ARCHIVED - Evaluation of the Treasury Board Incentive Award Plan - Number 17

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
•  

This page has been archived.

3. Merit Award Programme

This programme received less criticism in the discussions than the Suggestion Award Programme.

The programme is known by an other name in some departments and in some cases has been fused with other recognition and award programmes. In Revenue Canada, for example, the Customs and Excise Award of Excellence and the Taxation Minister's Award have been harmonized to create one award, the Minister's Award Program. The latter is a customized version of the Treasury Board Merit Award. 

In some departments, the Instant Award is sometimes used in place of the Merit Award, because, under the former, recognition can be given more quickly and involves less cost.

Several of the participants in the study stated that employees tend to view this programme as a substitute for promotions and raises.

Respondents in one of the departments in the study stated that the Merit Award Programme has been given out so frequently in their department that it has lost its meaning.

One respondent indicated that the Merit Award Programme was not well supported in his department and as a consequence, in some years no nominations are advanced.

Several respondents stated that their departments have moved to limit the number of individuals who can be recognized in a group award.

4.  
5. Long Service Award

All of the departments included in the study are using this programme or its equivalent.

Respondents frequently pointed out that the award does not guarantee quality service but simply long service. This point was expressed eloquently by one of the telephone interviewees:

The solution proposed by most of the respondents who were questioned on this matter was that the Long Service Award should be linked more directly to quality performance over a considerable period of time. Other concerns about this programme are dealt with else where in this report.

Some respondents suggested that the Long Service Award should be operated as a Corporate Award in the future and be granted to individuals by the Treasury Board or other central agency.

In spite of the strong reservations on the part of some respondents concerning the appropriateness of this award, the evaluation team encountered many who supported it, particularly in departments where it is granted with considerable ceremony.

5. Outstanding Achievement Award and Award of Excellence

Relatively few comments were received from the participants on these two awards.

The majority of respondents in the discussion groups and interviews indicated general support for the continuation of the Outstanding Achievement Award and the Award of Excellence.

The opinion voiced most frequently about these awards was that they should be retained because they provide an opportunity to celebrate exceptional service in a high profile manner and to publicize to the broader community the excellence to be found in the federal public service. Several respondents added that these awards are not currently receiving the degree of publicity accorded comparable awards in the private sector.

6.  
7. Senior Officer Retirement Certificates

Very few comments were received on the Senior Officer Retirement Certificates. The majority of the participants had heard about this programme but knew relatively little about it. Respondents in the employee group were the least likely to know about the programme.

7.  
8. Instant Award or Special Award

This programme, which comes in many shapes and forms, is used in all of the departments in the study. The programme was said to be increasingly popular because of its versatility and ability to deliver recognition quickly and at low cost. Respondents from two of the departments pointed out, however, that this programme is not well suited for use as a group award because of the limits placed on its monetary component.

One respondent in a discussion group meeting stated that if a department wishes to encourage the development of a culture that associates frequent recognition of employees with good management practice, greater use will have to be made of the Instant Award Programme.

The issue of the sustainability of the IAP essentially involved an assessment of whether there are sufficient financial and human resources available to permit the programmes to operate effectively. Several questions were used to elicit participants' thoughts on these matters, including the following:

The comments received in answer to these questions related primarily to the larger monetary awards, particularly the Suggestion Award Programme, although some of the smaller departments in the study also included the non-monetary awards in their responses.

The larger departments in the study, particularly National Defence Canada, Correctional Services Canada (Solicitor General Canada) and Revenue Canada, continue to be relatively heavy users of the Suggestion Award Programme. They support the programme, at least in the near term, because the programme can and does save money.

The programme is effective in improving large scale operational procedures, as for example, in the ship repair sector of the Department of National Defence. In Revenue Canada, improvements in customs inspection activities and in tax services and processing activities were realized as a result of the Suggestion Award Programme. These improvements were also shown to save significant amounts of public monies.

However, the cost of maintaining the programme's extensive administrative procedures is increasingly becoming a cause for concern, even with the larger departments. Revenue Canada recently concluded a study which recommended greatly simplifying the programme's administration to increase the return on investment to an acceptable level in today's economic environment. Two of the departments in the sample have also decentralized responsibility for the administration of the Suggestion Award Programme to the regions in an effort to reduce administrative costs and increase programme effectiveness and efficiency.

Several of the smaller departments have found it necessary to limit the use of this programme as a result of recent budget and staff cuts.

