DOES MONEY MAKE A WINNER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
http://www.philstar.com/sports/2012-11-12/865710/does-money-make-winner
The eternal debate in professional sports and all professionals, for that matter, is how much of a difference money makes. Why is it that even the greatest athletes in the world, who make the most prodigious salaries and revenues, resort to cheating when they have it all? On the other hand, why is it that providing the greatest funding does not guarantee success? Is money overrated as a motivator?
Eight decades ago Harry Harlow, a professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin, was studying primate behavior – rhesus monkeys in particular. It was at this time that he hit upon a theory that was just recently rediscovered. For his lab animals, the performance of a task provides reward in itself, or what is called intrinsic reward. This has nothing to do with receiving any compensation or external (extrinsic) motivation.
This was reinforced famously by Mark Twain, as shown in Tom Sawyer, the ability to pass on a loathsome task of painting a fence to two buddies by making them want to do it. If it seems cool, people will want to do it, for nothing. Or as Twain’s proposition goes, “that Work consists of whatever a body is OBLIGED to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.”
This is also a reason why collegiate basketball players seem to be more passionate than their professional counterparts. The consensus is that they seem to want it more. They choose to play for that school and they only have a limited career there. That seems to be hugely motivational, and it shows in the output. In many countries, collegiate basketball, for example, shows higher television ratings than professional basketball.
In studies around the world from the 1970’s onward, if someone expects a reward for completing a task, he inevitably performs the worst of all. The reasoning is that external reward turns play into work. This is also seen as the reason why the vast majority of Olympic champions do not achieve as professional athletes. It seems more artificial because they are being paid.
This is not to say that compensation is entirely bad. It is the basis for all business, after all, and relative value provides healthy competitive balance in all work environments. But there are flaws. Studies have shown that, even when you ratchet up the material compensation via bonuses and so on, there will only be a temporary spike in performance, followed by a prolonged dip.
After World War II, the stick was paired with the carrot. If reward did not do the job, would the addition of punishment at the other end of the scale help? That was the belief at the time.
But eventually, the carrot and stick approach revealed flaws that have largely remained unacknowledged. First of all, the extrinsic reward may put out or even replace internal motivation. An offshoot of this is that when the reward is not big enough, performance stops altogether. It can also create a rollercoaster of bad behavior. Getting the reward (bonus, incentive, etc.) becomes the motivation, and the person being compensated may just be after that and do anything to get it. That’s one reason why more fouls are called in important games, and more cheating is revealed at higher levels where any little advantage makes a big difference, too. Players’ behavior deteriorates as the stakes get higher. Cheating, shortcuts and unethical behavior become the norm. Winning, not playing, becomes the overriding concern. And it’s been accepted as normal.
In another field, analysts predicted that open-source websites would never flourish. Large computer companies like Microsoft were confident that their encyclopedia programs would be best-sellers because you had to pay for them. What happened was the reverse. Free online encyclopedias like Wikipedia exploded. People weren’t getting paid to contribute; they just wanted to. Now, new websites have found the balance. If you don’t trust free websites’ data, you pay for your own.
New research reveals that people work harder when they are acknowledged for their skills, feel they are part of a team, and have a certain degree of freedom to do what they want. This is spurring the change from old-school drill sergeant type of coaching to more flexible, analytical Mentoring. In sports, it is making the biggest difference.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
http://www.philstar.com/sports/2012-11-12/865710/does-money-make-winner
The eternal debate in professional sports and all professionals, for that matter, is how much of a difference money makes. Why is it that even the greatest athletes in the world, who make the most prodigious salaries and revenues, resort to cheating when they have it all? On the other hand, why is it that providing the greatest funding does not guarantee success? Is money overrated as a motivator?
Eight decades ago Harry Harlow, a professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin, was studying primate behavior – rhesus monkeys in particular. It was at this time that he hit upon a theory that was just recently rediscovered. For his lab animals, the performance of a task provides reward in itself, or what is called intrinsic reward. This has nothing to do with receiving any compensation or external (extrinsic) motivation.
This was reinforced famously by Mark Twain, as shown in Tom Sawyer, the ability to pass on a loathsome task of painting a fence to two buddies by making them want to do it. If it seems cool, people will want to do it, for nothing. Or as Twain’s proposition goes, “that Work consists of whatever a body is OBLIGED to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.”
This is also a reason why collegiate basketball players seem to be more passionate than their professional counterparts. The consensus is that they seem to want it more. They choose to play for that school and they only have a limited career there. That seems to be hugely motivational, and it shows in the output. In many countries, collegiate basketball, for example, shows higher television ratings than professional basketball.
In studies around the world from the 1970’s onward, if someone expects a reward for completing a task, he inevitably performs the worst of all. The reasoning is that external reward turns play into work. This is also seen as the reason why the vast majority of Olympic champions do not achieve as professional athletes. It seems more artificial because they are being paid.
This is not to say that compensation is entirely bad. It is the basis for all business, after all, and relative value provides healthy competitive balance in all work environments. But there are flaws. Studies have shown that, even when you ratchet up the material compensation via bonuses and so on, there will only be a temporary spike in performance, followed by a prolonged dip.
After World War II, the stick was paired with the carrot. If reward did not do the job, would the addition of punishment at the other end of the scale help? That was the belief at the time.
But eventually, the carrot and stick approach revealed flaws that have largely remained unacknowledged. First of all, the extrinsic reward may put out or even replace internal motivation. An offshoot of this is that when the reward is not big enough, performance stops altogether. It can also create a rollercoaster of bad behavior. Getting the reward (bonus, incentive, etc.) becomes the motivation, and the person being compensated may just be after that and do anything to get it. That’s one reason why more fouls are called in important games, and more cheating is revealed at higher levels where any little advantage makes a big difference, too. Players’ behavior deteriorates as the stakes get higher. Cheating, shortcuts and unethical behavior become the norm. Winning, not playing, becomes the overriding concern. And it’s been accepted as normal.
In another field, analysts predicted that open-source websites would never flourish. Large computer companies like Microsoft were confident that their encyclopedia programs would be best-sellers because you had to pay for them. What happened was the reverse. Free online encyclopedias like Wikipedia exploded. People weren’t getting paid to contribute; they just wanted to. Now, new websites have found the balance. If you don’t trust free websites’ data, you pay for your own.
New research reveals that people work harder when they are acknowledged for their skills, feel they are part of a team, and have a certain degree of freedom to do what they want. This is spurring the change from old-school drill sergeant type of coaching to more flexible, analytical Mentoring. In sports, it is making the biggest difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment