As reported in this recent BBC news piece, as many as four in ten employees are considering quitting their job in the next year, according to YouGov research for Investors in People.

"A lack of motivation at work is cited as a major problem, with unreasonable workloads, feeling underpaid and a lack of career path being blamed."

Employees feeling detached, unsupported and with no clear direction are symptoms of poor communication, leading to de-motivation.

"De-motivation was highest within larger companies, the report said, with 39% of people in organisations of 5,000 or more saying that they were either not very or not at all motivated compared with 30% in organisations of between 50 and 250 people."

Employee motivation is not just good for morale, it's good for the bottom line, both in terms of productivity, but also because hiring staff is an expensive business. It costs many times more to recruit and train good staff than it does to retain them.

Any successful motivation and incentive activity has to have, at its heart, communication. Rewards are a means to generate attention, and open a channel of communication. Giving rewards without communication is meaningless and in the long run won't improve employee motivation or performance.

In a touching seasonal story that should really be presented by Barbara Wintergreen on CBN, we learn that motorists in Sacremento may be in for a surprise if pulled over for the police this Christmas. Police are stopping law-abiding motorists and rewarding their good driving with $5 Starbucks gift cards.

"A traffic officer came up with the idea to "promote the holiday spirit and enhance goodwill between the traffic unit and the motoring public," police Sgt. Tim Curran said."

In findings that would make Karl Marx proud, research by Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal of Emory Univerity suggests that while monkeys may work for peanuts, they do demand an equal wage.

Researchers taught brown capuchin monkeys to swap tokens for food. Usually they were happy to exchange this "money" for cucumber. But if they saw another monkey getting a grape - a more-liked food and thus a higher level reward - they took offence.

Researchers found that when levels of rewards were not distributed evenly, some disenfranchised monkeys would refuse to work, while others took the food and refused to eat it. Productivity was highest when the fruits of their labour were shared out equally.

"One of the most interesting areas is the recent suggestion that human cooperation is made more effective by a sense of fairness.", said Sarah Brosnan.

Again, applying these findings to the field of motivation is difficult. But we believe giving everyone a chance of receiving some reward, and not just rewarding the top performers is vital to ensure that everyone benefits from an incentive campaign. Otherwise, as the monkeys teach us, you may demotivate those that feel rejected.

Something for Jeffrey Archer to bear in mind next time he sets his typing pool to work on a new novel.

According to this research published on the BBC site, scientists have determined an area of the brain which responds to rewards. Researchers used Magnetic Reasonce Tomography, to monitor brain activity when 2 subjects performed a test task simultaneously, and compared the activity to those who performed best against their test partner.

This is the latest piece of research from the Neuro-economics Lab at Bonn University, published in the latest issue of Science.

'Neuroscientist Dr Bernd Weber explains: "One area in particular, the ventral striatum, is the region where part of what we call the 'reward system' is located. In this area, we observed an activation when the player completed his task correctly."'

Not only this, but this area "lit up" greater when the subject received a bigger reward than their test partner.

'This indicated that stimulation of the reward centre was not merely linked to individual success, but to the success of others.'

Applying these conclusions to the field of motivation and incentives is difficult. But it is perhaps self-evident that a reward is truly motivating when everyone has an equal chance of receiving it, with the best performers receive more.

No, not the Michael J. Fox film, but a presentation from the TED conference by Richard St. John.

He spent 7 years interviewing 500 people to discover "what leads to success", and here distills his findings into 3 minutes.

As the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon goes: "I like to verb words." says Calvin. "What?" asked Hobbes. "I take nouns and adjectives and use them as verbs. Remember when 'access' was a thing? Now it's something to do. It got verbed. Verbing weirds (sic) language." Hobbes commented "Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."

Incentives are rife with verbing, ie nouns turned into verbs. Hence giving a gift becoming 'gifting', creating an incentive becomes 'incentivising', just two examples of the horrible corruptions of the English language.

Part of this convolution of English is a deliberate attempt by incentive agencies to make the subject of incentives and motivation seem more elaborate, an arcane practice with secrets known only to the sorcerous experts. But it's a sham, a cover up, a pernicious attempt to put distance between an 'expert' (the agency) and a lay-person (the client).

Be very wary about any company or organisation that starts banding around phrases like "empowering the gifting experience' or "delivering incentivising opportunities". At IncentiveDirect we try to talk straight, and aim not to bamboozle our clients and customers with a secret jargon.

Remember, "Language is a virus", as William Burroughs once wrote.

