Extrinsic Motivation Analysis - Essay Example

EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION AND THE CURRENT ECONOMY By Student’s Name Code + course name Instructor’s Name Institution of Learning City, State Date Introduction Motivation is the scientific study aiming at getting an in-depth view of “why the people behave the way they do” (Pinder 1998, p.22). Brooks (2009) gives a simple definition of motivation as that willingness of an individual to perform. It is therefore a type of force from within an individual that normally affects a person’s action and efforts. However, this definition might not be adequate. Amabile’s definition gives a more precise and clear approach to motivation. He describes “it as a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work – related behavior and to determine its form, direction, intensity and duration” (Amabile, 1996, p.17). This definition clearly points out intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation as the two main types of motivation. Intrinsic motivation originates from the individual himself/herself while extrinsic motivation originates from external forces. An extrinsically motivated person is compelled to do a task basically because the results are accompanied by consequences that can either be positive or negative (Deci & Ryan, 2008, p.23). Extrinsic motivation requires an intermediary between the task and a separate reward. This has an implication that the activity does not drive an individual to work but rather the attached tangible reward (Gagne & Deci, 2005, p.56). The tangible reward can be financial, material or a social character. All these rewards originate from an external environment. An intrinsically motivated person is driven by the activity itself which he or she finds it to be interesting and is accompanied by satisfaction (Deci & Ryan 2008, p.43). Buelens et el. (2010, p.227) argues that an individual who finds an activity pleasurable is said to be motivated intrinsically. Amabile (1996) regards intrinsic motivation as that expression of interest, commitment, inclusiveness and satisfaction. In a similar way, Calder and Staw (1975: 39) perceive an intrinsically motivated person as that who is motivated to do a task because he or she values it. Having exhausted the meaning of motivation, I will now try to link extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Scholars such as Gibbons (1997) and Lazear (2000) have argued that incentives promote effort and performance. They view rewards as “positive rein forcers”. Other scholars such as Deci and Ryan (1999) have strongly opposed this point arguing out that rewards may turn out to be a hindrance to performance. In their view, rewards are “negative rein forcers”. As a matter of fact, extrinsic motivation can sometime conflict with intrinsic motivation. Rewards can interfere with a person's will of working on a task due to interest. Crino and White (1982, p. 46) suggests four rival hypothesis that explains the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The relationship can either be co requisite, independent, positive dependent or interactive (Crino and White, 1982). Co requisite hypothesis suggests a dependency between the two types of motivation. Positive dependent hypothesis perceives the subsequent growth of intrinsic motivation emanating from rewards attached to a task. Independent hypothesis perceives that there is no link between the two types of motivation. Interactive hypothesis perceives the complex association demonstrated by intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Crino and White, 1982). Several researchers have come up with models and theories to explain the concept of motivation. Woolworth who was the first scholar to propose a theory whose basis is intrinsic motivation suggested that extrinsic motivation can instill intrinsic motivation in an individual. Harlow was the first person to conduct an experiment on intrinsic motivation in 1950. This experiment was carried on monkeys. The outcome of this experiment was that intrinsically motivated monkeys had better performance than extrinsically motivated (Harlow, 1950: 65). In 1961, an experiment that was conducted by Miller to ascertain the relationship between rewards and performance gave surprising results. Opposite to what was expected, rewards had a negative impact on performance. The results indicated that the group that was positively reinforced performed worst compared to the group that was not rewarded (Kohn, 1999, p.89). In almost the same dimension, a research conducted by Glucksberg indicated that rewards increased the time taken by the subjects to solve a particular problem. (Glucksberg, 1962, p.65). De Charms (1968: 329) argues that complementing intrinsic motivation with rewards may pose a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. Spence also conducted a study on study the effect of rewards on performance of children, and obtained the same results that Miller and Glugsberg obtained: non-rewarded individuals showed better performance (De Charms, 1968:156). Even though extrinsic reward has received numerous disapprovals from several scholars, other scholars support it. Studies conducted by Krulanski et al. (1977) showed that rewards had a positive impact on performance. In a similar way, a research study carried out by Cameron and Pierce showed that rewards had no undermining effect on intrinsic motivation. (Cameron and Pierce, 1994, p.279.), People take a job offer, go to work and carry out tasks assigned so that they can get a reward in return (Buelens et al., 2010: 161). According to Taylor, people are motivated to work if they are paid well and this formed a basis of his scientific management theory (Brooks 2009: 158). Having discussed a detailed background of motivation, I will go ahead to