In my previous article, I described the way in which external incentives can “crowd out” a person’s natural, internal motivation to act. When the performance becomes all about the attainment of a carrot dangling at the end of a stick, the person can forget about the whole reason he started grasping for the carrot in the first place. If his original intrinsic drive becomes overshadowed, and if he decides a carrot just isn’t worth the effort, he may give up completely.
Last time, I cited some examples of this “crowding out” effect as described by Daniel Pink in his book Drive. I think another good example can be found in the book Made to Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath.
Made to Stick deals with the crafting of “sticky” messages – i.e., ones that are understood, remembered, and likely to impact people’s opinions or behavior. The Heaths note that many people equate “persuading” with laying out a rational case for why it is in a person’s self-interest to act in a certain way. This type of persuasion can take the form of the types of extrinsic inducements that Daniel Pink describes in Drive – do this and you’ll get that (also known in legal-Latin as a quid pro quo).
However, as the Heaths say, “Always structuring our ideas around self-interest is like always painting with one color. It’s stifling for us and uninspiring for others.” And, as the Heaths might have added, it can also produce the opposite effect from the one intended.
To illustrate, the Heaths describe a marketer who was promoting a new educational film on fire safety that was intended to help firemen. The marketer called several local fire units to see if they were interested in purchasing the film. Their answer: An enthusiastic “Yes!”
But in an attempt to sweeten the pot, the marketer then asked a couple of respondents if they would prefer an electric popcorn popper or a set of chef’s carving knives as a thank-you for reviewing the film. Their response (as reported by the Heaths): “Do you think we’d use a fire safety program because of some #*$@%! popcorn popper?!”
As the Heaths observe, the response made no sense. If you accept the offer, you get a popcorn popper. If you turn it down, you get nothing. Why would a purely rational decision-maker looking to maximize his self-interest take the latter course? The Heaths go on to explain the thought process at work:
“I’m a firefighter. You’re offering me a popcorn popper to get me to view a film on safety. But firefighters aren’t the kind of people who need little gifts to motivate us to learn about safety. We risk our lives going into burning buildings to save people. Shame on you for implying that I need a popcorn popper!”
In other words, waving a shiny little gadget in front of them crowded out their previously expressed inherent motivation to consider buying the film. I think this is an excellent illustration of Daniel Pink’s observation that “mixing rewards with inherently interesting, creative, or noble tasks is a very dangerous game. When used in these situations, ‘if-then’ rewards usually do more harm than good.”
REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER
(As I mentioned in my earlier article, anyone can be a YES! Leader – not just people managers. So this Reflection is addressed to anyone who wants to find more meaning in work.)
Here’s a little thought experiment: What would you do if you won the lottery tomorrow? If you never had to work for a living again, how would you spend a typical day? Would it be all leisure, relaxing on the beach, hobnobbing with the rich and famous?
Or would you miss putting in the effort to create something, to coordinate and lead a project, to brighten someone’s day, to make the world a better place for others?
OK, in the first few months after landing the winning ticket, you may take that extended vacation in the tropics – but assuming that you’d eventually miss doing something that resembled work, what would that something be?
As simple as this sounds, I think the answer will give you some insight into the true essence of your internal motivation. If the only thing that could possibly move you along is the “interest, creativity, or nobility” inherent in the task itself, then you’ve likely identified the driving wheel of your motivational engine.

I like the reflection component of your posts. Now to take that reflection and put it back into use as in the USER method http://www.slideshare.net/charbooth/reflective-teaching-effective-learning-ccli-2010-handout
ReplyDeleteThanks, Wendy! My attention was immediately drawn to the statement "Define what you want learners to accomplish as a result of the interaction." Early in my career I think I was more focused on imparting knowledge rather than thinking through how learners might actually *use* knowledge to make their lives better. I'm hoping the Reflections pieces can help readers (and me as well) consider the practical applications.
ReplyDelete