Can you reward people who do not reach all their annual objectives?

A quick thought. In our everyday lives, most of us like to think that the good things we do balance out the less good things. For example, if we regularly make gifts to charity or treat strangers with respect then we may let ourselves ‘off the hook’ for occasionally buying ourselves an unnecessary present, or being impolite to staff in shops or restaurants.

But is this idea of balance acceptable at work? In other words, does meeting or exceeding some of our objectives, goals or targets make up for failing to meet others? And in particular, should an organisation reward an employee for over-performance on some objectives when they have underperformed on others?

Does this mean that all objectives need to be prioritised, and that people can afford to skip or ignore the lower priority objectives? And what if they skip the high priority objectives?

The thing is that best practice guidelines often say that people should have about four to eight objectives, which in no way covers all the responsibilities and tasks that are described in their job descriptions or role profiles. So objectives are ALL pretty high priority to start with, and how can the organisation afford for some of them to be ignored?

What happens in your organisation? Do people get rewarded even when they miss some objectives? Are some objectives simply more important than others? Does over-delivery in some areas balance under-delivery in others? Are rewards at the discretion of line managers or the Senior Management Team? OR does your organisation only start rewarding staff when they at least meet ALL of their objectives?