One respondent stated that in his department the programme is less likely to be used to improve the efficiency of large scale informatics systems since this entails heavy up front expenditures that are not provided for in the budget.

In the smaller departments budget reductions require managers to make the more extensive use of Instant Awards. As noted elsewhere in this report, however, there is pressure to increase the monetary component of this programme so that it can be used more extensively as a group award.

Circumstances have changed significantly since the current IAP was introduced in 1987. The government's priority today is focused sharply on deficit and debt reduction involving extensive budget cuts, downsizing of the public service and the privatization of many federal programmes.

Respondents agree, however, that the basic purpose of the IAP remains valid. Employees today wish to be appreciated and valued for their contribution to the objectives and goals of the organization as much as employees of the past. This need may be even stronger today because of downsizing, salary freezes, uncertainties about job security and lack of promotional opportunities.

Overall, the departments in the study continue to participate in most if not all of the award programmes under the IAP but there is a noticeable trend to the use of non-monetary awards both for reasons of cost and because they can be adapted more easily to meet individual departmental needs.

All of the departments in the study have had to accept a reduction in the level of human resources allocated to promote and administer the IAP. This has placed additional stress on the administration of the IAP and other recognition programmes.

For the larger departments, the sustainability of the Suggestion Award Programme is becoming an issue of concern. It is now a problem with the smaller departments and some have had to suspend or limit its use as a result of recent budgetary cutbacks.

All departments included in the study are using the Instant Award Programme more extensively, not only to hold down costs, but because they believe that it is a better way to integrate recognition with sound management practice.

The IAP, as a recognition mechanism, is still relevant today although some aspects of the Plan need to be changed. Departments generally agree that the IAP should provide greater flexibility to permit managers to particularize recognition to suit their individual needs.

4. Achievement of Objectives

The issue of the achievement of objectives addresses the critical question of whether the Incentive Award Plan and policy have realized the objectives set for them, without significant undesirable outcomes. The answer to this question involves an examination of:

• How well or how poorly award programmes are managed in the departments; and
• The impacts and results of recognition and award programmes.

The evaluation study did not examine the management of recognition and award programmes from the perspective of whether the administrative procedures prescribed in the Treasury Board Administrative Manual of 1987 and 1990 were faithfully carried out. This was seen as a compliance issue that could more properly be dealt with through an audit exercise. The focus in the evaluation study was rather on understanding:

• The range of recognition and award programmes in use;
• The accessibility and acceptability of recognition and award programmes;
• Perceptions of the purpose and value of recognition and award programmes;
• Preferences in recognition and award programmes;
• Administration and processing of awards;
• Appropriateness of the awards and recognition;
• Means of recognizing and granting awards; and
• Training for recognition.

These aspects were considered to warrant careful attention because of their potential impact on programme outputs and effects.

1.  
2. Range of Recognition and Award Programmes

In the discussion group meetings and in the telephone interviews participants were asked:

This question was posed primarily to determine whether some employees were not being recognized because there was no programme under which this could be done.

Virtually all of the respondents felt that the current range of award and recognition programmes available in their departments was sufficient to meet employee needs. The introduction of the Instant Award or Special Award in 1990 was cited frequently as being the vehicle that provides enough flexibility to managers to meet any recognition needs that could not be met under the core award programmes.

One interviewee felt that there was a need to introduce a new award for the management of organizational change. The reason given was that organizational change is an urgent and constant requirement in this period of extensive downsizing and is perhaps the greatest challenge facing employees and managers at all levels. The Instant Award was considered to be too limited in its monetary provisions to adequately recognize the massive effort involved. ⁽²⁾

Accessibility and Acceptability of Recognition and Award Programmes

The study determined that all personnel in the sample departments are eligible for recognition and awards although all employees are not eligible for all awards. ⁽³⁾ To be granted an award, however, employees must be able to meet the eligibility criteria that apply to each. Understandably, respondents who demonstrated the greatest familiarity with the individual awards and award criteria were senior officers, award coordinators and human resource specialists. Respondents in the employee group were the least familiar with the range of awards available in their departments and with the criteria attached to each.

Since the success or failure of recognition programmes might depend in part on how well known these programmes are, participants in all four groups were asked:

A majority of respondents in the awards coordinator group and in the human resources specialist group stated that information on recognition and award programmes reaches employees through a variety of means. Mentioned most frequently in this regard were: brochures, departmental newspapers, e-mail, and annual and periodic ceremonies conducted by the department to honour award recipients.

