1. Managers who try to change “attitude” without pinpointing specific behaviors
2. Authors who attribute performance problems to lack of “intrinsic motivation”
3. Economists who act as though they are experts in behavior
4. Executives who value their personal experience or opinion over scientific fact
5. Safety managers who think rewards change behavior
6. Anyone who talks an organization into establishing an Employee of the Month program
7. Organizations that moved from Annual to Quarterly Performance Appraisal
8. Non-contingent (not earned by the receiver) bonuses
9. Rewarding employees who “hit the numbers” without knowing how they were attained
10. Promoting the best technician, engineer, or whoever to a supervisory position
11. Coaches who give trophies to everyone
12. Parents who think everything their children do is wonderful
13. Dan Pink and Alfie Kohn
Related posts:
- New Year’s Resolutions: Beware! The origin of New Year’s Resolutions can be linked to...
- Advice: Whether solicited or unsolicited, most of the time it’s worthless We all do it; give advice in an effort to...
- Praising the boss on Boss’s Day? Not so fast. Patricia Bays Haroski who worked for her father in a...
- Driving Me Crazy Yet Again: Valuing personal opinion over scientific fact I thought patience was supposed to come with age. However,...
- Why Some Managers Fail at Getting Effective and Efficient Performance To succeed in business today, everything must constantly be scrutinized....
October 31, 2012 at 9:05 am
November 1, 2012 at 8:26 am
Thanks for the fright Aubrey.
How about leaders who say we need to change the “hearts and minds” of the population?
November 9, 2012 at 3:45 pm
The science around subtle issues of motivation is… subtle. And complex. Dan Pink merely popularized what is now THE leading theory of motivation, so to discount the intrinsic/extrinsic continuum is to ignore the science. It does not displace Skinner and behaviorism, it adds another layer for what happens under a very specific subset of conditions. It just happens that those conditions are crucial when they apply.
Cameron’s meta-analysis was itself flawed and as such, not taken seriously in nearly all University psych programs today. On the other hand, the main developer of SDT which is the basis of Dan Pink’s “Drive” book, and the leading researcher on the tricky issues of extrinsic motivation in its various forms, and the relationship to intrinsic motivation. And Ryan is extremely credible:
Richard Ryan edited The Oxford University Press Handbook of Motivation (2012) as an indication, likewise the fact he’s chief Editor of the journal “Motivation & Emotion”, and the sheer number of researchers & papers in SDT. So I’d say it’s part of the core set of theories dealing with motivation right now in psych, and definitely THE textbook, standard science, consensus-view theory when it comes to intrinsic motivation: Ryan & Deci de facto founded that field (& coined the terms afaik)
You are reporting on studies and research that represent the minor, not major views today in psychology research. It is not intellectually honest to report the work of Cameron as if it were equally as credible and accepted as the work of Ryan and Deci. It just isn’t. Not to mention that these studies have continued, right up to now… With Amabile’s work finding yet again that even mere *exposure to the idea* of extrinsic motivations for certain types of work instantly decreases the quality of that work.
The areas where contingent rewards/incentives or even just operant conditioning of any form *work* are vast. But the areas where they either do not work or, more likely, work in an ultimately damaging way, are some of the most important areas of work in businesses and schools, etc.
That you do not like Kohn and Dan Pink should not color the actual scientific research and especially the large-scale acceptance of that research.
December 20, 2012 at 5:17 pm
In response to the above comment, I reached out to Dr. Andy Lattal, who has achieved high acclaim in the academic world, is currently an endowed chair of the College of Arts of Sciences at West Virginia University, and is a Professor of Psychology. In addition, Andy holds the position of Senior Research Scientist for The Aubrey Daniels Institute. I encourage you to learn more about Intrinsic Motivation through Andy’s educated rebut to the above claims.
http://aubreydaniels.com/blog/2012/12/20/intrinsic-motivation-redux/