On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:04:03 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:

> He clearly states that reward
> follows accomplishment on the little staircase.

I read it as the staircase reflected the various levels of reward 
offered, not that it was a progression.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:04:03 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
> 
>> He clearly states that reward
>> follows accomplishment on the little staircase.
> 
> I read it as the staircase reflected the various levels of reward 
> offered, not that it was a progression.
> 
> Jim

not what he says though

'if you did pretty well, you got a small reward, medium well you got a 
medium reward, and really well you got a large cash prize'

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:20:49 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:04:03 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:
>> 
>>> He clearly states that reward
>>> follows accomplishment on the little staircase.
>> 
>> I read it as the staircase reflected the various levels of reward
>> offered, not that it was a progression.
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> not what he says though
> 
> 'if you did pretty well, you got a small reward, medium well you got a
> medium reward, and really well you got a large cash prize'

Hmmm, I missed that somehow, but perhaps my interpretation fits if one 
considers that the people were told the various reward levels and maybe 
were asked to self-select which they wanted to go for (and to declare 
that).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:20:49 +0200, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>
> 'if you did pretty well, you got a small reward, medium well you got a  
> medium reward, and really well you got a large cash prize'

I think each run of the experiment was structured like that, but the  
values for small/medium/large varied between runs. He does seem to get the  
two different progressions mixed up though.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:20:49 +0200, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>>
>> 'if you did pretty well, you got a small reward, medium well you got a 
>> medium reward, and really well you got a large cash prize'
> 
> I think each run of the experiment was structured like that, but the 
> values for small/medium/large varied between runs. He does seem to get 
> the two different progressions mixed up though.
> 
> 
> 
Lol, don't mean to beat it to death, but that seemingly trivial mix-up 
is quite convenient for his fluffy little theme that the big mean 
corporations get it right for stupid people but not for cognitively 
brilliant people like you, me, and him,... and the 'science' proves it.

Post a reply to this message

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

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

> 
> 	If you're saying that he doesn't demonstrate a _negative_ correlation,
> then I agree with you and am not sure one exists. 

Then we are agreed, because he doesn't.



What the experiments
> demonstrate is payment vs non-payment (for complex tasks).

Yes, in on stage talk, the 'candle problem' gives a clearer comparison 
of those opposing motivators


> 
> 	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.
> 

Yeah, the stage talk comes off as much more pragmatic and purposeful in 
its focus and less as if he is trying to set himself up as some sort of 
prophet of the open-source movement, (way after the fact of the 
open-source movement)

Post a reply to this message

> watch at least the first minute of this.
>
> http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/04/08/rsa-animate-drive/
>
> It's an interesting talk anyway, and over in 10 minutes, so it's worth 
> watching.

OK so I need to use the PP scribble tool with line width 10 from now on :-)

Yes the talk was quite interesting, although I would like to actually read 
the studies he mentions before drawing any conclusions myself.  For example, 
is this applicable to all types of employee, do people who are used to 
manual repetitive work respond the same to those used to doing scientific 
research or being the director of a large company?

At our place (which is mostly scientific research) there is a very small 
bonus (something like 1 days pay) if you get a patent granted.  I assume 
nobody actually considers the bonus when working.  I cannot believe that if 
they offered a 6 months salary bonus for patents then people wouldn't work 
harder, but maybe that's because they are not paying what people consider 
"enough" to start with?

It seems like "enough" should be enough to afford a comfortable life within 
commuting distance of your job (if you have to commute).  I know with the 
current house prices a lot of people certainly aren't earning enough.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/25/10 23:25, scott wrote:
> example, is this applicable to all types of employee, do people who are
> used to manual repetitive work respond the same to those used to doing
> scientific research or being the director of a large company?

	Nope. See the TED talk. People who do mechanical work or any kind of
work that doesn't require much thinking tend to perform better if the
rewards are there (and presumably even better if the rewards are higher).


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

Post a reply to this message