The motivation is more - the result is better. Whether always so?
our motivation is extraordinary interesting. We, even at the subconscious level, all - are not so infinitely confused, manipulated and predictable. It is confirmed by a number of very interesting researches. I will tell you all about couple from them.
Two classical postulates of the theory of motivation say:
1) if you award, then in exchange receive more desirable behavior;
2) if you punish, then receive less corresponding behavior.
Familiarly, isn`t that so? All known method of a carrot and stick. Carrot and incentive. For profane persons I will remind that incentive (stimulyusy) called a stick with the sharp end to adjust donkeys. To stimulate them, so to speak. To motivate, in other words. You, by the way, just became a little bit other people: you will not be able to perceive phrases like “any more it gave me strong incentive“ as earlier. Now at you before an internal look the picture with a donkey whom it is so unostentatious will always emerge... hm... stimulate. Also the desire to avoid external incentives will very perhaps develop, replacing them, internal, arranged to itself.
And so, itself can visualize the provided higher than two statements easily in the form of the famous picture: a donkey to whose head the stick with carrot is attached. Well, and stimulyus there too where - nibud add... A donkey - it is not so offensive, the donkey - quite clever animal, but is a subject of separate article. At the moment just take into consideration that donkeys - extremely clever animals. It needs absolutely to be known even if it not so because on the picture to carrot as a donkey very often, almost every day, there are you. Internal schedules of the organization in which you work, laws of the state in which you live are in many respects constructed by these principles.
In Massachusetts Institute of Technology made experiment to verify these two statements.
The group of students was given the most different tasks: storing of number sequences, the solution of crossword puzzles, spatial puzzles and physical tasks, such as, for example, are bright in a ring. To encourage and increase their efficiency, three levels of awards were established:
* the students who showed the acceptable return won a small monetary prize;
* if return was very good, then the monetary prize of the average size was an award;
* and, at last, if efficiency was outstanding, then the student won a big monetary prize.
- zha - vyu, isn`t that so? We saw it already many times, it is typical system of awarding / remuneration in the average organization: to award the most productive, to ignore losers, and the others... Well, the others receive something too and...
So: students had tasks, students had motives, incentives... What was found out as a result by organizers of experiment? Until performance of a task demanded only mechanical skills, bonuses worked exactly as it was conceived: the more payment, the is higher productivity. But as soon as the task demanded at least rudimentary cognitive (informative, cogitative) skills, in other words, of the application of intelligence, higher bonus led to the worst productivity.
How it is possible?! Such conclusions remind plot of socialists! Especially it is strange if to consider that research was financed by Federal Reserve Bank, and among organizers there were experienced as it could be written to Soviet period, bourgeois economists from MTI, Chicago University and Carnegie`s University - Mellon.
Experiment was decided to be repeated in India, having decided that, perhaps, $50 for the student of MTI - insufficient motivation. In India $50-60 - the serious sum of money. So, remunerations were established at a rate of a two-week salary for more - less acceptable results, a monthly salary - for good results and a two-month salary for outstanding. Results were practically the same except that the special difference in productivity between the first two groups was not noted, and the highest bonuses led to a bigger failure.
As it appeared, not such it and anomaly. Such results were confirmed again and again and again - physiologists, sociologists and economists. Again and again.
For simple “rectilinear“ tasks the scheme “carrot before a nose on a stick“ - “if you make it, you will receive it“ - works perfectly.
For algorithmic tasks, performing which, it is necessary just to conform to the rules - outstanding results.
But as soon as the task becomes more difficult and begins to demand conceptual, creative thinking, such type of motivation ceases to work.