Category Archives: Theory/Research

New Videocast Series – Retail Solutions Online

We’ve recently started a videocast series at www.retailsolutions.com to highlight key factors that affect performance, how organizations sometimes confuse the issue and focus on the wrong thing, and how managers can work to identify key performance levers that will actually result in desired business outcomes.  The first videocast focuses on the difference between “awareness” and “peformance” and can be found here.

EAS Tag Pollution Study

Here is a link to an interesting blog post over at www.retailfraud.com on the results of a recent study on EAS tag pollution.  It is UK based and done by a vendor company, but does seem to ring true to many people’s experience in other parts of the world, as well.

The key call-outs:

  • 57% of shoppers felt embarrassed by false alarms sounding on security tags in their bags.
  • 72% of incidents were in full view of other shoppers.
  • 77% of incidents nothing was said to the shopper when they had their bags checked
  • 28% of case, shoppers were asked to go back into the store to have their bags checked while 26% simply had the tag de-activated and they were allowed on their way.

One difference in the UK is the more pervasive use of security guards at retail exits and, as a result, the majority of these interactions were conducted by security personnel, not retail employees.  You can read the full post here.

UK Survey on Investigative Technology and Capability

I received a note this past week about a  new survey by intelligence and investigation management software solutions specialist, ABM.  The study, ‘ABM Investigation Survey 2010′, surveyed the opinions of 72 investigation professionals from a range of large organisations in the United Kingdom, including retail and consumer product specialists. The objective was to gain a clearer understanding of businesses’ ability to manage investigations by examining what changes have occurred over the last 24 months and their impact on cases.

According to their survey, more than half of businesses surveyed experienced an increase in theft (52%) and fraud (49%) over the last two years. Alarmingly however, investigation personnel numbers have decreased for one in four (25%) organisations, while budgets to investigate and reduce incidents have also diminished for three in ten (29%) organisations. Investigation teams continue to face the challenge to do more with less to help protect the bottom-line. Astonishingly however, despite these pressures, two in five (43%) organisations believe their investigative effectiveness has improved over the last two years.

Some of the findings include how criminal attacks on organisations’ profits increase and how US investigation teams more tech savvy than UK counterparts. The full report can be downloaded here.

Incentives & Disincentives: Will They Affect Performance?

At last year’s RILA Loss Prevention conference in Orlando, I presented a general session where we talked about the various performance “levers” that exist and how they can be used more effectively.  There is a tendency for managers to push on the same one or two levers over and over again, even if they are not the ones that will have the most impact on performance.

In a previous posting (August 31, 2009), we discussed task clarification in some further detail.  In this post, we’ll look at one of the most commonly used performance management techniques – incentives.  We’ll also look at the intertwined issue of disincentives.

Incentives are such a strong part of management history that we have numerous idioms and sayings about them, such as “You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar” and the oft-used “carrot or the stick.”  According to one study, over 75% of American corporations use some type of incentive scheme ranging from stock options to “Employee of the Month” awards to piecework pay for factory workers.  In fact, they are so pervasive that we often take their effectiveness for granted.

As a result, when there is a performance gap in the workplace, we often turn first to the idea of providing incentives – a reward for the desired performance – or disincentives – a punishment if the desired performance is not achieved.  However, there are many “levers” of performance and incentives will only work if the causal issue for the performance gap is related to motivation.

Here are some examples of when incentives will not be effective in changing performance: 

  • The employee does not have the capacity to perform the desired objective
  • The employee does not have the knowledge or skill to perform
  • The employee does not have the needed materials, tools, or resources
  • When other incentives are more important than the one you are offering
  • When disincentives outweigh the incentives offered
  • When the incentives offered are not actually tied to the desired performance
  • When the incentive scheme incorporates too many different performance objectives
  • When the incentive scheme is so complicated that an employee cannot determine the link between their performance and obtainment of the reward

In fact, there is not even universal agreement that incentives actually work in the first place.  Writing in the September-October 1993 issue of Harvard Business Review, author Alfie Kohn, argues that, at best, reward programs produce temporary compliance.    But, when it comes to productivity, he cites over two dozen studies that “have conclusively shown that people who expect to receive a reward for completing a task or for doing that task successfully simply do not perform as well as those who expect no reward at all.”

Additionally, poorly designed incentives can backfire and produce undesired results.  In his book The Only Thing That Matters, Karl Albrecht describes watching an employee at a call center picking up a ringing phone and simply hanging it back up without talking to the caller.  When asked about it, the employee said they were measured and rewarded on answering the phone within 3 rings.

Shortly after starting as the Director of Loss Prevention for a retailer a number of years ago, I inquired about the dramatic drop in check write-off losses for the current year versus the previous year.  What I found is that the previous year’s write-off was the worst in company history and, as a result, the Senior Vice-President of Operations had sent out a memo to all management and all stores that this problem must be addressed and the financial results brought in line.

But, what we also found out was that check tender sales were way down and we were receiving a number of complaints from customers.  It seems that many store management teams, in their effort to address the check write-off issue, were simply refusing to take checks unless they could call the bank to verify funds were available.  At night, customers were sometimes being told, “If you have the money in your account, go to the ATM across the street and get the cash.”

You can imagine the impact these practices had on productivity, customer service, and, ultimately, on sales.  Clearly, these were not the results the Operations head had intended.

Alternatively, Nicole DeHoratius and Ananth Raman published a study in 2007 that showed how changing a store manager’s incentive in a retail setting can affect their attention towards shrinkage and loss prevention.  In the studied retailer, the company changed the emphasis of the store manager compensation plan to increase the weight given towards sales, thus decreasing the emphasis on the prevention of inventory shrinkage.  As most of us might expect, the company saw an increase in both sales and shrinkage.

Clearly, I’m not arguing that there is no place for incentives in the workplace.  Rather, when evaluating how you achieve desired performance, a careful analysis must be done that examines all the factors that influence performance.  Simply dangling a “carrot” or threatening the “stick” in isolation will probably not produce the lasting results you desire.

As always, I welcome your comment, disagreement, and dialogue.

FBI: Crime Rates Falling in America

High unemployment. More people on food stamps. Fewer homeowners. Yet for all the signs of recession, one thing is missing: More crime.

Figures released Monday by the FBI show national declines in murder, car thefts and other crimes. But experts are scratching their heads over ebbing crime rates, which make this recession different from other economic downturns in the past half-century. Among the early guesses as to the reasons: jobless people being at home, where they can watch for thieves, and the American population getting older. Older people generally commit fewer crimes.

The FBI figures, preliminary tabulations from the first half of 2009, show crime falling across the country, even at a time of high unemployment, foreclosures and layoffs. Most surprisingly, murder and manslaughter were down 10 percent.