In fact, the research indicates that for some kinds of tasks for sure (and
possibly for most) that "extrinsic" motivation decreases performance.
We seem to have the informational aspect of feedback, and the reward
aspect all tangled up. It is one thing to provide information:
- What is expected/required
- What performance standards are
- What current performance is
It is another thing altogether to coerce behavior. This brings to mind a
number of tangents:
1) Flow - There is an externally visible state of "altered conciousness"
in which some kinds of exceptional productivity occur. Design work.
Programming. Writing. Graphic Art. Others, perhaps. The "flow" state in
characterized by absorbtion in the task, disassociation from the
environment, lack of awareness of time, easy almost joyous execution. In
atheletics it is called being in the groove.
_The Psychology of Optimal Experience_ is one reference. Some martial
artists talk about a similar state during Kumite. Musicians also. It also
comes up in the programming productivity literature.
The point is that it's a little hard to get there when worried about
judging that will take place, or when keeping an extrinsic reward in mind.
It's interesting to me that world-class performance is often associated
with a coach who is employed by the performer, vs. the other way around.
So, how "informational" can the feedback actually be?
It seems that in the F. Taylor model (from his book _Scientific
Management_) the whole idea is to build intelligence, adaptivity, and
performance into the system, not allow it in the individuals. So what of
"flow" under these circumstances?
In part, one can argue that "extrinsic" rewards are not appropriate for
tasks requiring these enhanced states, that they degrade performance in
these kinds of high-function activities. Then, perhaps, tackle the issue
of more mechanical tasks. (This has some immediate, personal relevence
just now. I ask myself, what would I like occupying the minds of the
surgeons cutting on my father tomorrow morning? I hope they're in a flow
state, and not feeling competitive with each other.)
2) Job Design - I wonder why it is that people who are demonstrably
competent at choosing their hobbies, their homes, their mates, raising
children, etc. must be so crudely motivated into business-valuable
behavior? In large part it's (IMHO) due to the Dilbert-ization of modern
organizational life. The diefication of stupidity. The worship of form
over content. The gamesmanship.
Why is it so hard to design a rational job arrangement between an
organization and an individual? We must have "policies" and "objectives"
and "work rules" and the entire paraphenalia that accompanies a simple
transaction:
Someone does something of use.
Under these circumstances, I think, perhaps, the only methods readily
available (and executable) are the crude, stick-enclusing carrot, and the
even cruder stick.
We seem to be settling for relatively little, here.
3) Fixed-Values and Equity of Compensation - Most people are not dumb.
Given some facts, and such, they can come-up with about what their work is
worth, and striking a balance with other goals in their lives. When such a
balance is struck (work may be instrumental, but is not so deadening) the
individual engages in the work with some joy.
Somehow, a fixed "reward" system communicates not just external judgement
(of performance) but external assertion of what is to be valued, and what
is a "good" trade-off. I've been in two jobs lately, where the values
systems just don't match.
- In one, the rules are "what we all can digest". So interest in
developing outside skills was seen as traitorous. Didn't impact "on the
job" performance. But the same situation happens often enough, when people
go after additional schooling, for example. - In the other you cannot
possibly work enough. Big rewards for those who drain themselves, in the
interest of "doing big things". Thing is, I've been there; done that.
In neither case was it possible to strike a balance: this much (of my
time, my interest, my intellect, me). The _reward_ system was used, in
both cases, to enforce this definition of what I should value, which I
find deeply offensive. Both paying other people to work, and working are
instrumental.
There seems to be a lack of "principle-centered-negotiation" involved in
this kind of work relationship. It seems to me that negotiating with
people, and jointly designing jobs would force a reduction in boundary
crashing in the work environment.
4) Dinosaur Brains - Is the title of a book, that describes dealing with
management like coping with dinosaur brains. The first step is to let them
understand that they are huge. (One-up, One-down in psyche-speak).
Without getting into the profound personality deficiencies that require
one to structure the majority of one's waking life around insisting on
one-up, one-down relationships, isn't this the key problem with
"non-extrinsic motivation"? We'd have to recognize "employees" as
individuals with values, rights, goals and aspirations. We'd have to come
together as equals.
I read an article in HBR within the last year, bemoaning the difficulties
in managing professionals. Make that "managing" "professionals". They
have allegience to their professional development. Respect the opinion of
their peers. Have performance standards not solely in terms of the
organization.
Imagine.
Isn't that what we're afraid of?
-- P. S."What's a VCF file?"
A .VCF is a "Book Card"; an open standard format for personal contact information, appendable to messages. Not yet broadly supported, using a book card is my attempt to _outgrow_ closed software that locks us into particular products (or families) by controlling data in closed formats. It'll either become common, or I'll drop it, eventually.
" All of the greatest and most important problems of life are fundamentally insoluble . . . They can never be solved, but only outgrown."
-Carl Jung
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for James Bullock Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard fn: James Bullock n: Bullock;James adr: 620 Park Avenue, Suite 171;;;Rochester;NY;14607-2994;USA email;internet: jbullock@pipeline.com tel;work: (800) 477-2686 (Pager) tel;fax: (716) 442-2083 tel;home: (716) 442-2499 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE end: vcard
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>