Why money and the threat of punishment dont motivate

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by REMFQuestions, Jun 20, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Because the consequences of 'no money' and the severity of 'punishment' are neither severe enough.

    If people knew they would starve or get experience severe pain then they would be admirable motivators.
     
  2. maguire

    maguire LE Book Reviewer

    i think thats missing the point - if anything it appears to show to me why some people would spend their careers within the armed forces - wanting to have purpose in what they do and and wanting to get better and better at what they do.

    cracking video, well worth watching.
     
  3. I thought the key point was in advocating 'mission command'. Don't tell people "how to do a task" just give them the task and a time limit and let them go to work.

    But the brain re-wiring for young males is particularly relevant - how do you get soldiers to sit still long enough for instruction when their entire lives have been designed to place them

    1. In control
    2. As non-passive

    Important times ahead.
     
  4. maguire

    maguire LE Book Reviewer

    not just applicable to the armed forces from what he's saying - the implications for schools worldwide would appear to be huge.
     
  5. We've always known that 'man cannot live by bread alone' so to that extent he's playing the classic consultant game of stating the bleedin' obvious in breathlessly excited tones and hoping the audience mistakes it for a revelation. The thing is - and he's handily glossed over it by defining the 'low' rewards only in terms relative to the biggest earners - is that man needs to square the bread supply away before he can afford to worry about owt else.

    It's all very well talking about Google's corporate philosophy of encouraging autonomy of effort, but that doesn't really apply to the majority of folks in comparatively low-wage low skill-jobs and pretty much by definition the majority of jobs will always be comparatively low-wage low-skill in any given job market. They will also almost always be pretty bloody unfulfilling and, in the wider scheme of things, meaningless.

    Even the more brain-intensive creative jobs where you could reasonably expect people to invest something of themselves in their work aren't exempt. As his own Linux example shows, if work was fun we wouldn't need to pay people to do it.
     
  6. 8O I don' think you fully understand what he is saying.

    if work was fun people wouldn't need paid? That's weird because I know a lot of guys that spend their time working on cars and they don't get paid to be mechanics. I regularly fix my friends computers for no money (I enjoy working with tech) and lots of professionals (lawyers, doctors, programmers) volunteer their services for causes.

    People who work in homeless shelters don't get paid. People in Africa building schools, wells, handing out malaria medicine don't get paid and regularly live in arduous conditions.

    There is good reason to believe that very very very few people join the TA to earn money.

    So in response - no. Work is not work because we have to pay someone. The Linux example is perfect. Millions of people contribute to the Linux movement with absolutely no chance of monetary reward.

    Arrse is an excellent example. Why would the coders and mods offer their time if not for monetary reward. It is obviously 'work'.

    As for stating the obvious. It is not obvious. He makes that quite clear from the beginning by showing that we have had to develop new economic models in the last decade to demonstrate this phenomenon.

    You are being critical for the sake of it, much like how you responded intially without even watching the presentations.

    :roll:
     
  7. I understand entirely what he’s saying and it only holds true for the small sector of humanity who’re in the enviable position of always knowing where their next meal is coming from. For the rest, ‘reward’ is an all-important motivator and ‘punishment’ can break them. Try asking an Eritrean farmer or a Bangladeshi peasant to ‘work’ for nothing. Various feudal systems have been overthrown as a result of the rulers attempting to do just that to people who needed all their efforts for their own subsistence.

    Everybody needs to have a hobby. The operative word being ‘hobby’ – you could choose at any moment to walk away if you didn’t fancy doing it anymore or just at that precise moment. How many of us are able to do that with our jobs?

    It hinges entirely on how you define ‘work’. The presentation deliberately blurred the distinction between employment and hobby. That the Linux project has economic benefit to society is a bonus but I suspect the sort of person attracted to that challenge would have worked on it in any case because that sort of thing is their hobby. It is most definitely not the same thing in microeconomic terms as a Microsoft developer working on a new version of Windows even if may be exactly the same person doing it.