Most of these respondents maintained that few employees, except senior managers, would know the eligibility criteria for all departmental awards. Respondents to this question did not conclude from this, however, that the communication of information on awards was greatly lacking. In addition, these respondents did not believe it realistic to expect all employees at all levels and in all occupational groups to be familiar with all award programmes or their criteria. The general view on this matter was that if employees are interested in finding out about award programmes, there are plenty of opportunities to do so.

Several respondents also made the point that with the possible exception of the Suggestion Award, knowledge of these programmes is not in itself the driving force that motivates individuals to excel. In other words, knowledge of the existence of awards does not seem to motivate employees to excel.

A participant in the Human Resources Specialist group pointed out that proactive publicizing of recognition and award programmes in a period when a department is actively downsizing can be inappropriate and may, in fact, devalue the entire recognition programme.

Recipients generally also agreed that senior managers and junior employees needed to be recognized more frequently.

A respondent in the preliminary interviews conducted at the outset of the study emphasized that an effective award and recognition programme cannot be realized unless employee needs are understood and they are actively involved in the development of the programme. ⁽⁴⁾ If their needs are not ascertained and if they are not consulted, they will not buy into the programme and it will not be successful. .

3.  
4. Perceptions of Purpose and Value of Recognition and Award Programmes

The perceptions of the purpose and value of recognition and award programmes among key stakeholders are critical determinants of the extent to which these behaviours will or will not realize the objectives established for them. All lines of enquiry were used, therefore, to gather information on how recognition and award activities are perceived in the departments by the various groups who are involved in them in one way or another.

Participants in the award coordinator and the human resource specialist groups were asked to give their perceptions as to how awards and recognition were understood and valued by employees in their departments:

The majority of respondents concurred that employees generally understand the purpose of recognition and reward programmes, as being to celebrate the contribution of an individual or a group of individuals to the successful realization of a task that is considered to be important by the organization. Junior employees and especially those newly arrived in the department, or whose attachment to the organization is temporary, appear to readily understand the purpose of recognition, but are least likely to understand the purpose of the Corporate Awards.

Participants in the award coordinator, the human resource specialist and employee groups were also asked:

Respondents also agreed that managers, as a group, generally understand the purpose of recognition and award programmes. Some managers, however, are unsure of themselves in using spontaneous recognition. They fear that their decisions in this matter will generate negative feelings, that they will be seen to be playing favourites. This causes managers to use spontaneous recognition as a management tool less frequently than they should.

The question of respect for what the awards are meant to acknowledge was also pursued in the discussion group meetings and in the interviews. Several managers when questioned on this indicated that award recipients, as a group, tended to be very aware of the purpose of recognition and award programmes. As one respondent in the management group so succinctly put it:

Some recipients pointed out that the manner in which recognition is given will enhance or diminish its worth in the eyes of employees. The Long Service Award will not be respected if employees receive their plaque or pin through the mail, or years after it is due.

Several respondents stated that recognition and award programmes will be respected if they are and are seen to be a timely, warm, genuine human gesture that conveys unmistakeable appreciation of an individual or a group for a task well done.

4.  
5. Preferences in Recognition and Award Programmes

Respondents were also asked:

The type of recognition favoured most for and by employees at all levels is the Instant Award or the Special Award. Cited most frequently by respondents in the award coordinators group, the human resources specialists group and the managers as being the reasons for its popularity were:

• It is easy to administer and involves a minimum of paperwork.

Respondents in all three of these groups explained that the human resources previously dedicated to award programmes in the departments have largely been re-directed to other urgent needs. Award programmes that carry with them significant administrative baggage are avoided to the extent possible. This reason can scarcely be understated, considering the amount of effort and time required to administer some of the IAP programmes, such as the Suggestion Award.

A closely related reason also cited widely was:

• It is a versatile programme that can be used to recognize a very diverse range of deserving behaviours.

As an example of the later, two managers contacted in the telephone interviews mentioned that their departments use the Special Award programme to apply a scaled down version of the Merit Award because it involves less paperwork and saves time.

Respondents in the award recipient group and the employee group stated that they preferred the Instant Award Programme over all others because:

• It avoids delay. It can be given immediately or very shortly after the event that earned the recognition.

As noted elsewhere in this report, however, Instant Awards also have their limitations when used as group awards.

