On 05/24/10 15:02, Jim Charter wrote:
> 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.

	I didn't actually watch all of Darren's video, so am not sure what
you're talking about.

	If you're saying that he doesn't demonstrate a _negative_ correlation,
then I agree with you and am not sure one exists. What the experiments
demonstrate is payment vs non-payment (for complex tasks).

	However, I think what he's trying to say is: Give people a fixed salary
(because they need money), but then don't offer specific performance
based rewards. In a sense, they wouldn't really be working on any given
task for a specific reward, but merely as part of their work.

	So I think he's contending that if the task in the talk was given to
people as part of their job with no special rewards, they'd do it faster
than if it was given to people on the job, but told that they'd get a
bonus if they do it quickly.

-- 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Post a reply to this message