As anyone with a gym or health club membership knows, the hardest part of going to the gym is getting through the door.

Lao Tzu tells us that even a "journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step". You've got to start somewhere, but taking that first step is the hardest part.

The answer lies in establishing a routine, getting into the habit. Once you've taken that first step, it's easier to keep going.

The same applies to incentives. Making motivation a habit is the key to successful incentive activity. Smaller, regular rewards and communication are much more effective than big, infrequent rewards. Motivation happens via a series of small steps.

We have always believed that rewards and incentives are a key to open a channel of communication between an organisation and its staff and partners. So it's vital that this channel stays open, supplying a stream of regular communication and rewards. A steady drip-drip is better than an occasional gush follow by months of drought.

Make motivation a habit, not an occasion.

As reported in the Observer, the British government is proposing to give a grant of £120 to pregnant women:

"All expectant mothers are to be given a one-off payment of around £120 that they will be encouraged to spend on fresh fruit and vegetables as a way of protecting their children from diseases and incurable conditions later in life."

Not only is this totally misguided from a health and nutrition viewpoint, but from a motivational and incentives perspective it is hopelessly flawed.

"The payment - the first by a government that is allied to a specific health target - would be given to women when they are seven months pregnant. It would be linked to them receiving professional health advice on how to maintain a proper balanced diet, and give up drinking and smoking."

Unfortunately, as it is a cash payment, it means the money could just as easily be spent on booze and cigarettes. Being a one-off payment during the seventh month of pregnancy will do little to counteract a poor diet in the preceding month. Fruit and veg might be good for you, but they are not a magical elixir that can undo years of poor diet. The Observer article continues:

"There is also little published research to show that a financial incentive, combined with nutritional advice, is sufficient to persuade mothers from the most deprived areas to change their lifestyle."

This government badly need some advice on incentives. They need to understand that, as previously discussed, not only is cash a very poor incentive, but motivation comes from regular, sustained activity, not one-off payoffs.

What would be more likely to achieve the result the government want? A one-off £120 cash payment, or a monthly box of organic fruit and veg from a home-delivery box provider such as Abel and Cole, accompanied by supporting information and literature?

How much would you value not having to do a 2-hour round-trip commute to work?

Flexible working practices are gaining ground as the means of improving employees work-life balance and improving staff retention. Mobile telecommunications and cheaper laptop computers mean that knowledge workers no longer need to be chained to a desk.

But a study by the UK's City & Guilds and Institute of Leadership & Management has concluded that many managers are suspicious of employees working from home.

As reported in Management Issues, managers may outwardly support more flexible working patterns:

"but scratch the surface and managers remain deeply unhappy about letting employees out of their sight, much preferring to manage a team that is physically sat there in front of them.

The research has found that, while nine out of 10 managers said they trusted remote workers and three quarters recognised they were more productive, a significant minority admitted they were still unable to break their old-fashioned "presenteeism" management style.

This was despite the fact that new technology was making remote working a much more viable option."

As we have previously asserted, work is not somewhere you go, it's something you do. Attempting to enforce mid-20th Century working practices based on Taylorist time-management principles is doomed to fail.

The old image of the 'helicopter' boss, hovering demonically over his staff, will give way to a more enlightened, assertive boss, using communication technologies positively to monitor performance and productivity, and engage with staff.

Incentives are an essential part of the new work ecomony, rewarding productivity, encouraging proactive behaviours, and helping staff set their own goals. Online systems such as iD-points can operate seamlessly across a distributed organisation, wherever it's staff may be.

But these systems can also to build an element of community amongst users. Using the news feature to announce winners of monthly performance awards, for instance, is a good way to highlight the success stories of the company, and to emphasise a shared endeavour.

In 50 years time, the idea of a corporate office building may be as alien as a Victorian workhouse is to us today. The rules of engagement between staff and employers are changing. Heads-up companies will plan to promote self-sufficiency, look to hire self-motivated staff, and inspire them further with well structured, tactical incentive campaigns.

Remember, iD-points can be spent on IT equipment for that tricked out home office!

It turns out the fact we prefer 'instant gratification' is not rocket science, it's neuroscience.

Neuroeconomicists (now I'm guessing you never knew there was such a thing) have been looking at what happens in people's brains when they make seemingly economically irrational choices.

It's not so much the heart ruling the head, but the midbrain dopamine system holding precedence over the prefrontal cortex - in other words the 'emotional' brain ruling the 'rational' brain.

Part of the research, has been looking at rewards and incentives:

"In a 2004 brain-imaging experiment led by Samuel McClure of Princeton, people were asked whether they wanted a low-value Amazon gift voucher now or a higher-value voucher in two to four weeks. McClure wanted to test a specific assumption of classical economics: the idea that we apply the same calculus to the future and the present. If that were true, then the same brain regions should become active whether we are thinking about the results of economic decisions in the future or in the present."

"This isn't what McClure found. When his subjects contemplated receiving gift vouchers in the future, brain areas associated with rationality (such as the prefrontal cortex) became active. These cortical regions seemed to urge people to resist temptation and wait for the more valuable vouchers. On the other hand, when people started thinking about getting a gift voucher right away, brain areas associated with emotion -- the midbrain dopamine system, for instance -- were also turned on. By manipulating the value of vouchers in each situation, the researchers could compare the levels of activation in the different regions. They discovered that the relative amount of activity was "directly associated with subjects' choices". People whose 'emotional' brain areas were more active opted for the spoils of immediate gratification."

We also know the instant gratification rule when spending money too - we'll happily pay a bit more to have something right now rather than wait and have it slightly cheaper.

What does this mean for incentives? It is that lower cost rewards that offer instant gratification have a higher perceived value than higher cost rewards with a deferred gratification. Which means that if you can shorten the cycle from a user receiving their award and being able to spend it and get their prize, then you can actually acheive a better result for less money, providing a better Return on Investment.

At IncentiveDirect, we work hard to ensure the reward-redemption cycle is as short as possible. We're making the redemption process as simple as possible, and working with our suppliers to improve stock availability, lead times and delivery.

Only when a user receives their reward, and they can connect their prize with their performance, does motivation occur. Reducing this time gap as much as possible is the key to successful ROI of incentive activity.

Today's business is about transparency.

A clever marketing ploy by UK sandwich-and-coffee chain Pret a Manger seems to me to epitomise the new ecology of business. On their website, on their takeaway bags, and now in a book, they provide the recipes and list the ingredients needed to remake their tasty food. It says: 'Want to reproduce our chicken wrap? Here's how'.

The clever part, of course, is that few people ever will. They're giving away their secrets because it's actually good for business. It provides a great marketing opportunity for Pret a Manger to tell the story of how much care goes into the preparation of their food, and the importance of carefully selecting the right ingredients. The subtle indication is that once you really know what goes into making a particular sandwich, salad or soup, they seem much better value.

But there's another way in which Pret's transparency is good for business, and that is because it sets their standards. With this marketing campaign, they are nailing their colours to the mast, and declaring their values. 'This is how we do things', it proclaims. It is a public commitment to quality and accountability.

This serves as a motivational aid to the staff across the Pret chain, to ensure they live up to claims made by their marketing, as well as an acknowledgement of the standards they have already achieved.

Motivation and transparency are at the heart of the new business economy. Defensive, paranoid organisations, crippled by a culture of secrecy and protectionism, will find themselves left behind both by customers, and an increasingly competitive recruitment market. People won't want to buy from defensive organisations and they won't want to work for them.

Our business is founded on meeting the needs of today's agile business, not yesterday's lumbering corporations. We're happy to share the secrets of successful motivation and give tactical insights to running successful incentives, because we know it shows our strengths.

In any incidence with mass casualties and limited medical resources, doctors and paramedics face the uneviable task of choosing whom to treat first. The triage technique is used to identify those who are most likely to benefit from medical attention, versus those who will probably survive regardless of medical intervention, and those who are unlikely to survive even with medical aid.

When planning an incentive activity, you can divide your workforce or sales network into three groups. There are those who are already motivated regardless of the incentive campaign, and those who will not be motivated by the particular campaign activity. Then there is the third group, those who can be influenced by the reward programme. It is this third group that the incentive campaign should focus on.

Targetting the incentive actvity to those who will benefit most from it makes sense from a Return on Investment point of view. The key issue is in understanding the workforce, in order to determine who is in this third group.

One of the ways we find effective at iD-points is to require users to register for an incentive. That way they are engaged with the incentive program - they are motivated to join it.

Using surveys and knowledge test are other great ways of increasing user engagement with a campaign.

But the triage approach also shows that one size does not fit all. Different approaches are needed to drive greater performance from those who are already motivated, and those who are not. This requires finding out what does motivate these groups, and finding appropriate campaign structures and rewards.

Organisations need to run multiple campaigns to tackle different attitudes to motivation and different performance requirements.

