Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 07:14:08 +0200, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>>
>> who was offered what? was everyone competing for top rewards?  i don't 
>> get it.
> 
> The test was performed several times, each time with different levels of 
> reward offered. The participants competing for big rewards did worse 
> than those competing for small (or no) rewards.
> 
> Admittedly, he does kind of confuse things in that video, especially 
> with the drawings. Neeum Zawan linked to a better video, one that even 
> has a citation for the experiment:
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
> 
> 
> 
Okay I see.  Well he still makes exactly the same reversal, just about 
word for word.  Again I still don't see a clear path from the experiment 
as he describes it to a result that 'the greater the money, reward the 
less the performance,' but I do believe the related idea that the more 
you try to motivate with money for certain types of production, the 
poorer the result may be.

Post a reply to this message