analyze Daniel Pink’s Ted talk video: The puzzle of motivation and establish whether his argument that extrinsic motivation does not work in the current economy holds some water. Daniel Pink’s ted talk video: The puzzle of motivation In his show, Daniel Pink starts by describing Professor Karl Dunker’s candle problem experiment that was put forth in 1945. In this study individuals were taken to a certain room which had candles placed on a table. On the table, there were also thumbtacks and some matches. The subjects were asked to try and attach a lit candle onto the wall. Most subjects decided to formulate some creative ways of solving this problem but all were in vain. They kept on trying, some subjects decided to take a tack and pin the candle onto the wall but this could not bear any fruit. Still, some subjects went ahead to melt the candle wax onto the sides of the candle and stick onto the wall but this could still not work. Some participants tried to find out the solution to that problem by removing the contents of the box o and then pin it onto the wall and place the burning candle in the box. This was the real solution to this problem. Professor Dunker concluded this experiment by stating that individuals may have challenges in dealing with a particular problem if a specific element has a fixed function which must be changed In this case, the subject had to establish that besides the box being used to hold the tacks, it could additional be used to hold the candle onto the wall. Pink goes further explains that Professor Dunker did the same experiment with another set of subjects to illustrate this point. He noted that the subjects could easily solve the problem when the tacks were placed outside the box. In this case, they were able to identify the role of the box. Pink also explains a research conducted by Glucksberg in 1962 to give a broader illustration of the candle problem when monetary value is attached to solving the problem. In this experiment, subjects were divided into two groups. In the first group, the subjects were informed that anybody who could solve the problem faster than the others would be given $20. Those who would solve the problem faster and finish among the best 25% of those who solved the problem faster would be given $5. To the other group, he did not attach monetary value to solving the problem. The two groups were then dived and one section of the group was asked to solve the problem with the box holding the tacks while the other group was asked to solve the problem with the tacks outside box. For the tacks that were outside the box, the subjects who were offered money were able to solve the problem much faster than the subjects who were not offered money. However when the problem was made much complex by placing the tacks in the box, the subjects who were not offered any money were able to solve the problem much faster that those who were offered money. It is for this reason that Glucksberg finalizes his research by stating that bringing in money to an element of competition slows the ability of the brain to solve a given problem. Pink uses the candle problem to argue out that incentives actually dulls thinking and blocks creativity. Pink goes ahead to describe an experiment conducted by Dan Ariely and his three colleagues on some MIT students. In this experiment, a bunch of students were given games that involve creativity, motor skills and concentration for performance, they were offered small reward, medium reward and large reward. He notes that larger rewards led to poor performances as long as the task called for rudimentary cognitive skills rather than mechanical skills. Pink goes ahead to describe a major research that was carried out some economists based at the London School of Economics. These economists concluded that incentives inform of money can cause a negative impact on the general performance of an organization. Pink also explains that there is a misconception about how business and science does things. He explains that most organizations are making their policies about talent and people and decision based on outdated assumptions and entices people with sweeter carrot or threaten them with sharper stick He notes that this whole approach has to change. From these two experiments, Pink concludes that for 21st century task, the mechanistic reward and punishment- approach does not work, and often does harm. He explains that Scientist have provided intrinsic motivation as the new approach. He says that this motivation is all about the desire to do things because they matter, because they are interesting, because they are part of something important and because we like it. Pink concludes his talk by suggesting that businesses need to base their operation on autonomy, mastery and purpose. He defines autonomy as the desire to drive our individual lives. His definition for mastery is the desire to get better at something that matters. He finally defines purpose as the urge to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. Analysis of Pink’s talk After attentively and carefully listening to pink’s arguments, I would like to agree with him that extrinsic motivation does not work in the current economy. This is based on a number of facts. First, Pink’s observation that incentives dulls thinking and blocks creativity is true. Glucksberg supports this notion in his candle problem experiment when he concludes that adding attaching money to some element of competition normally lowers the ability of the brain to solve a particular problem. Kohn (1999, p.56) argues that when rewarded, the receiver will lose their internal drive to do that task. Kohn (1999, p.67) concludes that “Do this and you will get that” makes people focus on “that” not “this.” Current economy requires critical thinkers who do not only thin for