Recognition and Getting it Wrong

Recognition, Reward, and the Risk of Getting It Wrong

Why acknowledgement matters and why misdirected recognition can quietly damage organisations and public trust.

Recognition is powerful. Done well, it motivates people, reinforces values, and signals what an organisation truly cares about. Done poorly, it can breed resentment, disengagement, cynicism, and a quiet erosion of trust.

Recent public debate around Australia’s 2026 honours list has reignited an uncomfortable but important question for business and government alike:

Should people be publicly recognised for simply doing the jobs they are already highly paid to do?

The conversation goes far beyond national awards. The same dynamics play out every day inside organisations in bonus structures, “employee of the year” programs, long-service awards, executive incentives, and public praise.

Recognition is not the same as reward

In business, recognition usually falls into a few familiar buckets:

• Achievement-based – delivering results against agreed goals and KPIs

• Longevity-based – years of service, loyalty, or tenure

• Behaviour-based – living company values, leadership, or collaboration

Each has a role. But problems arise when recognition becomes disconnected from perceived effort, sacrifice, or impact.

When people see others being praised or rewarded for outcomes that appear to be:

• “Just the job”

• Enabled by position rather than effort

• Disproportionate to contribution

Then recognition stops motivating and starts dividing.

The honours debate: a mirror for organisations

Critics of Australia’s Order of Australia argue that too many top honours go to elites politicians, senior executives, and high-status professionals rather than to community volunteers, frontline workers, educators, nurses, and carers.

The themes raised are strikingly familiar to anyone who has worked in large organisations:

1. Elite bias

High-profile roles attract visibility. Visibility attracts recognition. But visibility is not the same as extraordinary service.

In business, this often looks like:

• Senior leaders praised for outcomes driven by entire teams

• Executives rewarded for structural advantages rather than personal effort

• Recognition flowing upward, not outward

2. Perceived inequity

Even when recognition is technically justified, perception matters more than policy.

If staff believe:

• Effort is unevenly rewarded

• Recognition favours status over contribution

• Some roles are “invisible” no matter how hard they work

Then motivation drops not just for those overlooked, but across the organisation.

3. The gender gap

Public honours data shows women remain under-represented, especially at higher levels. Businesses face the same challenge.

If recognition systems reflect existing power structures rather than actual contribution, they lock inequality in place instead of correcting it.

When recognition backfires

Recognition is meant to lift people up. But misaligned recognition can have the opposite effect.

The hidden costs include:

• Reduced discretionary effort “Why bother going above and beyond if it won’t be seen?”

• Quiet disengagement People stop volunteering ideas, mentoring others, or taking initiative.

• Cultural cynicism Recognition programs are dismissed as political, performative, or meaningless.

• Reputational damage As seen in public honours controversies — including recipients returning awards or procedural errors like the 2025 South Australian announcement blunder credibility, once lost, is hard to regain.

In business, credibility loss doesn’t make headlines it shows up as attrition, silos, and stalled innovation.

High pay, high office, and recognition: where’s the line?

A difficult truth sits at the centre of this debate:

Remuneration is already a form of recognition.

Very high salaries, bonuses, and influence reflect:

• Responsibility

• Authority

• Access to resources

Public or internal recognition on top of this demands a higher bar, not a lower one.

Recognition should answer a simple but uncomfortable question:

What did this person do that and went meaningfully beyond their role, power, or pay?

If that question cannot be answered clearly, recognition risks appearing self-congratulatory rather than earned.

What businesses can learn (and fix)

Organisations don’t need to abandon recognition they need to rebalance it.

Practical principles for healthier recognition systems:

1. Separate role from contribution Reward outcomes that required personal sacrifice, innovation, or leadership not just positional authority.

2. Make invisible work visible Recognise mentoring, emotional labour, problem prevention, and community impact not just revenue or profile.

3. Reward teams more than individuals Many outcomes are collective. Individualising credit can distort behaviour.

4. Be transparent about criteria Ambiguity fuels suspicion. Clear standards build trust.

5. Audit recognition regularly Ask: Who is missing? Who is over-represented? Why?

Recognition should reinforce purpose, not privilege

At its best, recognition:

• Signals what matters

• Encourages the right behaviours

• Strengthens culture and trust

At its worst, it:

• Reinforces hierarchy

• Demotivates high contributors

• Undermines credibility

Whether in government, public service, or business, recognition should elevate service, not status.

If organisations get this balance right, recognition becomes a force multiplier. If they get it wrong, it quietly becomes a fault line.

Good strategy isn’t just about growth and performance it’s about designing systems that motivate people sustainably. Recognition is one of those systems. And like all systems, it works only when effort, impact, and fairness stay aligned.