Why monetary incentives do not always increase the motivation of employees

Employee Motivation - a delicate matter, it has many different aspects. How to encourage a person to become a better version of yourself? Like us motivate yourself do anything? Sometimes, during the execution of the task, we, like a tired runner, suddenly fizzles out and giving up before reaching the finish line. Why did we lose motivation halfway to the goal?

Daniel Pink has written a wonderful book about motivation. It's called "Drive. What really motivates us. " Arguing on the topic of motivation, Pink highlights its two types: external and internal.

Extrinsic motivation is associated with such external rewards, such as money or praise. Intrinsic motivation - it is something that is formed by the man himself, and can be expressed simply in the joy of the successful execution of complex tasks.

Pink also describes two fundamentally different types of tasks: algorithmic and heuristic. Algorithmic tasks are sequentially set according to the instructions and their solution leads to a pre-known result. To perform a heuristic problem there are no instructions or a certain sequence of actions. By its decision of the need to be creative, experimenting in search of the most successful strategy.

As you can see, different types of motivation and objectives are fundamentally different from each other. Consider what is shown is a fundamental difference between them, depending on what type of promotion is offered employee.

standard promotion

It used to be that money promotion is the best way staff motivation. If the employer wanted the worker remained in his company or raised the productivity of their labor, he could simply use financial incentives. However, the question whether to use the money to encourage as a motivating factor eventually became controversial in many respects. Qualified staff is quite easy to find a job with a salary in the desired range. Pink commented on this issue as follows:

When the question of standard incentives been clarified, due to often enter other options "carrot and stick", designed to encourage employees. Many of them eventually lead to results opposite to think about.

The promotion of the principle of "if, then"

Promotion of this principle lies in the fact that the employer promises to the employee any remuneration for the performance of certain tasks.

For example, if an employee performs the sales plan, the employer shall pay him a bonus. However, this type of promotion is always associated with certain risks. Usually it entails a short burst of motivation, but in the long term it reduces. The fact that the result of the effort offered some reward, means that the work still remains work. This has a very negative impact on intrinsic motivation. In addition, the very essence of the awards is that they narrow the focus of our perception, as a result we tend to ignore everything except the finish line. This is useful in solving algorithmic problems, but on the performance of heuristic problems, this approach affects negatively.

Teresa Amabile (Teresa Amabile) and other researchers of this topic found that extrinsic motivation can be effectively used when addressing staff algorithmic problems, ie problems that can be solved through specific actions that play in a certain sequence to provide a predictable result. But to carry out more "right-brain" tasks that require creativity, flexibility and availability of a holistic view of the work performed, such conditional incentives may be harmful. Employees who are encouraged thus generally suitable for the work surface and does not resort to nonstandard solutions to problems.

Setting goals

If to increase motivation, we set ourselves specific goals, how it affects our thinking and behavior?

Like any other means of external motivation, goals, narrow the focus of our perception. This causes their effectiveness as they make us focus on achieving concrete results.

However, when performing complex tasks or abstract external promotion may prevent workers think larger scale, it is necessary to develop innovative solutions.

Moreover, when the fore the goal, especially if it is given a short time, the result is measured in specific indicators and has offered a large reward, it limits our understanding of their own opportunities. Teachers of business schools found a lot of evidence that setting specific goals can lead to unscrupulous behavior of employees.

As the researchers note, examples of this are vast. After the US-based Sears established rate of return for workers engaged in repair cars, they began to overstate the cost of services and "repair" that repair is not required. When Enron Corporation has set a goal to increase revenues, the desire to achieve the desired performance by any means possible has led to its total collapse. Ford was so much focus on how to make cars of a certain type and a certain weight of certain price for a certain time, it neglected design car safety check and issued unreliable Ford Pinto.

The problem of the nomination of external motivation to the fore is that in order to achieve this goal, some will choose the shortest path, even if it will have to turn from the right path.