5.  
6. Administering and Processing of Awards

In the current period of downsizing and limited budgets, public servants at all levels are constantly reminded of the inescapable need to "work smarter" and to be more discriminating in the setting of work priorities. In the study, considerable emphasis, therefore, was placed on understanding how these requirements are translated when it comes to the administration of award programmes. How do managers, award coordinators and others involved in these activities "work smarter" in this context and what impacts, if any, does this have on programme results? All participants in the study, award recipients excepted, were asked to provide information and views on this subject.

All respondents reported significant reductions in recent years in the human resources allocated to the administration of incentive awards in their departments. In most of the departments included in the study, award coordinators now carry other duties as well. In some departments, award and recognition responsibilities have been divided up among several staff and among staff in different divisions or branches of the department. This is seen as a means of distributing the workload as evenly as possible in downsizing situations.

Several respondents pointed out that when the management of the programme is scattered around in this manner, there is no central overview to ensure consistency in how the award programme as a whole is being administered. In addition, coordinators do not have time to contact other coordinators to exchange information on experiences and research that might save time and effort in administering award programmes.

The Suggestion Award Programme came in for criticism again in the discussions on the need to "work smarter". All of the departments who use the Suggestion Award complained of the administrative burden involved and the excessive time required to demonstrate improved efficiency claims. The study team were provided with many examples that illustrate these problems, as in the following cases:

Award Coordinator

Manager

As noted elsewhere, two of the larger departments in the study have endeavoured to cope with the time factor by decentralizing much of the programme to the regions.

6.  
7. Appropriateness of the Award and Recognition

Since the appropriateness of the award or recognition can have an impact on programme outcomes, participants were asked:

The majority of respondents to this question stated that they felt the award or recognition satisfied expectations. Several references, however, were made to the limitations of the monetary aspect of the Instant Award where it is used to recognize large groups.

7.  
8. Means of Recognizing and Granting Awards

The study team recognized early in the assignment from comments made by participants in all groups that the meaning and impact of recognition and awards depend largely on how selectively they are used and how they are given. Many of the respondents in the study emphasized that awards and award ceremonies should reflect the values, culture and goals of the organization. Recognition practices that do not meet these requirements will not achieve their purpose. The model used for engineers and scientists, for example, might not be appropriate when applied to financial officers. ⁽⁵⁾

On this latter point, several interviewees in the discussion group meetings and in the telephone interviews pointed out that individuals who work in scientific and research organizations highly value recognition by their peers, rather than by senior officials, as such. These groups also prefer forms of recognition, such as attendance at learned conferences which enable them to keep in touch with their professional peers and with developments in their specialty area.

Respondents made frequent reference to the negative impacts of using awards too frequently or indiscriminately. These practices were found to devalue the programme and recognition in the eyes of employees.

The appropriateness of the ceremonies or occasions when awards are given is also determinants of the extent to which recognition programmes will achieve the objectives set for them. The evaluation team was told of one incident where award recipients were required to bring their own cameras and provide their own film to record the recognition ceremony, even though the department in question was equipped with a first class communications unit and a departmental newspaper which could have provided this service.

Many of the participants also pointed out that while some employees prefer recognition to be accompanied by considerable pomp and ceremony, others prefer recognition on a quiet and very personal scale. Effective recognition programmes, therefore, must respond to individual preferences.

The matter of the timing of the recognition was mentioned frequently as a factor that can affect, positively or negatively, the way a recipient feels about an award and how it affects him or her. Participants were asked several questions on this aspect:

The evaluation team were given many examples of where recognition was given impersonally (through the mail), indiscriminately (as a matter of course), and in an untimely manner (when the recipients were being laid off). These manners of recognition devalue the programmes and can be offensive and demotivating. Recipients of Suggestion Awards invariably commented on the length of time elapsed between the submission of their suggestion and the decision as to its acceptability.

8.  
9. Training in How to Recognize Employees

The need for training for managers in how to use recognition was mentioned by many of the respondents in the study. In the discussions on this subject, award coordinators and members of the management groups agreed that this need should be recognized in management training programmes, at all levels. Classroom training was not considered to be the best method of developing confidence in this area. Most respondents felt that the training should be incorporated in a module on human interpersonal relationships and presented in the form of sensitivity training.

Participants were asked for their views as to whether there is evidence that recognition and award programmes, when appropriately implemented, do truly motivate employees to stretch their efforts and capabilities in support of organizational goals and objectives.

