Employers should think twice before implementing peer recognition programs
In fast-paced and often rapidly changing work environments, employers continue to seek new and improved ways to recognize employees in the workplace. However, new research from the University of Waterloo suggests that public peer recognition may backfire by enabling comparisons among employees, and these comparisons may make some employees feel unfairly treated.
“Employers have sought out various peer recognition systems in an effort to promote employee helping behaviour,” said Pei Wang, PhD candidate in accounting at Waterloo. “When employees feel that they deserve recognition from their peers but do not receive it, employees can conclude that they are unfairly treated, and this makes employees less willing to help other co-workers, not only the co-worker they feel treated them unfairly,”.
In practice, this type of treatment an employee interprets as unfair can occur when an individual disagrees regarding what type of behaviour should and should not be recognized during public peer recognition. In addition, some employees may only provide recognition to those close to them.
Using a three-employee setting composed of the recognizer, the helper and the worker, the researcher tests whether peer information disclosed by peer recognition systems affects employees’ subsequent willingness to help. During this study, both the helper and the worker assist the recognizer, however, only the helper receives recognition by the recognizer. The worker exhibits less willingness to assist the recognizer and the helper when the worker perceives that their initial assistance exceeds the helper’s than when the worker perceives that their initial assistance is less than that of the helper’s. The worker’s lower level of willingness to assist the helper is a spillover from the reciprocal reaction to the recognizer’s non-recognition.
These findings provide the first empirical evidence of the negative impact that peer recognition systems have on helping behaviour. This research can inform how employers utilize peer recognition in the workplace. Peer recognition is often advertised as a tool to make employees more willing to help others. The study results show that managers may want to be mindful of the potential downside of enacting peer recognition.
“My research provides a first step in cautioning managers about a potential unintended consequence of using public peer recognition, and that is the perceived unfairness that reduces helping behaviour,” Wang said. It may be helpful for managers to communicate with their employees and come up with some agreed-upon guidelines on what should be recognized via public peer recognition and what does not need to be recognized via public peer recognition.”
The study, When peer recognition backfires: the impact of peer information on subsequent helping behaviour, appears in the journal Accounting Perspectives.
JOURNAL
Accounting Perspectives
DOI
Comparing doctors to peers doesn’t make them hate their jobs and may improve quality of care, new USC Schaeffer study finds
Interventions aimed at improving performance can be designed to protect clinician job satisfaction and improve quality of care
Peer-Reviewed PublicationJune 8, 2023 — Showing people how their behavior compares to their peers is a commonly used method to improve behavior. But in the wake of a global pandemic that exacerbated health care providers’ job dissatisfaction and burnout, questions remain about the potentially negative effects of peer comparison on the well-being of clinicians.
A new study from the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics reveals fresh insights into the relationship between peer comparison and job satisfaction among clinicians. Published in JAMA Network Open, the study challenges prior findings that such feedback increases job dissatisfaction and burnout.
Researchers found that behavioral interventions aimed at improving performance can be designed to protect clinician job satisfaction and improve quality of care. To avoid negative impact, the research team discovered it is important for clinicians to have control over the behavior being evaluated or encouraged, such as ordering tests or whether to prescribe medication.
“Our research demonstrates that peer comparison aimed at improving performance can be designed in a manner that safeguards clinician job satisfaction,” said lead author Jason Doctor, co-director of the Behavioral Sciences Program at the USC Schaeffer Center and chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. “Prior findings to the contrary don’t appear tied to peer comparison, but rather clinicians being measured for things they don't have full control over.”
The Importance of Methodology in Peer Comparison
Performance feedback using peer comparison is a widely used approach in healthcare to change behavior. Study authors emphasize the importance of methodology when conducting peer comparison intervention. They note the present study gave clinicians full agency over the outcome, kept performance private, did not restrict the number of top performers, and was successful in improving clinician behavior without lowering job satisfaction.
Doctor and his team evaluated data from their previously published research that assessed the impact of three interventions — Suggested Alternatives, Accountable Justification, and Peer Comparison — to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. In this study, they looked specifically at the data on peer comparison, where clinicians received an email informing them of their ranking, from highest to lowest, for inappropriate prescriptions compared to their peers.
The findings contribute to the ongoing dialogue surrounding healthcare quality improvement and clinician well-being.
“By better understanding behavioral interventions and developing more effective strategies, healthcare organizations can foster a sense of ownership and agency, leading to improved job satisfaction and decreased burnout rates,” said Doctor.
Additional study authors included Noah J. Goldstein, Craig R. Fox, Jeffrey A. Linder, Stephen D. Persell, Emily P. Stewart, Tara K. Knight, and Daniella Meeker. This study was supported by the National Institute on Aging grants R21-AG057395-01, R33-AG057395, P30AG024968, and RC4AG039115 (awarded as part of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009) (Dr. Doctor, principal investigator).
About the USC Schaeffer Center
The mission of the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California is to measurably improve value in health through evidence-based policy solutions, research excellence, and private and public sector engagement. The USC Schaeffer Center is the result of a unique collaboration between the USC Price School of Public Policy and the USC Mann School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences.
JOURNAL
JAMA Network Open
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Randomized controlled/clinical trial
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
People
ARTICLE TITLE
Clinician Job Satisfaction After Peer Comparison Feedback: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
8-Jun-2023
COI STATEMENT
Dr Persell reported receiving research support and speaking honoraria from Omron Healthcare Co Ltd outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
No comments:
Post a Comment