PART 1: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT RECOGNITION PROGRAMS
Employee Recognition Programs (ERPs) are increasingly common in modern organizations, promoted as effective tools to boost employee engagement and performance. However, a critical analysis based on Axel Honneth’s recognition theory reveals that these programs do not necessarily fulfill their promise of empowerment and can even be counterproductive in terms of psychological empowerment. Psychologically, these programs are often limited by several factors that influence how employees perceive and integrate recognition into their professional and personal identity.
1.1.Reification and instrumentalization of recognition
Reification refers to a process by which human relations and personal attributes are transformed into exchangeable objects or properties. In the context of ERPs, recognition is often reduced to a symbol, such as a trophy or badge, without real intrinsic value. This objectification distorts recognition by transforming it into a mere transaction between the organization and the employee, where acknowledgment is no longer perceived as an authentic human interaction but as a commodity. According to Honneth, this dynamic weakens the very essence of recognition, which should be based on intersubjective relationships of mutual esteem (Honneth, 1996). Reification can create a sense of distancing and alienation in employees, who no longer feel recognized as individuals but rather as resources to be exploited.
1.2.Effects on employee autonomy and identity
ERPs can also negatively impact employees' psychological autonomy. By rewarding specific behaviors and highlighting predefined performance criteria, these programs reinforce a form of organizational conformism. Employees may feel compelled to adjust their behavior to conform to organizational expectations, even if it goes against their own values or professional aspirations. This pressure can lead to a form of “compelled over-identification,” where the employee ends up devaluing themselves and giving up their own desires for organizational goals (Honneth, 2012). The result is a loss of self-esteem and an inability to perceive oneself as an autonomous actor within the organization.
1.3.Limitations of financial rewards in promoting Intrinsic Motivation
Research in organizational psychology shows that financial incentives, while effective in boosting productivity in the short term, fail to sustain long-term intrinsic motivation. According to Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999), the use of monetary rewards tends to decrease individuals' intrinsic motivation by shifting their focus from the satisfaction of performing a task for its own sake to the desire to obtain a reward (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan,1999). This can lead to a paradoxical effect: while employees may initially be motivated to improve their performance to obtain bonuses, dependence on these incentives can erode their pleasure in engaging in work for intrinsic reasons, such as skill development or a sense of personal achievement. In other words, money becomes a demotivating factor when employees no longer feel a connection between their work and their personal values, thus reducing the long-term effectiveness of ERPs focused on monetary rewards (Frey & Jegen,2001).
1.4.Symbolism vs. Reality: The gap between promises and practices
ERPs are often presented as a means to value employee skills and engagement. However, by focusing on mainly symbolic rewards (e.g., verbal thanks, congratulatory emails), these programs lack substance. Employees may perceive this discrepancy as “superficial” or inauthentic recognition. This is particularly true when these programs are not accompanied by concrete measures such as professional development opportunities, promotions, or improvements in working conditions (Pfeiffer, 2016). This lack of tangible recognition can generate frustration and lead to a deterioration of intrinsic motivation, with employees feeling used rather than genuinely valued.
PART 2: RETHINKING RECOGNITION PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE EMPOWERMENT
For ERPs to truly contribute to employee empowerment, they must be redefined to include elements that value autonomy, collaboration, and personal development. Below are several strategies for developing more adapted recognition programs:
2.1.Promoting autonomy and active participation
Recognition programs should include mechanisms that enable employees to make decisions about their work. This can be achieved through self-managed projects, increased responsibilities, or opportunities to propose and experiment with new ideas. For example, instead of rewarding mere compliance with expectations, ERPs could value initiative-taking and the ability to propose innovative solutions that benefit the organization (Pink, 2009).
2.2.Recognizing collective achievements
To counter the exacerbated individualism of traditional ERPs, it is essential to include recognition of collective contributions. Programs can encourage team success, inter-departmental collaboration, and solidarity among colleagues. This helps reinforce a sense of belonging and creates a more cohesive organizational culture, where collective success is valued as much, if not more, than individual performance (Brun & Dugas,2008).
2.3.Linking recognition to real development opportunities
Instead of relying on symbolic acknowledgments, ERPs should offer real professional and personal development opportunities. This could include access to training, mentorship, or projects that allow employees to apply the skills for which they are recognized. For example, an employee recognized for their leadership abilities could be given the opportunity to manage a pilot project (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014).
2.4.Adopting a holistic approach to recognition
Recognition should go beyond the professional scope and include the overall well-being of the employee. Programs could incorporate mental well-being support initiatives, stress management programs, or work-life balance support measures. This demonstrates to employees that the organization values their well-being as individuals, not just their contributions at work (Dutton, 2003).
2.5.Valuing mutual recognition and horizontal feedback
An environment where employees can recognize each other is essential to developing a culture of support and constructive feedback. Encouraging peers to acknowledge each other’s contributions fosters a collaborative climate and reduces excessive hierarchy in recognition. ERPs can include platforms where employees share their appreciation, thus creating a more authentic recognition dynamic (Kark & Carmeli, 2009).
2.6.Aligning with personal aspirations
ERPs must be flexible enough to adapt to the personal aspirations of each employee. For example, some employees may prefer recognition in terms of increased responsibilities, while others may value flexible working hours or training opportunities. By making recognition programs more customizable, the organization shows genuine attention to the development of each of its members (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
CONCLUSION
Current recognition programs, although well-intentioned, do not always meet expectations for employee empowerment due to their often symbolic and instrumental nature. To make them more effective, it is crucial to rethink them by emphasizing approaches that genuinely value employee autonomy, participation, and well-being. By integrating tangible elements of personal development, collective recognition, and a holistic approach, ERPs can become authentic empowerment levers, contributing to a more inclusive and stimulating organizational culture for all.
References:
1. Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
2. Hancock, P. (2024). Employee recognition programmes: An immanent critique. Organization,31(2), 381-401.
3. Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. MIT Press.
4. Honneth,A. (2012). The I in we: Studies in the theory of recognition. Studies in Socialand Political Thought, 20, 3-17.
5.Klikauer, T. (2016). Critical management studies and recognition theory:Incorporating sociology into CMS. Journal of Economic Psychology, 55,39-49.
6.Pfeiffer, S. (2016). Managing employee recognition: Theory and practice. HumanRelations, 69(1), 153-176.