|
Ah, motivating employees. Some
have argued that it can’t be done. I remember an undergraduate professor
proclaiming you can’t motivate employees; you can only create a
“motivating environment.” Later while doing my doctoral work, another
professor posed a question to the class about solving performance problems
among employees. Of course, many of us diagnosed the problem quickly and
boasted the issue could be resolved with more training, more money, or
more incentives. The prof then reminded us of “the end of life” test. If
the life of the employee depended on them accomplishing the task, could
they do it? If so, then it isn’t a training, money, or incentive issue. It
is a motivation issue. A rather harsh test, but it might have some
utility.
While the “motivation” debate
continues, we do know that millions of dollars are spent attempting to
invent ways to improve the performance of our employees. The venue
management industry also has a stake in this. With more and more budgetary
dollars being directed to labor, compliance, and capital expenditures, it
makes sense to ask the question: What works when it comes to motivating
employees? Space will not allow me to address the issue fully. I do
however have some information that might at least give some perspective on
what venue operators view as effective.
The Survey
In July of 2004, I conducted an online survey of IAAM members asking them
to rate a number of “incentives” on their effectiveness for motivating
event staff. Of the 3,335 e-mail invitations, about 10% (340) responded to
the 10-question survey. Of those who responded, 61% described themselves
as a manager or assistant manager, 25% as operations, event, or house
staff, and 14% fell into a variety of other categories. There were 209
arenas, 167 auditoriums/ theaters, 22 amphitheaters, and 66 stadiums
represented. Twenty-five percent were university-related venues, while 75%
were non-university venues.
The Big Picture
What follows is a summary of the highest and lowest rated incentive
programs when respondents were asked to rate a predetermined set of
incentives on a scale of Always Effective, Mostly Effective, Occasionally
Effective, or Not Effective. The closer the average score is to four, the
more effective the incentive is perceived to be. The survey respondents
were also invited to share other incentives, not on our pre-determined
list, that they have found to be most effective.
With a few notable exceptions
below, the data is summarized across all venues regardless of type,
capacity, and other characteristics, like management arrangement, number
of staff, and affiliation with a university.
For a filtered summary of
results based on some of the characteristics above, please visit the
following web site: http://www.em.smsu.edu/iaam. There you can filter the
results based on characteristics similar to your own.
Ratings of Incentives
The incentives identified in the survey were selected by a group of three
venue industry professionals. Each incentive is self-explanatory.
The highest rated incentives among all respondents:
Comp Tickets (2.69)
Premium Event Staff Positions (2.69)
Discounts on Concessions (2.56)
Comp Swag (2.53)
The lowest rated incentives among all respondents:
Presentation to Celebrity (2.48)
Parking Space (2.47)
Employee of the Month/Week (2.34)
Coupons (2.11)
Rating based on a 1-4 scale.
Based on the tables above we can see providing comp tickets and
premium event staff positions are perceived as the most effective
incentives for motivating event staff, across all venue types. Providing
discounts on concessions and complimentary swag round out the top four in
terms of perceived effectiveness. A closer look at the average ratings for
the top four however, reveal there is not overall agreement among
respondents. This suggests there are mixed perceptions of the
effectiveness of each incentive. An average rating between 3-4 would
suggest there was overall agreement the incentive was Mostly or Always
Effective.
Least Effective vs. Most
Effective Incentives
While the data may not provide a clear metric for allocating time and
budget priorities for incentive programs, it may at least help to
prioritize which incentives deserve consideration and which can be more
easily eliminated. While premium parking spaces and employee of the month
programs seem to be pervasive in retail and corporate environments, they
seem to be viewed as less effective for motivating event staff. Offering
coupons receives the lowest rating and should probably be eliminated from
consideration. This may be obvious given event staff is often made up of
college students, seniors, and in some cases, volunteers. A venue manager
might also want to consider arranging comp tickets or rotating staff to
premium event staff positions because of their higher rating among
incentives.
Privately Managed
Operators, Stadiums, and Parking Spaces
When reviewing the data, I was curious if there were any differences among
venue types and management arrangements. When filtering the data by venue
type, the only noticeable difference was respondents from “stadiums” did
perceive “parking spaces” as the most effective incentive for motivating
event staff. This is compared to a far lower ranking among all other venue
types. When filtering the same data by management arrangement (private vs.
public), we did find “providing parking spaces” was viewed as far more
effective among privately managed venues, versus publicly managed venues.
In other words, privately managed venue operators rate parking spaces as
the second most effective incentive, giving it a 2.72 average score.
 Other
Great Incentives
Among hundreds of incentives suggested and critiqued by survey
respondents, here are few deemed worthy of consideration.
Food, Fellowship, and Fun
Socials and gatherings during work time. Occasional lunch provided for
staff. Birthday lunch. Lunch with CEO/Executive/GM. Free coffee.
Appreciation events. Once a month happy hour.
Flexibility and Freebies
Comp time. Comp days. Flex time. Tickets to other area venues. Backstage
access. Choice of events. Choice of days off. Autographed items from team.
Recognition and Praise
Name recognition in newsletters. Copies of letter from clients. One-minute
praise. Catch someone doing something “right.” Use staff in training
videos. Recognition pins. Respect opinions.
Payola and Preparation
Minimum hours paid on all events. Competitive pay. $25 bonus for 100%
score by mystery shopper. Gift Certificates. Visa Pre-Paid Card. Training.
Job promotion.
While there are multiple
factors to be considered when launching employee incentive programs, chief
among them is adapting an incentive program to your needs. It should also
be acknowledged that some public facilities may have guidelines that would
disallow certain kinds of incentives. Every venue will have a unique set
of constraints and opportunities. It is my hope this article will affirm
some of the efforts you are making to discover “what works and what does
not work” when trying to motivate event staff to higher performance.
Special appreciation is
extended to Al Karosas and Rodney Reese for their review and feedback on
the survey. Dr. Philip Rothschild is a professor and director of the
Entertainment Management program at Southwest Missouri State University.
The program equips students for careers in venue, event, sports, and music
management. Email Philip at pcr259f@smsu.edu or visit
www.em.smsu.edu/iaam for a
detailed summary of the survey results. |
Back to Facility Manager
Contents
