Inequity aversion could be inherent and subconsciously play on the choices the users make over every interface you have with them starting from research & this is a classic example of it…
A very common scenario that would resonate with most of us is conversations that occur over a job. There are just so many things that could affect one’s performance over their jobs, aren’t they? Here’s a funny take.
Think back to a time when you just landed your first ever career move & you were on the verge of completing your first 6 months there, feeling somewhat shaken when you found out how somebody got rewarded owing to their consistent performance & you thought:
“Hey! I don’t particularly recollect being THAT bad myself over each of the tasks that were assigned to me, then how was that guy more deserving of that award?”
And in the worst case that may also have triggered some sort of a personal downfall hurting your performance metrics thereof, at least for a brief period (if not prolonged).
One point stands proven here for sure and beyond any doubt whatsoever.
Performance based rewards & benefits (aka incentivization) is a simple & fair rule that most orgs. implement & adhere to when it comes to honoring, retaining talent & creating a harmonious culture that transforms into great motivation at the employee’s end. Also, the psychological toll the rewards system takes at times shouldn’t come in as a surprise at all given how we humans are wired. Only that it ought to be all fair and totally unbiased.
But of course, the exact opposite of that state of harmony would be inequities like internal politics, favoritism,incentivization that’s based on anything else but performance (like say, age / seniority akin to some state-run orgs.) could prove to be real dampeners and never augur well, be it a startup with 15 people / an MNC with 1000+ people. These inequities do possess the long legs to march on and kill an entire culture that may have taken ages to build, which also explains why good team members could feel a sense of aversion towards it.
And similar unfairness / inequity leads is known to lead to an aversion adversely affecting the choices users make.
Public Perception MATTERS!
Lets’ face facts. It won’t at all be wrong to quote how most of us are interested in knowing what the world thinks of us, how they perceive us and some (literally a large chunk) may even be anxious / worried / intimated & ultimately get influenced by those voices.
Image Credits: Irina Blok (Pinterest)
Although the graph says the heed paid to external voices peaks around teenage the drop may not be that pronounced once they reach adulthood.
Take for instance the iPhone and the more recently released versions. Irrespective of which geography you belong to am sure you may have seen how some people who aren’t really tech savvy & well informed in terms of the benefits each of those Apps upgrade their iPhones, regularly, at every release.
I remember asking some of those people why they do that and their response did startle me. They said:
“I believe in going for the latest gadgets because I don’t want to be perceived as old & regressive thinker, I want to blend in with the crowd, in fact I’d love to see people in awe of me and my possession of these latest gadgets”.
When the choices people make are heavily influenced by how they’d be perceived it’s bound to adversely affect their decision making and that holds for a significantly large section of the crowd given some products.
Can “BIAS” be tackled with “INCENTIVIZATION”!?
Floating surveys just to check back in a week later and see feeble traction & the lack of responses is an event that resonates with most of us PM, uncomfortably so, more like a thorn in the flesh.
But then, you ought to get by somehow, right!? So, why not push people to respond to surveys announcing & attaching incentives to it? After all, stats prove that it has worked & pulled up the volumes higher successfully.
But alas! That quantitative bump may not prove to be enough as it doesn’t ensure a relatively proportional qualitative increase.
And as an experienced product person, you’d know the importance of gaining survey responses from a section of the market that’s relevant & resonate with the problem area totally, rather than randomizing the sample space entirely, which is why having a dedicated User Research / UXR team who get deep into sections of the markets and also hire users if need be does make total sense.
But being ready to pay your way & hire relevant users isn’t a cakewalk either.
Accessing a niche sample space is easier said than done and just suppose you have access, getting them to participate actively & respond to a survey is way tougher, even if you were ready to incentivize them suitably for their time… which may land another sort of an aversion when they learn of the reward system favoring / skewed towards a section of the sample space.
To understand this concept of inequity aversion better, let’s roll into a case study:
A & B are 2 orgs. signed by the local government to solve a problem that’s to do with the mobility (transportation) to-and-fro of 100,000 people from villages living in mountain A to 300,000 people from villages across mountain B which is separated by a pretty broad river with high currents all throughout the year.
Choices under consideration for the build for both orgs. are as such:
Let’s consider the case from the perspective of ORG-B. Supposing they float a survey to gauge people’s perception and receive a few responses. They come to know that the number of people who took the survey isn’t all that cheering given how it’s only a shady percentage of population that the issue concerns with.
They announce a €20 reward (incentivization) for the ones who are willing to take the survey but their luck doesn’t overturn by all that much.
So, they announce an extra compensation (additional incentivization) for the time people would be willing to spend on a short follow-up call POST the survey (+ €10 for 5 min call) but with a precondition that the incumbent ought to be a vehicle owner.
Given the goal for the organization is maximization of revenues post-completion thereof, let’s hypothesize the outcomes & study them by applying GAME THEORY:
Given the scenario it could be needless to mention that building a n-P2P (point to point) ropeway would certainly be advantageous for our organization given the order value & revenue projections.
And let’s explore all possible cases:
NASH Equilibrium:
If we try to arrive at the NASH Equilibrium, none of the results is to our favor given how the responses collected from the users don’t exhibit any strength at all whatsoever.
What are we going to do?
build a single P2P ropeway strategically choosing &connecting 2 important points
(OR)
build multiple P2P ropeways connecting points with major footfall between the 2 mountain peaks
The confusion is REAL & also irresolvable.
Although the problem of commute does persist amongst all people regardless of whether or not they own a vehicle, the responses may have taken a deep hit given the preference towards vehicle owners over the survey.
Naturally, one is bound to get irked over that precondition. The clause stating “has to be a vehicle owner” may have been perceived as favoritism, enough to put participants off making them averse towards that visible inequity.
Major learning:
“The real driver of user behavior is not the temporary incentive / monetary gain but the utility / benefit / value they see in your product / feature, both immediate & also long-term”.
Thank you for reading 🎯 "The Product Web". This post is public so feel free to share it.
