Reading "hope beyond the budget model" I felt there was a redundancy in stating the theory that goals should not be set because they only provide employees with the motivation to perform the minimum necessary to achieve the set objective. The main focus of the article was to try to reward targets based on performance relative to others within the company (while still trying to support teamwork) and competitors. An example would be to base the rewards package on how much an employee's success helped influence the company's success in exceeding the benchmark it had against other competitors and compared to the previous year's performance. It supports the idea that if goals are set and used as the primary system for reward methods, then two things will occur: (1) the employee realizes that he cannot achieve the goal if it is too high and will decrease his performance due to the feeling of inadequacy of the performance necessary to achieve the goal and receive the rewards, (2) the other side of the scale is that once the goal is achieved there is no incentive to work harder because there is no no further compensation for doing so. Some of the other focuses on motivation have been described in the Handelsbanken rewards model. This Swedish banking company has focused on ideas such as aligning rewards with strategic objectives, using clear and transparent measurements, rewarding team performance and some others. Their argument is that if employees are not focused on a set goal, they may worry less about achieving what they need to achieve that goal and instead focus primarily on teamwork, performance, and contributing to the company's success and, consequently, they will reap the benefits. benefits in the end. Further arguments in support of this model… half of the paper… and employees. Some saw a shortcut to getting the most sales by placing their associate number on sales that weren't theirs. Others returned the goods with another colleague's identification number and resold it with their number on it. The lines of reality in determining who really sold what have become so blurred and misconfigured that the entire contest has actually influenced unethical decision making in waiting to receive rewards. In conclusion, madness means that sometimes moral boundaries are crossed if one sees an opportunity to achieve the desired outcome in a way that may work but is not the way the organization wants it accomplished. One method to combat this critical flaw in rewarding individuals for achieving a set goal is to focus more on the methods and behaviors used to achieve the outcome rather than solely on the end result..