Why Points Instead of Money?

The question "Why points instead of money?" is asked by many participants at my lectures and workshops on the service exchange.

I think the topic is important enough to be treated in detail. Especially since - in my impression - interest in the service exchange is growing. It is increasingly recognized that the complexity of previous disposition procedures, despite the use of modern computers and software, is hardly as controllable as one would wish for effective operations.

Back to the original topic. Money is burdened with many considerations and influences: status, degrees of freedom for personal development, taxation, investment and financing concepts, rich and poor, etc. With money, many aspects are emotionally charged and burdened. Money in the form of wages, fees, salaries serves as a means to win people over, to bind them, to elevate them, to suppress them, or to get rid of them.

Points, on the other hand: what are they? They are nothing, not emotionally burdened. You can have them or not. It initially has nothing to do with your own income, your personal financial obligations. The operator of a service exchange can assign points for tasks freely and lightheartedly - sometimes more, sometimes less - without thinking about the financial situation of the participants in the exchange. And without having to consider the many complex relationships that play a role with money.

The person who defines the point system or determines the points can handle them freely and lightheartedly according to the requirements of optimal work. This makes the work immensely easier. And the participants themselves, who can choose tasks for themselves, don't need to do this. If the points don't appeal to you or seem wrongly assessed - so what, you pick a different task. And if the points for a task appeal to you, you take it. Perhaps just because you have nothing else to do. The point value of tasks and the resulting selection option are available to everyone who participates in the system at all times. This is fair, just, and should therefore remain inviolable.

The relative point level fluctuates. Everything is relative. For example, during vacation periods, if more work happens to come in, the points per task tend to be higher than in times of normal workload. Always in relation to the currently available workers. At night or on special days - perhaps holidays, since urgent issues can arise then too - there are naturally more points for tasks. The system regulates itself - provided it is set correctly.

At the end of a defined period - be it a week, a month, a quarter, etc. - everyone can see their individually earned point result, also in comparison with their colleagues, to see whether their own point result - relatively speaking - is at a reasonable level.

Money - to conclude this topic here - that an employee receives, whether as a staff member or as an independent contractor, must be appropriate. That means: under market conditions, as high as the market allows in the relevant business segments. And from a social perspective, sufficient to lead a reasonable life.

If you want to reward people more according to their own performance, you can of course convert points into money in a moderate and measured form. Moderate would mean, for example, that colleagues in the top 30% receive a defined small additional monthly amount of personal income or fee.

The model - to put it ideologically and politically - is a market-based, social and liberal concept. In other words, what is commonly recognized and valued in a social market economy - only this time within companies or organizations. Every person is at the center and has the opportunity to unfold their efficiency, to carry out their tasks optimally.

I think this system could and should catch on and gradually conquer the service world. It is by no means exploitation, law and order, command and obedience, total control, or marginalization of employees. No, exactly the opposite. Previous systems - especially in larger organizations - are rather dictatorial and feudal; in idealistically led smaller companies sometimes egalitarian.

Only when it is designed in the spirit of the best and fairest possible system for as many or all employees as possible, does it unfold its high performance capability and efficiency. The participants in the exchange system must be able to breathe freely, finally free from the whip of bureaucratic constraints, external control. Finally able to decide freely about their work and its execution. Away from rigid external control. Towards free, self-determined, self-responsible disposition.

For example, as a service specialist, I can independently prioritize urgent tasks in between, as long as I don't unduly disturb other customers. Or I can take time off when the task situation - i.e., the ratio of working time to expected point results - seems unfavorable. This also means that I try to work particularly when the point yield is particularly abundant - i.e., when there is a lot of work. Exactly in the company's interest - but now completely self-determined.

I can then see at the end of a period how well I have managed compared to my colleagues.

A note on transparency of points at this point. There are colleagues, supervisors, who want to excessively control their employees. This mindset is rather dangerous for the exchange - and presumably for good and demanding work in general. You can usually tell without detailed control whether a colleague feels comfortable, whether the work is going well, whether the results are good or not.

It is conceivable that no supervisor in a company can view an employee's points without hurdles. Why indeed. You can do too much nonsense with it - essentially producing demotivation. Employees should initially see their now objective results only for themselves, in comparison with their colleagues - these being anonymized. And if supervisors want to see the results of employees, they must ask the employee and discuss their results with them rather than talking about them behind their back.

And if an employee asks for an individual raise, the supervisor can ask how their point result compares to that of their colleagues. If the performance matches that of their colleagues, this can be a reason to conduct such a conversation in the employee's favor.

With the exchange system, the intelligence lies with each employee - decentralized and neural - not in a possibly more or less central disposition system with more or less rigid guidelines. And the point system motivates each participant to process their self-selected tasks as efficiently as possible.

Supervisors can now also be measured and compared with their area of responsibility using summed points. A good supervisor is one who achieves many points per member of their team. To which they themselves also belong! If, for example, internal administration has comparatively overgrown, this quickly becomes transparent.

It is important with the system to create niches for as many employees as possible - no one should or may be left behind. There are usually many and varied tasks that are important to the company and can be rewarded with points. And employees can choose the tasks that suit them from this offering - depending on inclination and ability.

I am writing this contribution because I have the impression that more and more people are engaging with the service exchange and thinking about it. The system is too powerful and - in a positive sense - too effective to let this knowledge go to waste.

Further publications on important topics in service management and the service exchange can be found at www.scwt.de.