$$Money motivates us

Reads: 522  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 2

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

Status: Finished  |  Genre: Editorial and Opinion  |  House: Booksie Classic

Money motivates us

So I watched this module on what motivates us humans to make money, my findings were phenomenal. As I want to share with you, in short.

There are different studies in the science behind this. The study I read was based in the northeast of America. Supposably they took a group of people and gave them challenges, I.e. Memorizing digits, solving word puzzles, and physical tasks. There was three levels of rewards. If you did alright you got a small incentive, if you did medium well, there was a bigger incentive, and if you did really well, the incentive was larger. Essentially, they pay attention to the top performers and less to the middle and low performers. Why? Because they want achievers, they want smarter people. They found in this study that if it was mechanical skills, that the higher the pay, the better the performance. But then when it became a task called "rudimentary cognitive skills" a larger reward led to poorer performance. Now, we ask how can that be? Well, I'll tell you why, this test was built by economist, these are top of the class economic majors that put the question to the test. They came up with saying, yes, people do perform better, if the reward is bigger, but not when using rudimentary cognitive skills. It sounds to me like a socialist conspiracy. I am into conspiracy theories. This research was sponsored by the reserved federal banks. They are the ones that defines the laws of behavioral physics. Go figure. They were not contempt with their findings. So they invested in doing this same test in Madurai, India. They figured a significant sum of money would probably give a different result. So they did a replica of the same study again. They decided to reward them differently, by giving those that did poorly a two week salary, an the ones that did okay a one month salary, and the best a two month salary. Their findings were that the people that did poorly and okay, did no different from one another, and the one that did best, did worse then the rest. So basically, higher incentives led to worse performance. This is a anomalous. This test has been replicated many times, by psychologist, sociologist, and economist. Believe me I've followed it. 
My point is that the average person do best in straight forward tasks, meaning, if you do this you get that. Is the average person. For algorithmic set of rules and follow along, do great as well, but if it becomes complicated and requires some conceptual creative thinking, it just doesn't work. 
The fact of all of this is that money motivates people, if you don't pay people enough, you will not be motivated. Another paradox is, if you pay people enough to not think about money, but instead of the work, demonstrated that there were 3 factors lead to better performance. And that is: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. 
Self direction demonstrates that it is better. I.e. If a company give you a task to complete within 24 hours, and they are giving you that leeway to do what you want as long as you bring the results of the task within 24 hours. 
It turns out that undiluted autonomy brings a whole array of ideas and new products that otherwise would of never emerged. Meaning giving people the freedom to work at their own pace with a sum, brings not only good results, but more ideas that help make your company better. 
If you want people to be creative and innovated give them an innovated bonus. But the way the world works is, if you want to do something, go ahead and promise no incentives, in the end. ThAts why today, no one helps you, no one gives you answers. Because no one is motivated due to the cost of living, today.
 Now let me talk about mastery, mastery is the urge to get better at something. It's what I do best, I write because I like it, I chant and play drums because it soothes my soul. I don't get paid for it, but I do it because it makes me feel good, and I get entertainment from it. And I invest more hours in the things that are creative rather then work. 
The study shows people are doing more sophisticated technically challenging work for free. Meaning, we do more amazing when we master something that we like to do, and we do it for free, and invest more discretionary time. That's a strange economic behavior, wouldn't you say?
The outcome to this is clear that the challenge and mastery, along with making a contribution, is all it takes. It appears that we like to do these things for a transcendence purpose. Partly because it makes us happy, and partly because we gain more talent. 
Let me give you an example with Skype, there meaning is to be disruptive but there motive and purpose was to make the world a better place. Our purpose is maximizers not only profit maximizers. Science shows we care about mastery very deeply, and we want to be self directed and treated accordantly. If we can get past that ideology, we can build a better work place and make the world a better place. 
RSA Animate, the surprising truth about what motivates us. (2010).
RSA Animate, changing education paradigms. (2010). 

Submitted: November 08, 2014

© Copyright 2021 Alayton. All rights reserved.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

Add Your Comments:


wily geist

I thought this covered the topic with interesting insight. It made me think about work and the concept of money.
I have met Doctors that don't want to be doctors, except for the mere pressure of parental guidance or prestige. I worked in the computer field and loved the troubleshooting aspects of the job,but hated the politics and backbiting aspects of climbing the corporate ladder. I found that the taller better looking people were promoted and most likely paid more than a more qualified uglier candidate.
I also play the drums and get pure enjoyment from it. Although playing in Rock band can be nightmare similar to working at a corporation. Jazz may let you improvise more and is less likely to be based on being a Pop star versus a musician. I think music and art is unappreciated, as the internet has made the artist more of beggar than a hero.

I also think it is now harder for humans to work in groups, as the world is now more based on the individual. The digital age divides us more the creative times of the 1960s, although the 60s are filled with nightmares of drugs, the scene was more artistic and group oriented.

Sat, November 8th, 2014 9:57pm


I'm glad you enjoyed my blog, I find the facts of life very interesting. I'm glad you were able to relate to this and share your feedback, I appreciate that.

There's nothing better then writing how you feel and hearing others opinions. So, thank you.

Sun, November 9th, 2014 2:59pm

Facebook Comments

More Editorial and Opinion Articles

Boosted Content from Other Authors

Short Story / Mystery and Crime

Book / Action and Adventure

Short Story / Thrillers

Other Content by Alayton

Book / Romance

Miscellaneous / Editorial and Opinion

Book / Gay and Lesbian