Dan Pink opens his TED talk with the candle problem. Those who complete the challenge will be compensated based on how competitive their time is. You must hang the candle on the wall without having any of the wax drip on the table, simple enough, yet becomes a challenge once most see the design of the situation. They are presented with this scenario.
It takes quite some time, but after some cognitive work, people end up with this as a result after several attempts such as trying to attach it to the wall with tacks or melted wax from the candle itself.
However when presented with this situation people were able to knock up to three minutes off the time it took to solve the puzzle. In fact, those who were offered the compensation during the first trial did even worse when the factor of a prize was added into the equation. There seems to be no logical answer to this. We have lived in a society where people are constantly rewarded for the 'good' they do and quite simply punished for the 'bad' as an effort to encourage better performance. Yet in this situation it didn't work, and there seems to be no reason for it. In repeated studies, as Dan Pink points out, "that once a task called for rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance," (Daniel Pink). People assume that to improve your performance you must simply be enticed by either a sweeter 'carrot' or sharper 'stick'. However the reward produced the exact opposite effect that it was designed for, it worsened the performance.
When the tacks are in the box, the situation requires more cognitive skill, a right brained approach. However when the tacks were removed and the participants were aware of their reward, the mechanical skill kicked in and improved their performance. Once aware of a reward, the pressure of the 'out of the box' thinking caused the people who were given the situation with the tacks in the box, to perform worse than the other trial. Quite simply put, rewards work for situations requiring mechanical skill, and improve performance, however rewards act in the exact opposite way when applied to cognitive tasks, and prove to have a negative impact on performance.
It has also been found in multiple studies that when given the time to direct themselves in work, people do the most innovative and creative work. In many situations the best improvements for software and other products have been thought of when very little to nothing rode on the outcome of a person's thinking. Autonomy gives people the freedom to persue their interests which ultimately leads to better results.
In 1995 Microsoft began to develop a encyclopedia to be named Encarta, written by experts on each topic and would be entirely free and on the internet for anyone to utilize. A similar encyclopedia also took form that year, also to be published online and free as well. But the difference in this one was that the second encyclopedia would be entirely written by volunteers. No pay, no motivation, yet the idea caught on. The Encarta was discontinued in 2009 while the other encyclopedia, referred to a wikipedia, now stands as the number one online encyclopedia in the world. The results shocked countless economists, it seems implausible that an entirely volunteer based network would ever out perform one made by experts. Yet it did.
Each one of these experiments leads back to intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation in humans, which is Dan Pink's ultimate point. He says, "mastery is the urge to get better at stuff, we like to get better at stuff, this is why people play instruments on the weekend. You have all these people who are acting in ways that seem irrational economically," (Dan Pink). Yet people do this for satisfaction, for entertainment. We are more motivated by what we see as worthwhile, what we enjoy. We seek less reward when we are motivated to do a task intrinsically. Also stated by Dan Pink, "Management is great if you want compliance, but if you want engagement, which is what we want in the workforce today, as people are doing more complicated sophisticated things, self direction is better," (Daniel Pink). When self directed by intrinsic motivation ideas arise that would have remained unthought of, and not only that, people are willing to do the work for little or no compensation because it is done by what drives them.
In 1995 Microsoft began to develop a encyclopedia to be named Encarta, written by experts on each topic and would be entirely free and on the internet for anyone to utilize. A similar encyclopedia also took form that year, also to be published online and free as well. But the difference in this one was that the second encyclopedia would be entirely written by volunteers. No pay, no motivation, yet the idea caught on. The Encarta was discontinued in 2009 while the other encyclopedia, referred to a wikipedia, now stands as the number one online encyclopedia in the world. The results shocked countless economists, it seems implausible that an entirely volunteer based network would ever out perform one made by experts. Yet it did.
Each one of these experiments leads back to intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation in humans, which is Dan Pink's ultimate point. He says, "mastery is the urge to get better at stuff, we like to get better at stuff, this is why people play instruments on the weekend. You have all these people who are acting in ways that seem irrational economically," (Dan Pink). Yet people do this for satisfaction, for entertainment. We are more motivated by what we see as worthwhile, what we enjoy. We seek less reward when we are motivated to do a task intrinsically. Also stated by Dan Pink, "Management is great if you want compliance, but if you want engagement, which is what we want in the workforce today, as people are doing more complicated sophisticated things, self direction is better," (Daniel Pink). When self directed by intrinsic motivation ideas arise that would have remained unthought of, and not only that, people are willing to do the work for little or no compensation because it is done by what drives them.
Doing tasks for ones own sake is the number one motivator and Pink continually refers back to this point one way or another throughout his speech. It is especially effective when he repeats the saying that, "there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does," (Dan Pink). His passion about the topic often spills over as he shouts out to the audience that intrinsic motivators will always overcome extrinsic, but every point he makes is valid.
No one wants to live a life where they are stuck in a position doing work that they don't even like. If the world is able to digest this information it would lead to a future of more innovation and happiness. People must be educated about how humans are motivated and what they personally are motivated by to help the human race progress through the future. With this knowledge in hand I look to follow my interests more because not only will they lead to a better performance from me, but it will also lead to more innovation and creativity which will ultimately aid the world and our race as we enter the uncertain future.
Dan Pink's TED talk:
For those seeking more information on Intrinsic v. Extrinsic motivation :
No comments:
Post a Comment