It is quite common that many companies are having a difficult time keeping their staff motivated to finish the tasks at hand. Because so many people are addicted to their phones. But in a recent survey, we asked over 100 people about their thoughts on why they are not doing well and some said it was due to automation while others said it was due to job dissatisfaction.
Here are some of the comments from the research:
Well, it does now, but we can see it crumble with automation arising, meaning no menial jobs for people to do (I am talking about factory working as well a some more "complicated" jobs like medicine or surgery). What if the solution is not to have everyone earn money for a living, but to provide people the living, thus giving them time to work towards a purpose?
I agree, we must look at real world context, experiments have the flaw of being artificial. I submit the abject failure of incentive pay for teachers. What has been effective? Paying them what they are worth and valuing them in the first place. But "incentivizing them has failed". There is your real world application. I am a Psychology professor, entrepreneur, and a former supervisor.
The idea of optional effort, will only be achieved with a ratio of self motivation too self preservation. Then when you take into account ignorance and upbringing, X mass media influence. It becomes muddled.
Have read about the experiments conducted by these elite group of economists. People are made to play some games for 20-30 mins. The low paid people get about 1 day's pay, medium paid 2 weeks' and high paid get 5 months' pay. But in reality, nobody pays anybody 1 day's, or 2 weeks' pay for just 30 mins job. So, a 1 day competition for programmers involving complex problems, with low pay 1 day's income, medium 3 days' and high 5 days' should be conducted. The results would be meaningful.
The point really is the parallels which can be drawn from such experiments. E.G motivation to search for the answer to any problem faced with increased complexity is going to be negative due to what the employee values on a personal level. This motivation can't be increased by the wrong incentive is the only fundamental finding here.
He's trying to say that if your business is telling the employees why to do it stops there creativity . Even if you reward them with more money or gifts, if the boss is the only one using his creativity then the while business loses out in the creative thoughts and the brainstorming power of all the employees. Everything is an opinion remember that.
How does he know the short term tasks used for experiments and their immediate pressure does not make it domain dependent and not applicable to longer term tasks where the short term pressure does not exist? He doesn't know. He's making a bogus analogy. Taking a specific trumped-up experiment setting and overgeneralizing to the whole world. Study the world instead to see how people in successful jobs work, real inventors and problem solvers, not candles.
He's making a false statement right there, and no one seems to see it. Everyone is not dealing with "their own version of the candle problem." That expands it to the point of over-breadth and vagueness. They have separate and distinct problems that you ignore the details off to fit into your silly cookie-cutter facile mold and think you are so smart. You are making a false analogy! Stop misleading people with your academic errors and hubris. You have no right to generalize so broadly.
He's showing what Taleb calls "epistemic arrogance," bragging and has it backwards. Science knows very little and can learn from how successful businesses run. They prove themselves. "Science" often dictates false dogma to business when it should learn from them. He acts like a sociology department could step in and run IBM better. No, those professors would bankrupt the company in three months. Teachers can't do, so they teach and brag about what science "knows." Praxis trumps theory.