Science confirms it: People are not pets | Hacker News Reader

Science confirms it: People are not pets

nytimes.com

28 pointsmjirv7 comments

This is one of those findings in psychology that's always seemed suspect to me.

What is salary if not a reward for work done on an ongoing basis? The vast majority of people would not do their jobs for free; they need that reward for them to keep doing it.

Similarly, I've tried harder at my current job than at previous jobs because the performance review, promotion process, and merit bonus/raise programs are much more rigorous. My employer hasn't gotten more and better work out of me as a result, and I've gotten better promotions and raises as a result too. Is this not a "reward"? I've seen, with my own eyes, coworkers putting in long hours at crunch time for a shot at a better annual bonus or higher chances of promotion (at companies where effort is fairly evaluated and rewarded).

What possible levers does a business have to pull to entice performance from its employees if not monetary compensation? Every other reward in lieu of money is (correctly) perceived to deeply cynical. Businesses exists to make money, and if you make them more money but instead of sharing that with you they just give you something intangible like praise, then they're ripping you off.

If effort can't be rewarded with money, then shouldn't the entire economy collapse? That is the basis of capitalism after all. Something seems to be deeply off with these studies.

On the other hand, I've found it much more likely that your bosses will shine you on and say that if you accomplish something (usually a big project, hard problem, etc.) you'll get a promotion/raise, and then them not following through. That is usually the kiss of death for morale, and it's a lot easier it seems to make people mad than reward them, and then they are gone.

I agree, the praise part is somewhat wishy-washy, but having a good boss that has your back is worth a lot. There are a lot of non-monetary (intangible) ways that they can make your job easier and better that are actually useful. Most times I'm with you though, and would just rather take the money.

> My employer hasn't gotten more and better work out of me as a result

s/hasn't/has/

I can't edit this post anymore, but I need to correct this huge typo as it greatly affects the meaning of the post.

The vast majority of people would not do their jobs for free; they need that reward for them to keep doing it.

I have found that being paid for it is necessary but not sufficient. I have quit jobs once I have grown tired of them, with no new job lined up to go to. I won't turn up without being paid, but if there's nothing else to it but the money, pretty soon I'll stop turning up. I have a secondary gig that I turn up to about 35 days a year, that is less well-paid (but still pays, pro rata, above the median day's pay in the UK) - I've on occasion forgone some pay from that, at my discretion; the motivation on that job clearly isn't the money either.

I certainly don't think of money as a "reward" for going to work; I grudgingly accept the world of work because I don't have the option of pursuing my interests full-time. Thinking of it as "reward" feels like Stockholm syndrome. If work was unpaid, I certainly wouldn't choose my current job.

Many people are not as fortunate as I am; they can't pay the rent and bills without constant inflow of money. I wonder, if everyone was as fortunate as I am and could survive a while without work, would more people simply stop turning up if their job was nothing more than a way to pay the rent?

Yeah, well thanks for stating the obvious...

When you have kids you come very quickly to the realization that rewards aren't a mean to efficiently motivate. However intrisic motivation is exaclty this: intrinsic.

So what? Unless you can do Inception in your kids dreams to push them to realise that what you ask them is not what you want but what's actually good for them, you're bond to use rewards because that's the only thing that actually works.

Intrinsic motivation comes from the realization that you must do something for good (your own or others, but in the end it's only for you... but that's another ethical topic).

So If I didn’t misread, as long as you continously give the incentive, everythings fine and still works as intended? For teaching this is ofc dumb and explicitly not the outcome you want, but for eg sales incentives, it works as expected (and probably much easier to do than convince your marketers that they really do want to sell that product at the highest price for the benefit of everyone and everything)

As long as you don't remove it, you haven't made performance worse, but you may not have made it better either, and you have probably done damage to intrinsic motivation.

For sales, this may be fine, to the extent that no one has intrinsic motivation for sales, and the countervailing forces of how sales folks are usually compensated, but fixed salaries are probably better for motivation, but maybe not for your hiring/cash flow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com