It is common knowledge. If you hold a carrot out, the horse will do what you want it to. If it doesn’t do what you say, you use the stick. In this way, the horse is bound to follow you because it wants the reward but they are afraid of the punishment. The common idea of "carrots and sticks" is used worldwide in businesses and schools. It is called extrinsic motivation. But does it always work?
This is one of the main points that Dan Pink makes in his TED talk about the surprising science of motivation. One of the first statements he made was “I am not telling a story, I am making a case.” He uses evidence to prove his point thoroughly and convincingly. He explains a test with a candle.
The person has to successfully get the candle attached to the wall so that when it is lit it doesn’t drip down onto the table. Probably the first to things people would try to do would be to tack the candle to the wall, or to try to melt the candle to the wall. Neither one works. The solution is to tack the box on the wall and put the candle in it.
It is necessary to think outside of the box to do this. However, if the tacks were not in the box to begin with, it would have been much easier to think of that solution. He relates this metaphor to business. Most jobs in the past have been left-brained, focused work. When they do something well, they get a reward. Those jobs have a simple set of rules and a narrow goal. Those types of jobs usually tend to work with rewards and punishments. But jobs such as the one with the tacks starting in the box do not have the same outcome. They are more complicated, contemplative, thinking jobs. Dan Pink says that it is more effective when there is no external motivation. A reward in these cases narrows possibilities. Most businesses build around the principle of the carrot or stick. He explicitly explains that that does not usually work nowadays, and usually does harm. He uses a variety of studies that show the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. In pretty much every instance, higher incentives led to worse performance. He goes on to suggest that we need a new system, or method, of motivation: intrinsic. It needs to be built around the motivation to do something because it is important or has meaning. Scientifically, it is proven that humans do certain activities because of their want to become better and better at it, or to be part of something bigger than ourselves. Then Pink talks about an Australian software company that gives its employees 24 hours to do anything that does not relate to their normal job. They have to come up with something new, and present it at a meeting the next day. It promotes creativity and new ideas and development. He explains how when people are not given specifications on when, where or how to do their work, productivity and satisfaction increase. One of the main points Pink emphasizes is the difference between what science knows, and what business does. Based upon science, it would be more effective if everyone did his or her job out of pure desire, but that would be impractical because everyone needs to make a living. Otherwise there would not be any way for everyone to earn money. Pink claims that in a face-off between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, intrinsic would win in a knockout. He is basically trying to make the point that intrinsic motivation will be more relevant, and have a better result. To sum up, Pink summarizes his talk into three main points. The first, that the carrots and sticks method can work sometimes, but not always. Second, that if/then rewards kill creativity. And third, that unseen intrinsic drive is the key.
After watching this TED talk I came away with a better understanding of motivation. There are different ways to be motivated, with some tending to be more effective. I had never thought about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It was fascinating to learn about how the human mind is affected by outside and internal forces. It makes total sense to me that internal motivation would be more effective, because that is what most of our life is based off of. Most of the choices we make are based upon our instinct or feeling, unless there is a reward or punishment involved. I understand about why businesses would use extrinsic motivation. Everyone has to make money. There would be no possible way for everyone to prosper because there would basically not be an economy. America thrives off the economy, and I think it would be very hard, or possibly even impossible, to make that huge change to entirely intrinsic motivation, as Pink suggests. I feel that intrinsic motivation is a much better path. I think that rewards give people the wrong reasons for action. For example, take two average teenagers in high school. One of the teenager's parents tells them that if they get good grades, and only if they get good grades, that they can get their license. The other's, however, make no deal at all, and just encourage good grades, but leave it entirely up to the kid. Getting their license has no connection whatsoever to their grades: they can get it when they turn 16 regardless. One teenager is motivated extrinsically, and the other is motivated intrinsically. Although there probably does not appear to be a big difference, there is an astonishing difference. First of all, they will probably both get good grades. But which teenager will probably end up getting the better grades? The one that does not have any outside motivation will probably do better, because they purely want to do well for their own sake. Plus, they are doing it because they want to. They will probably retain the information better, and those good grades will mean something to them. The kid with the bribe is probably going to still get good grades, but not for the same reason. They want it purely to get their license. This teenager does it to do it, but not for the knowledge or satisfaction. Plus, in the long run, the intrinsically motivated teen will do much better, because they will remember the information, and will have developed good habits and expectations for themselves. The teenager that is extrinsically motivated will probably not remember much, and they will probably expect something every time they do something good. That is a bad expectation to set for life. It goes back to the different ways of learning. Maybe the teenager that got the bribe did not ever get good grades, and so that is why the parents felt like they had to motivate the kid in some way. That kid probably just was not very strong at left-brained thinking, and so always feels like they are less-than. The teenager that gets the good grades out of desire probably is either very good at left-brained thinking, or has set their mind to become good at it. I think that the type of motivation is also partly based off of strengths and weaknesses, and not always just on which one is better. I feel like intrinsic motivation has a much better effect most of the time, but I can also see the pros for using extrinsic motivation.
Daniel Pink used several very unique techniques in his TED talk. I noticed that every time he quoted or used something from a study or person, he would flash it up on the screen behind him. That way, people can read it and understand it more clearly, and it is an effective way to get people to remember. He also used the screen to show pictures that emphasized his topic. Another tactic he used was using hand gestures. He looked really involved in his topic, and it was much more animated when he did that. It was another way to engage the audience. Pink also used quite a bit of outside research and quotations. That really helped add to the validity of his talk, and helped him appear more accurate. The research was primarily taken from universities that are very valid, and taken from scientific studies. One last technique Pink used was that of repetition. By repeating and emphasizing the same point over and over again, he pounded it into people's brains, and got them to remember.
No comments:
Post a Comment