Several participants pointed out in this regard that it is often difficult to attribute positive changes in employee motivation specifically to the implementation of award and recognition programmes, particularly when this occurs in the context of continuous improvement initiatives which a department may be implementing.

Some participants said they did not believe that formal award programmes can be said to motivate award recipients because this form of recognition occurs after the fact. These respondents were of the view that innovation and high quality performance are not generated by awards, occasionally given, but by consistent management practice that recognizes and re-enforces employee efforts on a daily basis.

Another comment on the relationship between motivation and formal awards ran to the effect that formal awards are marginal to the public service because, in many cases, they are held once a year. They do not motivate year-round. In their view, motivation comes from daily management practice. Expressed in somewhat different words, most respondents felt that employees who are made to feel good about themselves will express their satisfaction in their daily work.

This view, which was frequently repeated during the study, was not seen as being an argument for the dismantling of the IAP or other formal award programmes in the departments. Participants generally concurred that there was a place for formal awards in marking or celebrating certain types of employee performance and that they should form part of a broader group of recognition behaviours that enable employees to feel that they are appreciated by the organization and that their efforts are valued.

The practice of recognition varies greatly across the departments and, in some cases, even within the same department. The extent to which recognition has taken hold and is being used as an effective management tool, depends largely on the proactive support it receives from senior management and down through all levels of management.

Employees believe that the formal awards under the IAP are also important events on a continuum of recognition behaviours and could become more meaningful if properly re-structured and used.

Awards and recognition behaviours are more effective in motivating employees when they and the manner in which they are given reflect the culture and the values of the organization.

The Suggestion Award Programme is being used by the larger departments who are able to demonstrate that it saves money. Even these departments, however, find it costly to administer and consider it to be an inefficient way to save money. In addition, the programme, as initially conceived, seldom satisfies employee expectations for an early decision on their suggestions.

The Suggestion Award Program is a matter of concern. Its sustainability over time is questionable if steps are not taken to correct some of its shortcomings.

The Instant Award Programme, by contrast, is cheap, easy to administer and can be adapted to recognize an impressive range of behaviours. The monetary component of this programme, as it currently stands, however, limits the extent to which it can be used as a group award.

The IAP has not escaped attention in the government-wide budgetary review exercises of the past several years. As with other programmes, the resources allocated to recognition programmes have been reduced in all of the departments in the study. Non-monetary awards, particularly the Instant Award, are now being used more extensively than monetary awards, in part to cope with financial constraints, but just as importantly, because they are easier to administer and are thought to respond more readily to employee preference for frequent and informal recognition.

Increasingly, recognition is seen as a continuous requirement for effective programme management rather than a behaviour or activity that takes place only occasionally. The IAP, as currently constituted, falls short on several counts in meeting this need.

In light of these factors, respondents concur that the IAP and the policy on which it rests, need to be re-vamped and brought into line with current budget realities and changes in employee preferences for quick and more individualized recognition.

5. Improvements to the IAP and Future Role of the Treasury Board

The following are suggested improvements to the IAP, based on information and views gathered from all lines of enquiry used in the study.

1.  
2. Departmental Award Programmes

• To be effective, recognition programmes and behaviours, including the IAP, must be treated as non-static entities, constantly in need of reshaping to meet changes in employee attitudes and in the workplace. Management's commitment to the improvement and enhancement of recognition behaviours should be constant and visible if their purpose is to be realized.
• Employees should be fully consulted and their views sought in efforts by departments to revamp or improve upon recognition and award programmes so that they feel themselves to be truly a part of the process.
• Recognition and award programmes are most effective when they and the manner in which they are given reflect the culture and values of the organization. This requirement calls for flexibility and variability in the use of these programmes, even within the same department.
• Recognition and award activities should be decentralized as much as possible in the interests of streamlining their administration and to ensure that they truly reflect the culture and sub-cultures of organizations. When this is done, however, there is also a need on the part of senior management to coordinate recognition behaviours so that there is consistency across the department as to the basis for granting recognition and the criteria to be applied.
• In those departments who use or plan to use the Suggestion Award Programme, Deputy Ministers might provide information and guidance to employees as to what areas of departmental operations are to be given priority in any given year, with preference given to suggestions that can be effectively validated and implemented within a reasonable period of time.
• Further efforts should be made by departments to develop and refine methods and tools for the evaluation of suggestions under the Suggestion Award Programme and training provided in the use of these tools.
• The monetary component of the Instant Award Programme might be increased to permit it to be used more frequently as a group award, thereby supporting the priority the government attaches to team building in this period of downsizing.
• Additional efforts might be made to recognize junior employees, including term and temporary employees. Currently, these groups are least likely to feel that their efforts are valued, although their contribution is indispensable for the achievement of the organization's objectives and goals.
• Training in the meaning and use of recognition should form part of management training at all levels. This training might be given as part of a module of management training on human interpersonal relationships and presented in the form of sensitivity training.
• Departments should find additional ways or spontaneously recognizing managers at all levels.

