Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 19:08:42 +0200, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>> 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 latter.
> 
> 
> 
>> The reward high or low was not at all attached to production?
> 
> There was a negative correlation between reward and performance.
> 
> 
> 
No, in fact he flips it.

First he says of the study with the students that to
'incentivise performance'
'there were three levels of reward'
'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'

so reward is attached to performance, the reward amount follows 
performance, depends on performance

then he goes on to summarize the results in the opposite order

for 'mechanical skills the higher the pay the better the performance'
for 'rudimentary cognitive skills the higher reward led to poorer 
performance'

so now he has performance following the reward, performance depending on 
reward



then he describes second study as being set up 'roughly as follows'

'small performance, low performance, two weeks salary,
medium performance, about a months salary,
high performance, about two months salary'
so he leaves the order a little vague though he does list performance 
then reward, and again he describes the 'incentives' as 'rewards' 
suggesting it follows on performance
then again he describes the results in the opposite order, that the 
rewards 'led' to performance.
at this point a lot depends on the word 'offer' which can be ambiguous 
in the context but still we have the word 'reward'
those 'offered medium reward do no better than those offered small 
reward, but the people offered the top reward, they did worst of all'

this is the sleight of hand I am bothered by.

who was offered what? was everyone competing for top rewards?  i don't 
get it.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Sun Computers wallpapered their entire cafeteria in whiteboard wallpaper 
> and left markers all around the room.  The only problem was every 
> visitor had to be taken out to lunch, because the whole caf had trade 
> secrets written all over the walls.

Haha! Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

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



-- 
FE

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.

Okay well, that is not how he presents it!  He clearly states that 
reward follows accomplishment on the little staircase.  So then I want 
to know who it is that ends up falling through the top stair.  They 
should never have made it to the top stair.

I also find it suspicious that just as he segues to his little reversal 
of cause and effect, each time, he goes on a little detour into 
something completely unrelated and emotionally charged such as stereo 
types about the political leanings of the study's sponsor, or the 
scholastic pedigree of the experimenters.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

thanks I'll take a look.

Post a reply to this message

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