Recognition is one of leadership’s most potent yet underutilized tools. It inspires loyalty, reinforces values, and creates momentum. I discuss some of the applications in Mission First, People Always. But, like any sharp tool, it must be used carefully—or it can cut in the wrong direction.
People will go to extraordinary lengths when they feel seen, valued, and part of something meaningful. But rewards aren’t just about trophies and titles. What matters most is what we reward, how we reward it, and why it matters.
I have served in the Marine Corps and held corporate leadership roles. In both settings, I have seen firsthand the unintended consequences of recognition when applied without context, sensitivity, or strategic intent. The problem isn’t recognition itself—it’s how it’s perceived, politicized, and handled poorly, which can unintentionally erode trust or morale.
This is the double-edged sword of recognition: something meant to unite and uplift can sometimes divide and damage.
The following is the citation for a medal I received while assigned to a Department of Defense position. I was serving in a position designed for someone two ranks above mine. This type of award is often referred to as an “end-of-tour award,” where, at higher ranks, you receive recognition for your entire tenure in a unit.
My Commanding Officer submitted an award packet to the awards board at the Headquarters. The awards board approved it and created the citation for the Commanding General’s signature. Unfortunately, the Air Force General died of a heart attack during a morning run the day he was to sign it. The second in command, a Marine Corps General, became the acting commander and declined to sign it, writing a note to the effect:
I cannot approve the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, as it would disrupt the awards hierarchy and bring unwarranted attention to him. I agree that Sergeant Hunt deserves significant recognition for his efforts, which were far above what is expected for his rank and role. Resubmit as a Joint Service Commendation Medal or two awards for specific meritorious efforts, and I will sign it and award it at an upcoming ceremony.
- In his view, this medal is reserved for the meritorious performance of “Officers” and does not apply to Sergeants. Note that the awards manual does not mention any specific rank associated with it; it is only a requirement to be in a Joint Department of Defence role and to have exceptionally meritorious service. To his point, I had only seen senior officers wearing the medal.
- The General did show compassion in his rejection, stating that awarding this medal would make me subject to undue scrutiny when wearing it due to my rank. (This was true. Even with the medals I already had, I was stopped multiple times by mid-grade officers and senior enlisted wanting to know my command so they could verify my records.)
- The general was concerned about the competence of the commanding officer of my unit, which allowed me to fix the level of dysfunction. He felt that this embarrassed my unit and his command, which rewarded me for correcting others’ incompetence.
- He believed giving me the higher medal would disrupt the informally established hierarchy. Since I acted under their command, my boss and her boss would need to be rewarded for “leading” my efforts, and they would require even higher-level medals.
Usually, the recipient would not see a note like this, but since I was in charge of processing awards in our unit, I did. The medal was downgraded and was presented on my last day in the unit. To my surprise, several months later, I was called to the front of a formation in my new unit and presented the original higher-level award. The awards board strongly felt that I should receive the higher award, so it was resubmitted to the new Army General, who approved it.
The irony is that over my time in the Marine Corps and civilian jobs, I experienced every point the General made related to awards. While it may not be fair, it is how the game is played, and managers must be mindful that these outdated barriers and beliefs are real and must be taken into consideration.
1. Recognition Can Breed Jealousy and Resentment
One of the fastest ways to lose team cohesion is to make recognition feel like a zero-sum game. On another occasion in the Marine Corps, I was once given a medal that outranked some of my seniors’ awards for the same project. That didn’t sit well with a few of them. Not because they questioned my merit but because the recognition upended the perceived order of things.
It’s the same dynamic in corporate life, especially when recognition feels selective or political. Someone on your team gets the spotlight, and others quietly ask, “What about me?” The more formal or public the recognition, the more likely it is to trigger unintended comparisons.
Leadership takeaway: Foster a culture of appreciation across all levels. Pair formal awards with informal, consistent recognition that reaches deeper into the team. Make space for peer-to-peer shoutouts. When giving formal recognition, narrate why it matters to reduce guesswork and misinterpretation.
2. Great Performance Can Embarrass the Status Quo
Here’s one most people don’t talk about: when you drastically improve a struggling team, your success can make others look bad. In the citation above, I took over a department as a junior leader and increased performance by 98% in under a year. The results spoke for themselves—but they resisted approving the recognition, fearing it would highlight how poorly the department had been operating.
This is one of the paradoxes of recognition: sometimes, the more meaningful the improvement, the more uncomfortable it makes those who allow underperformance to persist. There are managers who believe people are doing their jobs, so rewarding them for something they are paid to do does not make sense to them.
Leadership takeaway: Leaders must reward transformation even when it\’s politically inconvenient. If recognition is suppressed to save face, it sends the message that stability is more valued than progress—and that’s the death of a high-performing culture.
3. Organizational Politics Can Weaponize Recognition
Formal recognition often requires approval from someone up the chain, which introduces bias. Managers may withhold recognition from someone they personally dislike or promote someone more politically aligned with their interests. What was meant to reinforce values becomes a game of optics.
I’ve seen exceptional employees passed over for promotions, awards, and bonuses because their success made someone else uncomfortable. Corporate team leads avoid nominating top performers because it might threaten their visibility or give them a leg up that could be used down the road.
Leadership takeaway: Create space for grassroots recognition. Let teams nominate one another. Use anonymous input. Include a rotating recognition board made up of peers, not just leadership. Remove politics from the equation wherever possible.
4. The Participation Trophy Problem: When Recognition Becomes Meaningless
On the flip side, leaders sometimes overcorrect. To avoid hurt feelings or envy, they begin recognizing everyone for everything. You get a badge for showing up. A trophy for surviving the quarter. A pizza party for simply doing your job.
Over time, this erodes the meaning of genuine recognition. It creates cynicism, not motivation. High performers begin to disengage when they see mediocrity celebrated equally.
Leadership takeaway: Recognition should be earned, not distributed. Set a clear standard for what’s being rewarded—and explain why it matters. Celebrate excellence, growth, courage, and contribution—not just presence.
How to Wield the Sword Wisely
If you believe in Mission First, People Always, you must recognize performance in a way that uplifts both the mission and the team. That means:
- Being deliberate about what behaviors you reward.
- Being transparent about how decisions are made.
- Being inclusive in who gets to give and receive praise.
- Being courageous enough to recognize uncomfortable excellence.
- And being disciplined enough to avoid hollow gestures.
Recognition done right builds trust, loyalty, and momentum. Done poorly, it breeds resentment, dysfunction, and doubt.
Leaders don’t just give awards—they build cultures. And culture is shaped by what we choose to reward, what we let pass unnoticed, and what we dare to celebrate—even when it’s inconvenient.
