Not every recognition problem can be solved with praise. Often it is a question of power, criteria and the consequences that never follow.
Two people can contribute to the same result and leave a performance review with entirely different understandings of what happened. One is described as strategic because they are present in the right conversations. The other keeps solving the problems that make everything work, but is rarely visible when credit is allocated.
That does not mean every recognition decision should produce the same outcome. It means the decision should have criteria that people can understand, challenge and connect to their actual contribution.
Recognition teaches people what is worth doing.
When an organisation mainly rewards availability, visibility and speed, it is teaching behaviour. It may unintentionally discourage those who prevent problems rather than rescue them at the last minute, those who share knowledge rather than hoard it, and those who prioritise rather than accept every urgency.
The effect is not merely emotional. Incentives change how people allocate attention, energy and risk. Over time, it becomes rational to do what the system values most, even when that is not the work that creates the greatest long-term value.
Transparency is not the same as making everything public.
Meaningful transparency makes a decision intelligible: what the criteria were, who was involved, what evidence mattered and how somebody can understand the difference between the result they expected and the result they received. It does not require disclosing private information or comparing colleagues inappropriately.
A manager who only says "trust the process" is asking for confidence that the process has not yet earned. A more mature system allows people to disagree with a decision without being left to invent the hidden rule that might explain it.
Invisible contribution is still contribution.
Some important work rarely appears in conventional dashboards: helping new colleagues find their feet, repairing coordination failures, protecting client relationships, anticipating risk and preserving crucial knowledge. Recognising such work is not a licence to reward endless availability. It is an attempt to understand how value is actually produced.
The useful question is not simply whether the company offers enough recognition. It is whether it rewards the things it claims to value. When those two diverge, trust gives way to interpretation.
Where there is no explanation, suspicion grows. Where there are no criteria, interpretation takes over.
O Teu Próximo Passo treats recognition as part of an organisational decision system, not just a leader's interpersonal skill. It helps distinguish a person's experience from the conditions that produce it. The book is currently published in Portuguese.