Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 05/23/10 07:39, Jim Charter wrote:
>>>     They performed worse than those who weren't offered an award, or
>>> offered a low award.
>>>
>> I see so the reward is not based on performance or achievements after
>> the fact but rather it is paid in the hope of getting high performance
>> or achievements which never pan out.
> 
> 	Um, perhaps. Not sure I'm parsing you correctly.
> 
> 	The point is that offering a larger sum to get the job done led to
> lower performance (slower, etc) for tasks that require more advanced
> thinking.
> 
People paid higher rewards were simply no different from people offered 
lower rewards?  Or people doing such tasks who were paid lower rewards 
performed better than those being paid higher?

The reward high or low was not at all attached to production?

Post a reply to this message