Incentives, Mixed Signals, and Workplace Noise: What Are We Really Saying?

In every academic library, what we choose to reward—and what we choose to ignore—tells a story. Incentives are not just operational levers; they’re messages. They communicate what is truly valued, often louder than any mission statement or strategic plan. And when incentives contradict stated values, they don’t just send mixed signals—they produce noise.

Incentives Are Signals, Not Just Structures

You can say your library values cross-departmental collaboration, but if promotions and praise are tied only to solo projects or individual output, that message doesn’t hold. You can say academic integrity matters, but if the loudest voices or most self-promotional staff are celebrated over those quietly contributing to pedagogy, scholarship, or student success, your incentive structure is telling a different story.

As economist Steven Landsburg put it: “Most of economics can be summarized in four words: People respond to incentives. The rest is commentary.” For academic libraries, the question isn’t just whether incentives exist—but what they signal to your team, your campus, and your profession.

When incentives are misaligned with values—like equity, collaboration, care work, or research support—they create a disconnect between what the library says it stands for and what it actually rewards. That gap breeds confusion, disengagement, and cynicism.

What Noise Teaches Us About Inconsistency in the Library Workplace

In Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass Sunstein introduce the concept of system noise—random variability in judgments and decisions. In our context, that might mean two department heads evaluating the same librarian’s performance in wildly different ways. It might mean one person gets credit for mentorship while another does not. The problem isn’t just bias—it’s noise: inconsistency that undermines fairness.

The same logic applies to incentives.

When one librarian is praised for programming attendance and another is penalized for low turnout in a research workshop—despite serving equally important but smaller populations—there’s noise in the system. When recognition is doled out inconsistently, trust erodes. People stop trying to align with institutional goals because they no longer know what “counts.”

The Costly Signal Principle: Actions Speak Louder Than Slogans

For a library’s values to be credible, they must be backed by what behavioral economists call costly signals—actions that come at a real cost to the institution or its leadership. If you say DEI is central to your library’s mission but consistently underfund those initiatives, the signal sent is clear: it’s not a priority. If you say staff wellness matters but celebrate burnout as dedication, you’re incentivizing exhaustion, not balance.

Talk is cheap; incentives are not.

This plays out in professional engagement too. Consider external committee service—often described as “volunteer” work. But if participation is expected for performance reviews, tenure, or professional status, is it really volunteering? Or is it incentivized labor under the guise of service?

The same question applies to scholarly publishing. Many academic librarians engage in writing and research to share knowledge and contribute to the profession. But when only certain types of publications (e.g., peer-reviewed journal articles) are counted in annual evaluations, institutions inadvertently signal that other forms of scholarship—like editorial work, public scholarship, or open pedagogy—don’t “count.”

These incentive structures don’t just shape behavior; they shape meaning. They tell us what’s valued, and just as importantly, what isn’t. When those signals are misaligned with a library’s stated mission or inclusive values, they introduce noise—and staff begin to focus on guessing what will be rewarded rather than doing work that is meaningful, collaborative, or innovative.

The Scholar vs. The Performer: What Counts in Academic Libraries?

Consider a library that says it values original, mission-aligned scholarship and instructional impact. One librarian develops thoughtful teaching toolkits, collaborates deeply with faculty, and produces research that supports student learning. It’s slow, reflective, and collaborative work. Another librarian creates flashy LibGuides, racks up pageviews, maintains a strong social media presence, and garners public praise—but contributes less to curriculum integration or long-term assessment.

Who gets recognized in the performance review? Whose work is cited in the annual report? Who gets invited to lead initiatives or represent the library externally?

This isn’t a question of who’s right—it’s a question of what counts.

When performance evaluations reward visibility over substance, or the appearance of productivity over pedagogical depth, we send signals that reshape behavior. Over time, staff adapt—not always toward mission-driven outcomes, but toward incentive-driven ones. It becomes less about aligning with the library’s values and more about aligning with the metrics that get attention.

Incentives don’t just influence outcomes; they define the rules of the game. And if the rules aren’t consistent with what we say we value, we invite not only disengagement—but quiet cynicism.

Reducing Noise and Aligning Incentives in Libraries

Here are five ways library leaders and managers can reduce mixed signals:

• Audit Your Incentives
  What behaviors do you actually reward? Are those aligned with your values and strategic priorities?

• Make Costly Commitments to Your Values
  Invest in what matters. If you say professional development is essential, allocate time and funding. If collaboration matters, embed it into evaluation rubrics.

• Reduce Incentive Noise
  Standardize evaluation tools and train supervisors to ensure consistency. Involve multiple perspectives in promotion and recognition decisions.

• Use Feedback Loops
  Ask staff regularly: What do you think we value most here? What kinds of work feel seen and supported? Then adjust accordingly.

• Clarify the Why
  Don’t assume everyone understands the rationale behind rewards and recognition. Be transparent about what you're incentivizing—and why.

Final Thought: Say What You Mean, Signal What You Say

An inclusive, values-driven academic library isn’t built on slogans—it’s built on coherence. When your words, policies, and rewards are aligned, you reduce noise. You build trust. And you create an environment where people feel empowered to do meaningful work, not just strategic work.

So before your next committee meeting or annual evaluation cycle, ask: What are we really rewarding? Are we incentivizing what we say we value—or just adding to the noise?

Further Reading

• Mixed Signals: How Incentives Really Work by Uri Gneezy — Yale University Press

• The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail—but Some Don’t by Nate Silver — Penguin Press

• Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment by Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass R. Sunstein — Little, Brown Spark