I'm getting tired of reading that gift cards, and other incentive rewards, have "trophy value". Imagine Paolo Maldini holding aloft a small piece of plastic that allows him to visit UEFA headquarters to pick up the European Cup the following week, and you'll get an idea of the ridiculousness of this kind of statement.

What articles like this are trying to suggest is that receiving a giftcard or voucher, or points, is somehow inherently rewarding, not to mention motivating, and inspiring.

But try leaving a gift token under the Christmas tree for your kids and see the reaction you get.

Of course, gift cards, vouchers and online points can be exchanged for all sorts of wonderful goods, experiences and memories. But they are not motivational in themselves. It's a deferred gratification, with a time-delay between getting your placeholder and then substituting it for something you want.

At this point I'm not going to argue whether vouchers or points are better in this respect - they each have strengths and weaknesses.

But, if we continue the concept of a trophy, the place at which receives the actual item itself, the iPod, the bike, or the tickets to the concert, is crucial.

If you're redeeming a gift card or voucher, this is likely to be in a shop somewhere.

But if you're redeeming points, the point of delivery is usually at the workplace, where the gifts are received and opened in front of colleagues. This is genuine trophy value.

One of our clients recently told us: "When that first box of stuff arrived for the sales team, and people started opening their prizes, you could see everyone gathering around, and wanting to know what they needed to do to get them. That's when our incentive really took off."

Never underestimate the motivational power of opening a present in front of work colleagues. Gifts have trophy value, tokens do not.

Are reward and recognition programmes a symptom of a growing addiction to praise?

If it holds true that the UK follows the US when it comes to incentives and motivation (a myth, in our experience, but that's another story), are we set for uncontrolled praise inflation?

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Jeffrey Zaslow (readable here), "The Most-Praised Generation Goes to Work", looks at the effect of unfettered praise on a generation of children now set to enter the workforce. It paints a disturbing picture of an infantilized workforce hung up on praise, rewards, and narcissim.

"Employers are dishing out kudos to workers for little more than showing up. Corporations including Lands' End and Bank of America are hiring consultants to teach managers how to compliment employees using email, prize packages and public displays of appreciation. The 1,000-employee Scooter Store Inc., a power-wheelchair and scooter firm in New Braunfels, Texas, has a staff "celebrations assistant" whose job it is to throw confetti -- 25 pounds a week -- at employees. She also passes out 100 to 500 celebratory helium balloons a week."

Parenting websites are full of guidance on how to not to overpraise children. In an article subitled The Inverse Power of Praise, author Po Bronson writes that continous praise leads to youngsters who avoid challenges and take the easy option.

"Since the 1969 publication of The Psychology of Self-Esteem, in which Nathaniel Branden opined that self-esteem was the single most important facet of a person, the belief that one must do whatever he can to achieve positive self-esteem has become a movement with broad societal effects. Anything potentially damaging to kids' self-esteem was axed. Competitions were frowned upon. Soccer coaches stopped counting goals and handed out trophies to everyone. Teachers threw out their red pencils. Criticism was replaced with ubiquitous, even undeserved, praise."

Can the same be translated to the workplace, and staff reward and recognition programmes? If rewards are frequently given without a corresponding performance achievement or behavioural change, the same principle might apply - staff will be less willing to take on challenging projects that might be riskier. Managers risk indulging their staff rather than driving them to perform better. Our belief is that rewards should always be used to drive performance or behaviour change and not just provide a 'feelgood' perk.

"For now, companies like the Scooter Store continue handing out the helium balloons. Katie Lynch, 22, is the firm's "celebrations assistant," charged with throwing confetti, filling balloons and showing up at employees' desks to offer high-fives. "They all love it," she says, especially younger workers who "seem to need that pat on the back. They don't want to go unnoticed."

Cash is very ineffective as an incentive reward, not only for it's motivational benefit, but for it's cost efficiency too. The bottom line - it costs more to reward with cash than non-cash incentives.

"It takes $7 in cash for every $1 spent on non-cash incentives to get results" reckons Darryl Bach, distributor relations manager for Quality Incentive Company

As set-out in this article at Manage Smarter, here are ten reasons why cash isn't always king:

1. Cash Becomes Compensation
2. Tough to Take Away
3. Buyer's Remorse
4. No Trophy Value
5. Not Promotable
6. Cash Satisfies Needs--Not Wants
7. Nothing Personal
8. One Size Doesn't Fit All
9. Managers Prefer Noncash
0. No Global Parity

When it comes to incentives, it's not all about the Benjamins.