IT Employment

I think, In addition to rewarding, giving them recognition in the group is just as important. Personally I prefer recognition to reward and will take both. But then again would the boss be playing favorites?

The only reward I'm interested in for being good at my job is more salary, if that's coupled with more responsibility fine. Out in front, for a pat on the head doesn't do anything for me, besides it increases the perception of brown nosing and favouritism if not the fact. If there's a 'bonus' on offer it needs to be based on hard numbers on a level playing field, otherwise it's counter-productive. Personally I'd rather see the team given a night out less frequently that the best performer once a month, cutting individuals out of the pack for special treatment does not help team building. That's leading vs managing again though.
A team is only as strong as it's weakest member, so you should put effort into improving them, not keeping your best member sweet.

As the boss you do not only may reward people for their accomplishment (this should kill the favourite thing) you MUST.

But again... this is no longer depend to the boss alone... this is how the team member look at themselves and their team mates.

Can or can they not acknowledge their peers ?
Do they see it as insult or challenge ?

Strangely to my experience the idea to give rewards often come from the members...

Ever heard of Maslow's pyramid ?
Some like cash... some like credits... some simply want more works (it'll make sense if you substitute works with challenges *smile*)

The official term for this is - motivating.

Easier said than done isn't it ?
Why ?
Cause it's ideal.
I didn't say it's wrong.. but you know what ideal means...
And there's an assumption there you forgot to mention now isn't there ?
*wicked smile*

Two completely different talents but often confused.
Got interviewed for a Team Leader position and was asked how I'd discipline poor performance in the team.

Told them I'd give myself a good kicking for not leading them to perform better, didn't get the job.

Now ask them to define Leader before I answer any questions.

When you're on the top (not when you lead... when you no longer have boss) you have the luxury of being a leader period. But everybody under don't have the luxury to be JUST manager. When you are in the 'middle' you have to be both a leader AND a manager. The former in my opinion is much much harder task than the later...

A lot of managers seem to confuse leadership and management as though they were one and the same thing. You can be a good one of either without being good at the other. Those with both of course tend to do quite well. You can only lead someone to follow their own best interest and that's been known to conflict with management on more than one occasion.