1.  
2. Corporate Award Programmes

• Deputy Ministers' might be recognized by the Clerk of the Privy Council for their performance in the management of human resources.
• Consideration might be given to the development and implementation of an integrated and high profile award, possibly jointly sponsored by PCO, TBS, PSC and Unions, for overall excellence by a department in human resource management, including such sub-areas as the management of change.
• A greater effort might be made to publicize the Corporate Awards not only to more adequately recognize the individuals and groups who receive these awards, but to counter negative public sentiment towards public servants and public service.

A key requirement of the evaluation study was to explore the type of role the Treasury Board should play in the future to support and encourage recognition and reward behaviours in the federal public service. The evaluation team, therefore, included questions on this subject in the preliminary interviews and in several of the discussion group meetings. Participants were asked:

The responses from the preliminary interviews reflected two important assumptions in this regard:

• The President of the Treasury Board is and will continue to be the "employer" of the public service with all that this implies under the relevant legislation; and
• The President of the Treasury Board will continue to carry out the responsibilities assigned to that office under the Financial Administration Act.

This group concurred that these dual responsibilities require the Treasury Board and its Secretariat to pursue, as goals, excellence in the efficient and effective management of federal programmes and services and appropriate accountability for the use of public monies. As applied to the IAP, these requirements translate into an on-going need on the part of the Treasury Board to ensure that departments have sufficient delegation and other management tools and financial resources needed to foster recognition behaviours now and in the future.

As noted elsewhere in this report, senior managers generally felt that controls over the monetary programmes should be loosened to permit them to be adjusted more easily to individual departmental needs. Some senior officials felt that Treasury Board concerns about the wise use of public funds could be dealt with through measures other than the policy on incentive awards.

Participants in the other groups who expressed views on this point were generally in agreement that the present IAP policy could be set aside and a new policy issued. They believe that the new policy could briefly and clearly state the Treasury Board's commitment to the importance of recognition as an essential component of effective management practice. In other words, the policy could approach recognition from a quality management and continuous improvement perspective.

In this vein, the policy might say less about incentive award programmes and more about how recognition can be used to achieve governmental and organizational objectives in an efficient and effective manner.

Some respondents stated that the Treasury Board might consider guidelines and measures to enable managers to use existing and new incentive award programmes in a manner that reflects their individual needs. One of these measures should provide for more flexibility in the amounts of money that the departments can use under non-monetary awards.

Some respondents also indicated that the Treasury Board could concern itself with publicizing, more actively, the recipients of the Awards of Excellence and the Outstanding Achievement Award so that employees see and know more about them and to counter negative publicity against public service and public servants.

Respondents also indicated that departments need clarification as what they can and cannot do with respect to monetary award programmes. This information, however, need not and probably should not be communicated in the context of a new policy statement.

1. Employee Recognition Programs, Program Evaluation Study, Revenue Canada, June 1995.
2. A proposal to establish a new, high profile integrated (PCO, TB, PSC and Unions) award to recognize overall excellence by a department in human resources management, with allowance for particular achievement in sub-areas, such as staff relations, managing change, and employment equity is under active consideration by the Working Group on Human Resources Leadership in the Public Service, under the Personnel Renewal Council.
3. The TB Amending Memo of June 1990 relaxed the eligibility criteria for the Suggestion Award to permit employees to receive a monetary award for adopted suggestions which are part of their duties, provided they do not have the authority to implement the suggestion in question. The same Memo also allowed employees participating in performance or merit pay plans to receive non-monetary awards to a maximum value of $200, taxes included.
4. This view is consistent with that expressed in the TB document Improving Reward and Recognition Programs in the 90s: An organization Development Perspective, p. 4-5.
5. Three Others R's: Recognition, Reward and Resentment. John W. Koning Jr. In a paper: Framework for the Human Resources Management of Science and Technology, Human Resources Branch, Natural Resources Canada, October 1995.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
•