Nordstrom's Performance Goals: Reinforcement and Motivation
This paper examines the performance management practices at Nordstrom, focusing on the company's policy of publicly posting sales figures for all associates twice each month. While this approach encourages competition, it simultaneously conflicts with Nordstrom's stated goal of fostering teamwork. The paper argues that public comparison of sales numbers can trigger guilt, shame, and diminished self-esteem in lower-performing employees, ultimately undermining motivation rather than enhancing it. Drawing on behavioral learning theory and workplace well-being research, the paper advocates for a reinforcement schedule that rewards individual improvement and intrinsic motivation over external competitive ranking.
- Introduction: Competition and Teamwork at Nordstrom: Nordstrom's dual goals of competition and teamwork
- The Psychological Impact of Public Performance Rankings: Public rankings cause shame, guilt, and lower self-esteem
- Problems with Competing Reinforcement Schedules: Comparison-based schedules undermine healthy workplace culture
- Motivation, Self-Esteem, and Internal vs. External Rewards: Internal motivation more effective than external competition
- Conclusion: Toward a Better Reinforcement Strategy: Recommend individual-improvement-based reinforcement for employees
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Identifies a genuine internal tension in Nordstrom's management approach — simultaneous promotion of competition and teamwork — and develops it as the paper's central argument.
- Grounds claims in cited sources from behavioral learning theory and workplace well-being research, lending credibility to what could otherwise read as opinion.
- Proposes a concrete alternative (internal, individual-improvement-based motivation) rather than simply criticizing the existing policy.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs a problem-solution structure anchored in applied behavioral theory. It identifies a management contradiction, explains its psychological consequences using cited research, and concludes with a prescriptive recommendation. This is a strong model for short applied-analysis essays in business psychology or organizational behavior courses.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by describing Nordstrom's dual goal of competition and teamwork, then examines the negative psychological effects of public rankings. It next compares Nordstrom's approach with alternative reinforcement models before concluding with a call for motivation strategies focused on personal improvement rather than peer comparison. The argument flows linearly from description to critique to recommendation across four substantive paragraphs.
Introduction: Competition and Teamwork at Nordstrom
Because of the performance goals at Nordstrom, and the way in which the company promotes an open atmosphere, there are both positive and negative impacts on employees. That openness includes the public posting of each associate's sales figures twice each month for all staff to see. This practice encourages competition, yet the company simultaneously expects employees to work together as a team (Chance, 2003). On the surface, the twin goals of competition and collaboration seem counterintuitive — an uncomfortable pairing that is difficult to reconcile (Chance, 2003). Nordstrom is working to change that perception; however, this does not appear to be the most effective type of reinforcement schedule for all employees. Top performers are rewarded, while those who fall short can experience guilt, shame, jealousy, anger, and other emotions that accompany being, in effect, publicly identified as underperforming relative to their peers.
The Psychological Impact of Public Performance Rankings
A different approach should therefore be considered by Nordstrom in order to foster a stronger sense of community among all employees. Associates who are performing to the best of their ability should be treated equally, and those who are genuinely failing to meet expectations should be counseled or, if necessary, let go — rather than being shamed into improvement by having their weak sales numbers displayed alongside the far stronger numbers of their colleagues. While there is nothing inherently wrong with informing employees that their performance is below an acceptable standard, comparing them publicly with others does not necessarily motivate them to work harder (Dinsmoor, 2004). Instead, it can make them feel deeply uncomfortable and erode their self-esteem to the point where they no longer see the value in continuing to try — particularly if they have already been making a genuine effort (Dinsmoor, 2004). This outcome is the opposite of what Nordstrom intends.
Conclusion: Toward a Better Reinforcement Strategy
The effort invested in designing reinforcement schedules must benefit the company, but it should also be structured to help the maximum number of employees succeed. Nordstrom's current model of public performance rankings creates an inherent conflict between competition and teamwork that ultimately disadvantages many of its employees. A more effective strategy would reward individual improvement, protect employee dignity, and cultivate intrinsic motivation — ensuring that associates remain engaged and productive over the long term.
References
Chance, P. (2003). Learning and behavior (5th ed.). Thomson-Wadsworth.
Dinsmoor, J. A. (2004). The etymology of basic concepts in the experimental analysis of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82(3), 311–316.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2002). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 205–224). American Psychological Association.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.