Is Money Really What Motivates Us? What the Research Says

Facebook ↗WhatsApp ↗
0 0 Edit this post
Is It Really Money That Motivates Us? What the Research Suggests

Money motivates people, but less reliably than most of us assume. Research on rewards points to a split: cash bonuses tend to improve performance on simple, routine tasks, yet they can do little or even backfire when work demands creativity, judgement or problem solving. For that kind of work, people seem to be driven more by autonomy, the chance to get better at something, and a sense that the work matters.

That idea was popularised by author Daniel Pink and by a short animated video that has been watched millions of times. Below we look at what the video says, which experiments stand behind it, where critics push back, and what the findings mean for anyone who manages a team, raises children or simply wants to understand their own motivation.

The video: Dan Pink's Drive, animated

In 2009 Pink published Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (Riverhead Books). A year later the Royal Society of Arts in London turned his talk on the book into one of its RSA Animate videos, in which an illustrator draws the argument on a whiteboard as Pink speaks. It runs about ten minutes and is still one of the clearest introductions to the topic.

Pink's central claim is that older models of motivation, built on rewards for good behaviour and penalties for bad, work well for mechanical jobs but poorly for the creative, complex tasks that make up more and more of modern work. His practical advice to employers is often quoted: pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table, then let other motivators do the work.

The experiments behind the claim

The candle problem

Psychologist Karl Duncker designed this puzzle in the 1930s. Participants receive a candle, a book of matches and a box of thumbtacks and must fix the candle to a wall so wax will not drip onto the table. The trick is to empty the box, pin it to the wall and use it as a shelf. Most people struggle because they see the box only as a container, a bias called functional fixedness.

In 1962 Sam Glucksberg added money. Some participants were offered cash prizes for solving the puzzle quickly; others were simply asked to solve it. When the tacks were inside the box, the group chasing a prize did worse than the group without one. When the box was presented empty, making the solution obvious, the reward did not hurt. The lesson Pink draws is that incentives narrow attention, which helps on a straightforward task and hinders one that needs a fresh look.

Large stakes, big mistakes

Economist Dan Ariely and colleagues tested much larger rewards in a study published as "Large Stakes and Big Mistakes". Working in rural India, where a modest sum in dollars could equal months of ordinary spending, they offered small, medium or very large bonuses for games that called for concentration, memory or creativity. People offered the biggest bonuses often performed worst. In a parallel study with students, higher pay improved a purely mechanical task but not one that required thinking.

When rewards crowd out interest

In 1971 Edward Deci asked volunteers to solve puzzles over three sessions, paying one group only in the second. Once the payments stopped, that group spent less of its free time playing with the puzzles than before. Later studies with children found a similar pattern: an expected reward for something they already enjoyed could reduce their interest. Psychologists call this the overjustification effect.

Autonomy, mastery and purpose

If money is not the main driver for complex work, what is? Pink groups the answer into three needs.

  • Autonomy: the wish to direct your own work. People given some control over what they do, when and how, tend to be engaged rather than merely compliant.
  • Mastery: the urge to get better at something that matters to you. It explains why people practise instruments or contribute code for free in their evenings.
  • Purpose: the sense that the work serves something larger than yourself. Pink argues that organisations focused only on profit risk disengaged staff and poor service.

His favourite examples come from software. Open-source projects such as Linux and the volunteer-written Wikipedia were built largely by unpaid contributors, yet they outlasted or outgrew commercial rivals. Some companies have also experimented with giving staff a day to work on any project they like, and report that many new product ideas come out of those days.

Where money still matters

None of this means pay is unimportant. Pink's own advice starts with fair pay, and people who are worried about rent or treated unfairly compared with colleagues rarely feel inspired by purpose statements. Pay works partly as a signal of respect.

The research also has limits. Psychologists Judy Cameron and W. David Pierce challenged the overjustification findings in the 1990s, arguing that the harmful effect of rewards is narrower than often claimed. Later reviews found that rewards can raise motivation for tasks people find dull to begin with, that rewards which tell someone they are competent can increase interest, and that informative praise tends to help rather than hurt. A large 2014 meta-analysis covering four decades of studies suggested a useful middle ground: incentives were the better predictor of how much people produced, while intrinsic motivation was the better predictor of how well they did it.

Critics have also noted that a short animation simplifies. Reviewers of Drive praised its energy while warning that it overstates the case. Laboratory puzzles with student volunteers are not the same as a career, and many bonus schemes in real workplaces are tied to effort and output, where incentives do have an effect.

Human nature or conditioning?

A view this site has long held is that greed is less a fact of human nature than the product of how we are raised: years of schooling and advertising that teach us to measure success in money and possessions. There is something to this. Behavioural economics has repeatedly found that people care about fairness, cooperate with strangers and will give up money to punish an unfair offer, behaviour that pure self-interest does not predict.

The fuller picture is that people are both. We respond to incentives and we want meaning, connection and competence. Culture and institutions decide which side gets encouraged. A workplace that pays only for measurable output will get output; one that also offers trust, room to learn and a clear reason for the work tends to get commitment as well.

Practical takeaways

  • For managers: settle pay fairly and transparently first. Then give people real choices over how they work, time to build skills, and a clear explanation of why the task matters.
  • For routine tasks: straightforward bonuses or targets can work. Save "if you do this, you get that" deals for work that is genuinely mechanical.
  • For creative tasks: unexpected recognition after the fact tends to be safer than a large reward promised in advance, which can narrow focus.
  • For parents and teachers: praise effort and progress in specific terms, and be careful about paying children for activities they already enjoy, such as reading.
  • For yourself: if a job feels empty, ask which of the three needs is missing. Sometimes a small change in control, learning or meaning matters more than a raise.

Myths about money and motivation

"Science proves money does not motivate." It does not. Money clearly motivates effort on simple tasks and matters for fairness and security; its limits show up mainly in complex, creative work.

"Rewards always kill enjoyment." The effect depends on the type of reward, how it is given and whether the task was enjoyable to begin with.

"Purpose can replace pay." Purpose works on top of fair pay, not instead of it. People who feel underpaid are rarely won over by a mission statement.

Sources: Wikipedia: Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us; Wikipedia: Candle problem (Duncker, Glucksberg); Wikipedia: Overjustification effect (Deci, Cameron and Pierce); video: RSA Animate, "Drive" by Daniel Pink. Original post via Collective Evolution; see also its piece on television "programming".

Related:

Labels:

Facebook ↗WhatsApp ↗

COMMENTS

BLOGGER