Greetings fellow LO'rs!
In light of the recent plugs for Alfie Kohn's writings, specifically
"Punished by Rewards", I thought that I would toss in my 2 cents and an
alternative perspective (maybe some further dialogue will develop). I
have not found Alfie Kohn's perspective to be particularly helpful for
understanding motivation or "seeing" a path of action to take to create a
motivating environment for learning. On the contrary, the dichotomy that
he develops between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and his suggestion
the rewards punish behavior, I think, serves more to cloud any
understanding of motivation rather than clarify.
By this point, I have probably caused the hair on the backs of some necks stand up on end, so I'll explain. Kohn has placed his fingers on the pulse of one of the largest balancing systems presently at work in organizations, but I am not sure that he has
accurately diagnosed the problem. Kohn's writings are filled with
illustrations and examples that are hampered by a retrospective bias. He
freely cites examples of how people have been punished by rewards,
leading, ultimately to a depression of the desired behaviors and outcomes,
or at least a regression to prior behaviors without any sustained uptake
of a new behavior, rather than the intended improvement. I won't deny
that this has happened - I believe that it happens over and over and over
again. The problem, however, is not that "extrinsic" reinforcement is
inherently evil or somehow serves to cause a short term burst of
performance followed by a punishing effect (a depressed reponding). The
use of "extrinsic" reinforcers in most organizational settings rather is
not done in a way that has any chance of having the desired effect and
does indeed often have the opposite effect.
The "20-20 hindsight" used by Kohn essentially leads to a situation where
the baby is thrown out with the bath. Finding numerous, even prevalent,
examples of the ineffective misusage of rewards doesn't necessarily mean
that rewards are bad, just as finding confirming evidence of a theory
doesn't mean that it is right or true. More often than not, the point at
which the rewards fail to have the desired effect is the result of poor
application of rewards. First, rewards are often offered for achieving
outcomes that are outside the control of the individuals for whom the
reward is available (demonstrating a poor understanding of the variation
in a system and the interactions and interdepence of individuals within
the system). Second, rewards are often offered for outcomes without due
attention being paid to defining/pinpointing the behaviors that are
required to achieve the outcome, leading to the "corporate rain dance" (my
language). Essentially, behaviors that occurred prior to the outcome are
repeate d indiscrimately (or superstitiously). No one knows exactly what
lead to the outcome, but they know that they want the outcome to happen
again, so they try to do everything the same (and yet a different outcome
results). Third, the rewards are often given so long after the critical
behaviors occur that there is no chance for the reward to have a
reinforcing effect.
In short, there is little or no contingent relationship between the reward
and the behavior. This is clouded further by the attention and management
activity that often surrounds rewards. Everyone in the organization knows
that management is paying attention to a particular issue, and so the real
burst of behavior stems not from the desire to attain the reward, but from
the desire to avoid the potential negative effects (real or imagined) that
are feared if the outcome isn't realized (a classic negative reinforcement
paragidigm in the behavioral sense). Once the reward is removed, the
signal is given that management is not paying nearly as much attention to
the outcome or behavior (and the threat is removed), everyone breathes a
sigh of relief and stops the behavior. They were not punished by the
reward, but neither were they ever really "extrinsically motivated" to
achieve it. The loss of the "intrinsic" motivation that occurs in this
type of instance also does not stem from offering the reward, but from the
negative reinforcement method that was actually driving (as opposed to
motivating) the behavior.
There is actually much research that Kohn ignores which suggests that
appropriate use of rewards (actually reinforcers) can lead to large and
sustained improvements in outcomes, as well as improved attitudes around
the area of attention in clinical as well as organizational settings
(examples can be found in any issue of the Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis or the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management published in
the last 20 years). There is at least one book written in recent years
that I have found really helpful in understanding motivation and the
behavior of individuals, Bringing Out the Best in People by Aubrey Daniels
(1996). These concepts, along with those espoused by Deming and systems
theorists such as Senge, and the Bible, form the pillars of the systemic
framework on which I stand professionally and personally.
For now I'll step down from my soapbox and thank all who have been posting
to this listserv recently. I have enjoyed it immensely enjoyed the
discussion since joining a month ago.
Jonathan Krispin
"You cannot break natural laws, you can only break yourself against them." - Cecil B DeMille
The same can be said of behavioral laws.
--"Jon Krispin" <jkrispin@prestolitewire.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>