity for merit increases. Despite official company policies, there is nothing stopping any employee at any time from approaching his boss, his boss's boss, or human resources to request a salary increase.  They may say no, but at least they know you want one.  If they don't want to find a replacement, it is probably in their best interest to give one (if deserved) than to try to counter offer after an employee has accepted another offer from somewhere else.  Most recruiters will advise an employee to refuse counter offers.  If you are worth more now, you were worth more then.  The offer should have been given before the employee chose to leave.

What is the cost to train a new employee?  It costs to provide training, it costs to manage the paperwork of the new employee and the old one, it costs in loss of production. It costs in moral to other team members.  How much of that cost could have been mitigated with a reward/bonus program, improved initial salary, or salary increases which would reduce that turnover?

When the government publishes that the cost of living went up 7-10% in the last year, and then the employer give a 2-3% increase, it is a net loss to the employee.  It is an insult to his/her intellect and person.  This especially holds true if principals in the company show up with new cars a week later or the CEO or other officers get bonus's - often exceeding the employee's salary.  (Publicly traded companies and 501c3 corporations are required to publish their officers compensation)

Employees that do not get bonuses or other rewards beyond their base salary are always looking for a better opportunity.  Employers need to know this and work to prevent that from happening, unless they really want high staff turn over.

My view is that mediocrity is not an acceptable position.  I expect to be rewarded for excellence.  I expect my salary to have regular increases that are commensurate with the profitability of the company and my position.  I expect that my salary should not just be in the pay band, but in the upper portion of it for my region.  I expect that when bonuses are handed out that I will be getting one.  I expect that when I work extra hours or through lunchs and breaks to get a job done that I will be compensated for it down the road. 

Why do I expect this?  Because I intend to be the best of the best.  If I leave, the company will need to replace me with two or three others.  Because the minimum SLA is just that - a minimum.  My abilities and performance are beyond the minimum SLA, my compensation should be too.