Indeed, most of the scandals and examples of misconduct, which in the modern world already perceived as a common phenomenon associated with trying to achieve a result by the least costs. Leaders overestimate their actual quarterly earnings to grab extra bonuses. School Methodists consultants adjust the content of examination sheets to graduates could get into college. Athletes take steroids to increase endurance and achieve higher performance.

Quite differently behave employees with advanced internal motivation. When the results of the work themselves - a deepening of knowledge, customer satisfaction, their own self-improvement - are promoting activities, workers do not try to cheat and go the easy way. To achieve such results can only be honest. And in general, in this case, there is no sense to act dishonestly, because the only person you cheat, you will yourself.

The same pressure goals, which may force the employee to act in good faith, can also cause risk taking. Seeking to any means to achieve the goal, we tend to make decisions that in any other situation would not even be discussed.

In this case, it suffers not only the employee, which motivate external promotion.

Employer, thus tending to generate at a certain employee behavior model may also fall into a trap. He will have to stay the course, with the result that it will be for him less favorably than if he had not started to encourage employee.

A well-known Russian economist Anton Suvorov has developed a sophisticated economic model that demonstrates the effect described above. It is based on the theory of the relationship between the principal and the agent. As a principal member of motivating acts of communication: the employer, teacher, parent. As an agent - motivated by: worker, student child. Principal mainly trying to get an agent to do what the principal wants from him, while the agent decides whether the proposed principal terms satisfy its interests. Using a variety of complex equations reproducing various interaction scenarios between the principal and the agent, Suvorov came to the conclusions that intuitively come to any parents, for once tried to force the child to endure trash.

Offering a reward, the principal gives the agent a signal that the job will be uninteresting or unpleasant for him. If it was an interesting and enjoyable, the remuneration would be no need. But the original signal and the reward that follows the implementation of the action, forcing the principal to follow the path from which the hard roll. If he offers too little reward, the agent refuses to perform the task. But if the fee will be attractive enough for the agent, then by giving it only once, the principal will have to do it every time. If you give the son pocket money for what he will make waste, then rest assured that he will never do it for free.

Moreover, with time the proposed promotion is not enough to motivate the agent, and, if the principal wants the agent did not cease to carry out mandated activities, it is necessary to increase reward. Even if you get correct employee behavior as you would wish, it is necessary to remove the stimulus, and the results of your work will come to naught.

Where predominates stimulation by an external motivation, many people do as much as necessary to obtain a reward, not more.

Therefore, for example, if students promise any reward for three books read, for the fourth, many of them do not take, not to mention the fact that just fall in love with reading. The same thing happens with many of the employees who achieve the planned indicators and do not progress further. Of course, they did not even occur to set a goal to bring the company more revenue in the long term.

Various studies also show that providing monetary incentives for exercise or quitting smoking initially it gives excellent results, but as soon as the promotion terminated, subjects quickly return to the old way life.

In which case compensation benefit?

Rewards benefit when they are available for the implementation of the standard (algorithmic) problems that do not require a creative approach. In the case of standard repetitive actions that do not require creative approach, compensation can in some way improve the motivation of employees without any side effects. This does not contradict common sense. According to researchers Edward Deci, Richard Ryan and Richard Kostnera (Edward L. Deci, Richard Koestner, Richard M. Ryan), compensation does not undermine the internal motivation of the person performing the boring monotonous work, as in the performance of such work does not arise intrinsic motivation as such.

You can improve your chances of success in the provision of rewards for routine work, if you follow the following principles:

1. Explain the execution of this job is necessary.

2. Recognize that the job is really boring.

3. Allow the employee to perform a task in its own way (give him some autonomy).

Any external motivating remuneration should be unexpected and made available only when the job is already done. In many ways, this statement is quite obvious, since it implies an approach opposite to the approach of "if, then" with all its weaknesses: the employee does not focuses exclusively on the award, motivation will not go into decline after the completion of the work, if at the time of the assignment the employee will not be aware of the possible remuneration. But be careful: if the reward will no longer be unexpected, they does not differ from the benefits under the principle of "if, then" and entail similar consequences.

"Drive. What really motivates us, "Daniel Pink

Buy on Litres.ruBuy from Amazon.com