    It was obvious enough to a great many civilisations throughout history that people needed something more than just money to motivate them to their best efforts. Didn’t Napoleon say something along the lines of, “Men will die for a piece of coloured ribbon”? We haven’t ‘had to’ develop economic models recently to account for it; true, economists have only just got round to specifically paying it close individual attention but Rational Choice Theory has been around since the 60s and was an economic development of earlier social anthropological work with a strong quantative element.

    Think again about my first point on how his model of people not being motivated by monetary rewards applies to people who have great insecurity of livelihood. Reward and punishment become far greater motivators the harsher the consequences of them are. Sacking is far less a threat to a man who can walk into another job effortlessly than it is to a farmhand living in a tied cottage. Extra money is far more a reward to a subsistence farmer living in north Thailand than it is to a salaryman in Tokyo.

    ‘Money and the threat of punishment’ do motivate, he just chose to narrow his sample to the people where it’s the consequences of not getting the money or getting the punishment are comparatively trivial. MIT students, Indians, everyone else in these studies have one thing in common – they all had security of livelihood already and the bonuses were just that. They were not essential to their survival.

    He mentioned himself that the theory only starts to hold true once you, “pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table”. If it was not a motivator, why would it be on the table in the first place?
     
  8. I understand entirely what he’s saying and it only holds true for the small sector of humanity who’re in the enviable position of always knowing where their next meal is coming from. For the rest, ‘reward’ is an all-important motivator and ‘punishment’ can break them. Try asking an Eritrean farmer or a Bangladeshi peasant to ‘work’ for nothing. Various feudal systems have been overthrown as a result of the rulers attempting to do just that to people who needed all their efforts for their own subsistence.

    Everybody needs to have a hobby. The operative word being ‘hobby’ – you could choose at any moment to walk away if you didn’t fancy doing it anymore or just at that precise moment. How many of us are able to do that with our jobs?

    It hinges entirely on how you define ‘work’. The presentation deliberately blurred the distinction between employment and hobby. That the Linux project has economic benefit to society is a bonus but I suspect the sort of person attracted to that challenge would have worked on it in any case because that sort of thing is their hobby. It is most definitely not the same thing in microeconomic terms as a Microsoft developer working on a new version of Windows even if may be exactly the same person doing both.

    It was obvious enough to a great many civilisations throughout history that people needed something more than just money to motivate them to their best efforts. Didn’t Napoleon say something along the lines of, “Men will die for a piece of coloured ribbon”? We haven’t ‘had to’ develop economic models recently to account for it; true, economists have only just got round to specifically paying it close individual attention but Rational Choice Theory has been around since the 60s and was an economic development of earlier social anthropological work with a strong quantative element. An example of the canon from 1988 is HERE.

    Think again about my first point on how his model of people not being motivated by monetary rewards applies to people who have great insecurity of livelihood. Reward and punishment become far greater motivators the harsher the consequences of them are. Sacking is far less a threat to a man who can walk into another job effortlessly than it is to a farmhand living in a tied cottage. Extra money is far more a reward to a subsistence farmer living in north Thailand than it is to a salaryman in Tokyo.

    ‘Money and the threat of punishment’ do motivate, he just chose to narrow his sample to the people where the consequences of not getting the money/getting the punishment are comparatively trivial. MIT students, Indian office workers, everyone else in these studies have one thing in common – they all had security of livelihood already and the bonuses were just that. They were not essential to their survival.

    He mentioned himself that the theory only starts to hold true once you, “pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table”. If it was not a motivator, why would it be on the table in the first place?
     
  9. msr

    msr LE

  10. I was always tought that rank and respect for rank get you listened to in the first place and after that it's respect for whoever's doing the talking: at first you listen to 'the boss' but you start to ignore him later on if you think he doesn't know what he's talking about
     
  11. Maguire, look at the second video, SAC is just one of these future negative type, all stick - no carrot....... :wink:
     
  12. I find the best punishment for the guys is to take their weekends off them. As soon as you do that they pay attention. Extra works parades during the week have no affect.

    What motivates people depends on their age, job position and social status. Older people will want more time off and a better pension. Younger employees are after more pay. People in their 30's would probably want promotion, a nice car etc.