When reward undermines policy: How conflicting signals shape behaviour

A policy can say fairness matters. But if the people who move fastest, sell the most or hit the highest targets receive the bonus, the promotion or the benefit of the doubt, employees learn which expectation carries weight. Policy may describe the organisation’s standards; reward reveals the behaviour it is prepared to reinforce.

The first two blogs in this series explore how disconnects emerge when organisational intent is translated into everyday decisions. This third disconnect appears when policy, guidance and reward point in different directions: policy sets out the organisation’s formal expectations, guidance tells managers what is encouraged, and reward shows which choices the organisation recognises, advances or protects. These misaligned incentives become visible in who gets praised, promoted or excused, and in who pays a price for slowing down, speaking up or applying the rules. Once reward contradicts policy often enough, the exception becomes the operating rule.

That distinction matters because a disconnect is not created by policy alone. It takes hold when the organisation’s formal message is weakened by the practical consequences attached to following it.

Reward is bigger than pay

Reward includes salary, benefits, bonuses and commission, but it also appears in performance measures, promotion decisions, public praise, access to opportunities and the extra tolerance extended to people who deliver visible results. An organisation may tell managers to act fairly, protect wellbeing or make careful, compliant decisions while measuring them almost entirely on output, speed or revenue.

The strongest signal is rarely the one written most carefully because careers, targets and results carry more immediate consequences. If a manager who challenges an unrealistic deadline is seen as obstructive while a manager who pushes through it is celebrated, the organisation has clarified its priorities. Performance also becomes stronger than policy when a high performer can ignore expected behaviours without consequence, while silence becomes the safer choice when employees see that raising concerns limits their opportunities.

Conflicting signals become normal behaviour

Employees encounter the combined effect of signals that leaders may review separately. They see whether following policy helps or hinders performance, whether managers are backed when they make a careful decision and whether the people producing the strongest numbers are held to the same standard as everyone else. They adapt long before a dashboard records a problem.

Employee adaptation to conflicting signals can look like commitment: teams stretch to meet targets, managers find workarounds and results hold. But the organisation is teaching people to rely on informal judgement rather than stated expectations. Decisions become less consistent and harder to explain, while leaders receive performance evidence that appears to validate the system producing the risk.

Wells Fargo shows what happens when reward overrules policy

Wells Fargo provides a clear example of how misaligned incentives can allow reward to override policy and turn conflicting signals into widespread behaviour. In its 2012 Vision and Values statement, the bank said it started with what customers needed, not what it wanted to sell them. In practice, its Community Bank operated a volume-based sales model. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, unrealistic sales goals and intense management pressure led thousands of employees to open millions of unauthorised accounts or provide products without customer consent between 2002 and 2016.

Wells Fargo’s stated standard was a needs-based selling model, while its volume-based sales model rewarded a different behaviour. Employees forged signatures, opened unauthorised accounts, created PINs and moved customer funds to meet the demand for more products, harming customers and damaging credit ratings.

The misconduct was not simply a failure to communicate or enforce policy. Senior Community Bank leaders knew as early as 2002 that unrealistic goals and management pressure were contributing to unlawful and unethical practices, yet continued the sales model and presented the issue as individual misconduct. As long as sales volume carried the strongest consequence, the customer-first policy could not function as the organisation’s real standard.

In 2020, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $3 billion to resolve criminal and civil investigations and related regulatory proceedings. The penalty exposed where policy-reward misalignment can lead when leaders treat behaviour as an employee problem but leave the stronger organisational signal unchanged.

Short-term performance can hide strategic risk

Most policy-reward conflicts will not reach the scale of Wells Fargo, but the pattern is recognisable: a wellbeing policy competes with workload targets, careful decision-making competes with pressure for or a behavioural standard competes with the protection given to a high performer. The gap can remain invisible while the organisation continues to deliver.

Continued business performance can make policy-reward misalignment look stable when it is already changing behaviour. Managers navigate competing expectations, employees hesitate before challenging decisions and problems are escalated later. Over time, the contradiction produces poorer and less consistent decision-making, weaker organisational effectiveness, reduced productivity and declining confidence in leadership.

For senior leaders, the danger is not only misconduct. It is making strategic decisions using results produced by a system that is quietly distorting behaviour. When output is treated as proof of alignment, leaders can continue investing in the very targets, incentives and management practices that are creating exposure.

Risk and reward must reinforce the same expectations

HR cannot treat policy as the risk team’s responsibility and reward as a separate commercial discipline. Together with manager guidance, they shape choices under pressure. Policies gain credibility when performance measures support them, while reward decisions become more defensible when they reflect legal obligations, market evidence and standards managers can explain consistently.

Alignment does not mean removing commercial pressure or rewarding every behaviour equally. It means ensuring the consequences attached to decisions support the standards the organisation claims to enforce, giving managers greater confidence and employees a clearer message about what the organisation values and stands behind. This is the next step in closing The Great Disconnect: moving beyond consistent language to build systems that make the expected choice the supported choice.

< Previous: Leadership blind spots: The trust gap leaders do not see