HBR Study: Only 33% Say Recognition Programs Are Highly Effective Despite 66% Calling Them Important to Performance

An Achievers-sponsored Harvard Business Review Analytic Services study finds that organizations with the most effective recognition programs are far more likely to connect recognition to specific behaviors and report improvements in productivity, collaboration, customer experience, and financial performance.

What Separates the Leaders
Managers and Culture Remain Major Obstacles
The Measurement Question Remains
Methodology and Caveats

Click here to subscribe to the ESM weekly e-newsletter.

A new Harvard Business Review Analytic Services study finds a striking gap between the perceived importance of employee recognition and organizations’ ability to make it work. While 66% of respondents say rewards and recognition are very important to influencing business performance, only 33% describe their programs as very effective. The organizations reporting the strongest programs are much more likely to align recognition with specific behaviors, provide frequent and meaningful feedback, and report business improvements. At the same time, the research leaves an important measurement question open because the findings are based primarily on respondents’ perceptions rather than independently verified business-performance data.

The report, “Improving Business Performance Through Appreciation”, was published by Harvard Business Review Analytic Services, the independent commercial research unit of Harvard Business Review Group and sponsored by recognition technology provider Achievers. The report itself does not identify an individual author, although Beth Tracton-Bishop, Ph.D., Director of Research at Harvard Business Review Analytic Services, is quoted in the release describing the research objective.

The study used clear rating scales, though the underlying judgments were largely subjective. Respondents rated how effective their recognition programs were at influencing business performance, with those scoring their programs eight to 10 on a 10-point scale classified as “leaders,” followed by “followers” and “laggards.” The study then compared those groups on specific practices and reported outcomes such as productivity, collaboration, customer experience, and revenue or profit improvement. However, these outcomes also were self-reported by respondents rather than validated against actual financial, productivity, retention, or customer data. So the research provides useful quantitative comparisons of perceptions and practices, rather than objective evidence demonstrating that recognition produced the reported business results.

Enterprise Engagement Alliance Services

Celebrating our 17^th year, the Enterprise Engagement Alliance helps organizations enhance performance through:

1. Information and marketing opportunities on stakeholder management and total rewards:

ESM Weekly on stakeholder management since 2009. Click here to subscribe; click here for media kit.
RRN Weekly on total rewards since 1996. Click here to subscribe; click here for media kit.
EEA YouTube channel on enterprise engagement, human capital, and total rewards since 2020

2. Learning: Purpose Leadership and Stakeholder

Management Academy to enhance future equity value for your organization.

3. Books on implementation: Enterprise Engagement for CEOs and Enterprise Engagement: The Roadmap.

4. Advisory services and research: Strategic guidance, learning and certification on stakeholder management, measurement, metrics, and corporate sustainability reporting.

5. Permission-based targeted business development to identify and build relationships with the people most likely to buy.

Contact: Bruce Bolger at TheICEE.org; 914-591-7600, ext. 230.

What Separates the Leaders

The researchers divided respondents into three categories based on how they rated the effectiveness of their own programs at influencing business performance. The 33% rating their programs eight to 10 on a 10-point scale were classified as “leaders,” 37% as “followers,” and 31% as “laggards.” The largest differences involve the extent to which recognition is deliberately connected to business strategy rather than simply used to thank people or distribute awards.

Among leaders, 88% say their programs are designed to drive specific employee behaviors, compared with 72% of followers and only 28% of laggards. Likewise, 89% of leaders say employees can expect frequent and meaningful feedback for a job well done, compared with 72% of followers and 35% of laggards. The report cites examples including Workday, where recognition is tagged to strategically important behaviors such as AI adoption and innovation, and Kyndryl, which explicitly connects recognition to behaviors intended to support business strategy and customer service.

The reported business differences are notable. Across all respondents, 40% say recognition has helped increase collaboration, 38% cite improved productivity, and 34% report better customer experience. Among leaders, 36% say their programs have contributed to increased revenue or profit margins, compared with 18% of followers and 8% of laggards. Only 2% of leaders report achieving no business improvement from recognition, compared with 31% of laggards.

Managers and Culture Remain Major Obstacles

The study suggests that technology alone does not determine success. A supportive manager was the most frequently cited internal factor affecting employee performance, selected by 39% of respondents, while 58% say managers being too busy with other priorities is the biggest obstacle to employees receiving frequent recognition. Culture becomes an even bigger problem among organizations with weaker programs. Sixty-six percent of laggards say their culture does not promote frequent recognition, compared with just 21% of leaders.

Only 28% of respondents say their organizations use a dedicated reward and recognition technology platform. Among the 159 respondents whose organizations do, the most frequently cited benefits include enabling peer-to-peer recognition, encouraging more frequent feedback, providing employees with greater reward choice, and increasing organization-wide visibility into recognition activity.

The Measurement Question Remains

The research offers evidence that strategic recognition is associated with stronger reported business outcomes, although it should not be interpreted as proof that recognition caused those results. The survey relies on respondents’ assessments of both program effectiveness and business impact rather than independently measured productivity, profitability, customer satisfaction, retention, or other performance data. The organizations classified as leaders are themselves defined by respondents saying their recognition programs are highly effective, which makes the comparisons useful for identifying practices associated with perceived success rather than establishing causation.

The report does point toward a more rigorous measurement approach. Kyndryl combines employee engagement survey information with recognition-platform data and reports a correlation between managers who are among the most active recognition givers and higher engagement scores. Workday has integrated recognition data into its HR system to create greater visibility into employee feedback and performance. These examples suggest that the next step for the recognition field is to connect recognition activity and engagement data systematically with independently tracked business outcomes over time.

Methodology and Caveats

Harvard Business Review Analytic Services conducted an online survey of 566 members of the Harvard Business Review audience between March and April 2026. Participants were required to have knowledge of their organization’s reward and recognition program and how it influences business performance. Thirty percent were executives or board members, 35% were senior managers, and the sample leaned toward larger organizations, with roughly two-thirds working for companies with 1,000 or more employees. Forty-one percent of respondents were based in North America, followed by Europe at 24% and Asia-Pacific at 19%.

As with any sponsored research, readers should note that Achievers funded the study and provides recognition technology, although Harvard Business Review Analytic Services describes itself as an independent commercial research unit conducting original quantitative and qualitative research. More importantly, this is a cross-sectional, self-reported survey rather than a controlled or longitudinal analysis of actual financial and operating results. It provides useful evidence about the practices associated with organizations perceived to have effective recognition programs, while leaving room for further research directly connecting recognition investments with measurable business impact.

ESM Weekly on stakeholder management since 2009. Click here to subscribe; click here for media kit.
RRN Weekly on total rewards since 1996. Click here to subscribe; click here for media kit.
EEA YouTube channel on enterprise engagement, human capital, and total rewards since 2020

2. Learning: Purpose Leadership and Stakeholder