the sake of money but think because they love what they are doing and really needs a solution. John Condry terms rewards as enemies of exploration (Condry, 1977: 78). According to Kohn (1999: 98) rewards may suit non-explorative tasks. However, complex tasks that require creativity may be ruined by rewards. Kohn (1999, p.103) concludes that rewards have a negative effect on the effectiveness of individuals basically because it ruins creativity. Secondly, Pink’s sentiment that rewards narrow our focus and restricts our possibility holds some water. Rewards are accompanied by a negative impact of change of focus. The individual tend to think more about the reward rather than the task given (Kohn.1999: 47). Current economy requires people who can “think outside the box.” This requires looking at different problems in all perspectives with an open mind. This type of focus can only originate from within not without. Finally, Pink’s conclusion that the secret to high performance in this current economy is the unseen intrinsic drive makes more sense. This conclusion has been widely supported by several scholars. Kohn (1999, p.50) explains that the troubling truth is that rewards and punishments are not opposite at all; they are two sides of the same coin, they are used for the same purpose; control. Intrinsic motivation facilitates teamwork, creativity, curiosity and thirst for challenge. Intrinsically motivated individuals have more interest in their work and they are more curious and creative (Deci &Ryan, 2008: 15). Managers should therefore try to do everything they can to instill an intrinsic motivation in their workforce. Development of intrinsically motivated workforce can be done by stopping to relay on contingent extrinsic rewards which might foster motivation that by the end of the day can turn up to be the wrong type of motivation. Such wrong type of motivation may lead to no risk-taking, no creativity or exploration and destruction of cooperation between co-workers (Kohn, 1999, p.105) Conclusion The science of motivation tries to understand people’s behavior. There are two main types of motivation; intrinsic motivation, which arises from within and extrinsic motivation which comes from without. Intrinsic motivation remains the best type of motivation for solving problems in the current economy. Daniel pink clearly succeeds in explaining this point through his puzzle of motivation talk on Ted talk video. His case based on the candle problem and outcome from several researches confirms that intrinsic motivation facilitates teamwork, creativity, curiosity and thirst for challenge which are some of the most important elements required by organizations in the current economy. Extrinsic motivation can lead to no risk taking, no creativity or exploration and poor co-existence between workers hence it is not a suitable type of motivation for the current economy. References Amabile, T, 1996. Creativity in context, Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. Ariely, D., Gneezy, U., Loewenstein, G. & Mazar, N. 2009. Large Stakes and Big Mistakes, Review of economic studies,76(2):451-469. Bem, D. 1967. Self- Perception: an Alternative Interpretation of Cognitive Dissonance Phenomena. Psychology review, 4(3):183-200 Brooks, I. 2009. Organizational behavior: individuals, groups and organizations. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Buelens, M., Sinding, K. & Waldstrom, 2010, Organizational behavior, special edition for Aarhus school of business and social science. Glasgow: Bell and Bain Ltd. Calder, B. J. & Staw, B. M., 1975. Interaction of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Some methodological notes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 31(1): 76-80 Cameron, J. & Pierco, W. 1994. Reinforcement, Reward and Intrinsic motivation: A Meta- Analysis. Review of educational research, 64(3): 363- 423 Condry, J. 1977. Enemies of exploration: self-initiated verses other-initiated learning. Journal of personality and social psychology, 35(7): 459-477 Crino , M. & White, M. 1982. Feedback effects in intrinsic/extrinsic reward paradgrims,. Journal of management, 8(2): 95-108. Daniel, P. The puzzle of motivation. De Charms, R. 1968. Personal Causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York and London: Academic Press. Deci, E. & Ryan R. 2008. Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains, Canadian psychology, 49(1): 14-23 Deci, E. 1971. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation, Journal of personality and social Psychology, 18(1): 105-115 Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J. Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of abnormal psychology, 58(2): 203-210 Festinger, L. 1975. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Illinois: Peterson. Gagne, M. & Deci, E. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of organizational behavior, 26(4): 331-362. Glucksberg, S. 1962. The influence of strength of drive on functional fixedness and perceptual recognition. Journal of experimental psychology, 63(1): 36-41 Harlow, H. 1950. Learning and satiation of response in intrinsically motivated complex puzzle performance by monkeys. Journal of comparative and physiological psychology, 43(4): 289-294 Hull, C. 1943. Principles of behavior, An introduction to behavior theory. New York:.Appleton- Century- Crofts. Kohn, A. 1999. Punished by rewards: the trouble of gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise and other bribes, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Kruglanski, A. W, Stein, C. & Rita. 1977. Contingencies of Exogenous reward and task performance: on the minimax strategy in instrumental behavior. Journal of applied social psychology, 8(6): 493-501 Pinder C. 1998. Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Read More