They took a group and had them perform two tasks. One was a problem solving task that required an abstract / creative solution. The other was a mechanical task that basically required the group to assemble widgets. The control group was offered no money and the test group was offered a payout. The results are well known, in the mechanical task, money was an effective motivator. People will put more effort forth for cash. In the creative task, money negatively impacted performace. i.e. Pressure chokes creativity.
The common interpretation misses an important confounding factor: Stress. The cash prize for success (up to a month's salary in some of the tests performed overseas), is stressful, and it's just as likely that stress, not money, caused the poor performance in the creativity task.
If you give an employee a good wage and strong job security, are they likely to feel more stressed, or less?
If we accept that stress kills creativity, then everything fits together nicely. Mastery, purpose and autonomy make for a comfortable work environment. So does job security. So does a fair (market) wage. I think the insight here isn't so much that you should (or can) pay people less, but that crafting a good work environment as defined in the article isn't expensive, or even necessarily hard, and can produce large gains.
So, here is the thing right at the start: I’ve always been uncomfortable with the traditional ideal of the professional — cool, collected, and capable, checking off tasks left and right, all numbers and results and making it happen, please, with not a hair out of place. An effective employee, no fuss, no muss, a manager’s dream.
Real heartfelt drive and professionalism, like real grief or real love, is subtle and not theatrical. Sometimes it looks like a lack of emotion because being unhappy with your work stirs up a lot more drama by comparison.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/59-Seconds-Think-little-change/dp/02...
Money is a weak motivator? Wrong! Small money, median income, same as everyone salary - yes, this a weak motivator. I would rather do something to improve my life, rather than wasting my precious time in a cubicle.
But let's talk about a lottery, or a mere $250k per year, and, you see, your motivation indicator is getting hard.
The ideas of independence and mastery (as a shortest way to the prior) is little bit closer, but, most of individual has their own individual motivations.
Some dreams of a status-showing gadgets or a car, some dream to impress a girl next door, or show that silly neighbors who worth what. Some like to go to most expensive restaurants and being served like a top tier, only to go back in a subway. There are as many individual motivators as people around.
But one of the "observations" is correct - yes, small money is indeed a weak motivator.)
I still posit that most people who "go to work" consider monetary or other material reward their work provides very important. Many of them would trade their current place of employment to another comparable place that would pay, say, 30% more. This probably does not matter when you earn $100k+, but most people don't.
What is true from my experience is that paying more does not increase motivation when autonomy, mastery, and purpose are addressed poorly. It just feels like a more fair compensation for the pain of working in such an environment.
You can't rely on them being there (as a professional, your job is to be there whether you like it or not), but I've experienced them, and I know others have as well.
We are social creatures. A company which ensures that its employees form strong bonds will have good retention.
The other thing which is important is internal competition.
I don't have any references for these things at hand so take what I say with a pinch of salt. However, I'm fairly sure there is psychology which supports this.
“Negative emotions like fear and sadness can lead to brain activity and thought patterns that are detrimental to creative, productive work: (a) avoidance of risk; (b) difficulty remembering and planning; and (c) rational decision-making.”
'a' and 'b' I'll grant, but rational decision-making is detrimental to productivity and creativity? Fear incites rationality? This seems out of place to me.
In the article about Steve Jobs at Corning re: Gorilla Glass:
> This turned Jobs around, and he said he wanted as much gorilla glass as Corning could make within six months. “We don’t have the capacity,” Weeks replied. “None of our plants make the glass now.”
> “Don’t be afraid,” Jobs replied. This stunned Weeks, who was good-humored and confident but not used to Jobs’s reality distortion field. He tried to explain that a false sense of confidence would not overcome engineering challenges, but that was a premise that Jobs had repeatedly shown he didn’t accept. He stared at Weeks unblinking. “Yes, you can do it,” he said. “Get your mind around it. You can do it.”
There's a book i've been enjoying [Thinking Fast and Slow](http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/...) that addresses this in great detail.
That would
1. take the issue of money off the table 2. free up lots of resources spent on navigating politics, negotiating, competing with colleagues 3. probably make the workplace less hostile
4. bring out all that potential of creativity and cognitive power
It still wouldn't be a below average salary, so it wouldn't turn away the good people.
Seriously, I can't see one single reason why it wouldn't work, if people care strongly for purpose, autonomy and mastery.
I know it's (for some reason) a huge tabu to mention this, and there's always the immediate "but that's evil socialism!" comeback.
But seriously, I think it would actually make sense.
I know they did this at NeXT, and that it was abandon after a while, don't know the details of why though..
Needing to find motivation for work is really just a first world problem a minor part of the population is facing
You need thinkers, problem solvers, people who can be creative and using money to motivate them will not get you that
a double-edged sword?
I understand this can be used as a reason for your employer to provide a (better) lifestyle approach (work-life balance), but it can also mean an employer doesn't have to pay you as much because no matter how much money they throw at you, it still won't motivate you to work optimally or strive to be the best creatively.
The reason why this jumped out at me is because I was in a similar situation. I applied to a huge company I wanted to work for, gave them my salary expectation from the get-go, and many wasted days and hours later, they offered me the job but with a salary that was a lot less than I had asked for. I asked if they needed further proof and mentioned that I had excelled at the tests they had given me and surpassed their job requirements (I had all the nice-to-haves and the required skills). They just said they were sorry I wouldn't be taking the position, because obviously I wouldn't at that salary. I think I would have been absolutely stellar at this position, but I wouldn't even be able to survive on that wage.
I consulted with a few personal friends who are managers or pretty high in their respective corporation's ladder, and they said I should feel insulted and that they were astonished.
So, while
Group B, on the other hand, having never been offered money in exchange for working on the puzzles, worked on the puzzles longer and longer in each consecutive session and maintained a higher level of sustained interest than Group A.
I question how this applies to the real world, where people usually are being paid to work, and move to another job usually for better working/living conditions and pay. Does this only apply to job-seekers who have no current job prospects? I think most people who take pay-cuts definitely think "It really has to be worth my while" to get paid less; variables such as neighbourhood, commute, etc., are taken into account.
And lastly, this
The way our brains are built make it necessary that emotions “cloud” our judgment. Without all that cloudy emotion, we wouldn’t be able to reason, have motivation, and make decisions.
sounds very Nietzschean--chaotic, unorganised, 'organic'/'natural'. This may be the philosopher inside of me talking, but this goes against a lot of my own philosophy. It is true that there needs to be a strong enough flow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)) to motivate us to do what we like, but I don't think this occupies a large percent of the motivation pie, if you will. I think a balance is needed and there is an initial gut sensation of excitement that needs to be recognised, but in the end, this excitement will wear off and one really needs to concentrate and ground oneself in reality. According to my interpretation of Nietzsche, these "clouded" judgments I think are very attractive to artists, and I think it manifests itself as a sense of childishness and naivete in, for example, (liberal) arts students. I was an arts student, before anyone jumps on me for this. Sorry to bring this into the equation, but this type of idealism is not suited for our times and, as arts students as witness/examples, they do not help the working world, when they put into practice this Nietzschean concept of passion; it seems too extreme.
I'm an emotional being, yes, but I need to balance it with rational judgment, not clouded judgment. The less I do this, the more I recognise this as a "high risk".
