Last week I posted commenting on WorldatWork's suggestion that if you're a recipient of bailout monies, you can't have your employee recognition cake and eat it, too.

I disagreed with this premise, arguing that these companies can stand out from the layoffs-and-what's-it-to-you? crowd, and garner some much needed good will (and press) by keeping their recognition, and other forms of team building and employee engagement, in place and going further by playing them up.

It appears Ryan Johnson and I have struck a chord with readers.  On the WorldatWork blog alone, 10 people have already added their thoughts. 

My post netted this comment from Derek Irvine, Vice President of Global Strategy for Globoforce, a firm that specializes in employee recognition solutions:

Firms must be more judicious in their use of recognition.  Massive "junkets," regardless of tradition, are not wise in the current environment and, I would argue, are not wise at any time.  For truly effective recognition, employees should be recognized when they do something worthy of recognition, not months later.  And they should be given a choice of how they want to be rewarded for that recognition.  Public acknowledgment is anathema to some, desired by others.  Some may prefer to choose a vacation with family over a glorified business trip with colleagues.  Others may not choose travel at all.  To be meaningful, recognition should be PERSONAL.  In answer to your second question, any firm (large or small) that offers a culture of appreciation and honesty will do better at attracting and retaining top talent in this recession, better positioning themselves for when the recovery does come.  More on this topic here.

When I put my post on our LinkedIn group and others I belong to, I got even more great feedback on the implications of a bailout on leadership's ability and willingness to recognize people as part of their employee engagement activities.  Speaker, team leader, and community relations expert Christopher Whitaker had this to say:

There's a difference between recognizing employees and spending gobs of money on retreats in tropical places.

One of the things I used to do in my organization, the Student Government Association of Sam Houston State University, was eat dinner as a group one day a week.  The person that the officers thought really kicked butt in the past week got to choose where.  It was a really simple way to give recognition and boost morale.  And no corporate jet needed.

Taking a different tack was Alex Kersha, an application developer at FusionApps.  Alex said,

In my opinion, employee recognition has nothing to do with bailout monies received.  An employee that is "recognized" certainly isn't getting the million dollar plus bonus that an executive may get for being successful.  There is a huge difference between inspiration/encouragement and a pay off.

If companies such as Wells Fargo are concerned about what public opinion is of where the money goes, then simply hold an investor board hearing or similar and find out.  This kind of behavior just seems too much like the executive team is playing the part of martyr for the media.

Good points, all!  This certainly helps expand the debate.

Where do you stand on this issue?