I love the musical analogy. I spend endless time pursuing mastery in jazz (I've started a little too late) and I think am a better business person for it. Being able to work in a close knit ensemble, taking clues from workmates, bandmates, and being able to pivot to various and creative ideas is useful. Plus it's fun. It's fun to do fun things. As John Coltrane said, "Invest yourself in everything you do. There's fun in being serious."
People are ultimately motivated by love and the desire to live a life of "purpose" that helps to make the world a better place for everyone. Money is not the bottom line in fact money should serve us not the other way around. Glad there are so many people waking up to reality of our true motivating force... love.
This makes perfect sense in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If you make money not an issue anymore is key. If people are worried about money, How they're going to pay the bills and survive, they're not going to be able to focus on cognitive tasks and perform well. "Autonomy," "Mastery," and "Purpose" fall under the "self-actualization" capstone. Money is not as important at that level of motivation.
Nice piece. Agreed, the management of organizational behavior research supports the idea that we need both profit and purpose. Profit is the price of getting people to work. Purpose, self-direction and mastery, is what gets them to perform at higher levels. What is surprising is that many people still don't get it.
from the other side if people will think about how they're going to pay the bills and survive, they would earn money too. It calls negative motivation. I remember when my teacher told me that some people motivate theirselves by death. its sad but true
I agree completely souly because people are concerned over their well being and (if they have a family) they will be concerned and keeping their family happy and healthy. Honestly people should be payed enough so they won't focus on getting money but rather focus on completing the work they do and the work they present to be efficient and very nice. We all know organizations and companies want people who can drive their business to newer heights, to be successful, to be better then any other organization, but how can they accomplish that without even concerning the people working FOR THEM, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WORRY FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR LOVED ONES, it's a shame yet very obvious all at the same time... This has been a post by Leonit Banipalsin, assigned by Mrs. Sheaff from English Class Per.2 Grade 11th.
Actually, not all people work this way. There are dysfunctioned people either by nature or by the influence of environment. Psychopaths/Sociopaths/Narcissists dont think about usefulness, helpfulness before their benefit and power of controlling; and other people (sheep) easily influenced/brainwashed by them will also eventually become the close versions of these psychopaths. Plus close-minded sheep, they're not smart but unwilling to collaborate with others or try to learn things. We end up with a less than 50% population who work the normal way as suggested by these motivation theory. But, the strongest motivation was not EVER addressed: THE BLIND BELIEF, whatever blind belief that brings about super willpower (Gods, idols, superman, fairies, angels, devils, imaginary lover..). This is the ONLY long term motivation, others are just short-term and more of a life guideline.
This is really a great short movie. I have a company and in my factory there was always a big mess. That's mostly because i am really chaotic and you can see that in the way I organize things. So I asked one of my employees what he would change if my company was his. And he had a lot of ideas. So I told him to do what ever he wanted to do. And he couldn't believe me. So the first days he called me twice a day to ask permission for an idea. But I didn't even listen, I told him just to do it. Now my factory starts to get better organized then ever before. This man is more enthousiastic and motivated and working harder than ever before. And I can concentrate me more on my bussiness and not about where to store all my stuff.
I love what you did with this employee. No sophisticated, philosophical stuff, just plain and simple practical empowerment. According to Steven Covey, you liberate a person to think, and you bring out the best in them. Well done - your business will reap the rewards, you will be happy and your employee will be fulfilled.
Grimmy Grimm Not really. The video says that money isn't the *only* reward. While giving an employee more freedom is its own reward, given the extra responsibility it's only fair there's additional monetary reward.
@Crimcon Mask. Depends on how you look at it. Mastery should be the object in itself. Many view grades as the reward which leads to other things (better jobs, money). Hence, getting the good grade becomes the object rather than mastery itself, which would lead students to cheat or to hide their weaknesses rather than bettering themselves.
I had to watch this for my Ethics class, and i subscribed. I think this is quite true because i am like this. I drum a lot and the only thing i care about when it comes to playing drums is mastery and purpose. I've quite recently got into autonomy. I do want to teach a drumline for free, i just want to teach and see people improve and building people with your inspiration and watching them manifest. It's one of the coolest things ever, and i want to this with anthropology, sociology and psychology.
This is a great piece, especially in the field of development. I agree with your point "Pay people enough money to ensure that they are not distracted by money problem." I also, think that it's good to trust your employees once they have shown their trust, trust them to know what they are doing, avoid micromanage just give deadline, expectation and the objective.
Our motivations to do things are very interesting and challenging at the same time. Many people have different ways of acting towards incentives given at an organization. Motivation is what makes us understand the importance of achieving a goal or a dream. Money is always a good motivator, since many people think that paying their employees a good salary will make them be more focused at work, not having to worry about money issues. There are three important factors mentioned in this video that lead to better performance and satisfaction : autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Autonomy is when people want to be self-directed. This can bring good engagement for a work environment. Mastery is about always trying to become better at something. These are the main factors that lead to better performance and satisfaction in the workplace. On the other hand, we have a motive which is a predominant purpose. A good example could be that companies always need new talent, and that is why they become so successful. New talent brings new ideas, new strategies and new ways of thinking. In conclusion, straightforward tasks work with the reward scheme.But when we have more intellectual and creative thinking tasks, motivators do not work. Furthermore, if we start treating people in a nice way, organizations and work life will flourish and evolve.
As an aspiring entrepreneur this talk was invaluable to me the first time I came across it. The whiteboard animation is such a good delivery method. Great stuff. My drive is to help others wherever I can. I have found that this mindset combined with genuine honesty naturally brings people together.
I really like the video because it explains what really motivates us. The video describes how when tasks require conceptual and creative thinking, monetary does not motivate the people to perform better. It first tells how if you do not pay people enough, they won't be motivated. However, it then talks about another paradox: the best use of money as a motivator is to pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table. In order words paying people enough, so they're not thinking about the money but the work. Here we learned that they are three factors that led to better performance and personal satisfaction. The first factor is autonomy which is our desire to be self-directed, direct our own lives. It explained that if you want engagement in the workforce as people are doing more sophisticated things, self-direction is better. So one day of autonomy in a workplace can produce something that had never emerged before. The second factor is mastery which is the urge to get better at stuff. Lastly, the last factor is purpose which is something that inspires and motivates a person. This is where a person wants to contribute to the world to make it a better place with the product that is being created and focuses on this purpose and not on the profit gained from creating the product.
This is not just about the Maslow hierarchy of needs, and I think it accurately reflects my own experience about what motivates knowledge workers. Speaking for myself, I am most highly motivated when working on my own ideas; and Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose are all part of my conscious or sub-conscious motivation. I'm going to do what Atlassian did with my team!
I found this video to be very interesting because it speaks a message. The message is all about the truth behind what really motivates us as humans in the workplace. The three factors that hold the biggest influence on learning about your own employee’s motivations are autonomy, mastery, and purpose. These three factors I find quite interesting because it reflects on humans in a way that others wouldn’t think we are not as endlessly manipulable and predictable as you would think. It also reflects Maslow’s “self-actualization” level in his hierarchy of needs he created because it allows people to worry about things like autonomy, mastery, and purpose rather than things like money. Beginning with autonomy, this is our desire to be self-directed and how would we be in control of that? By self-directing yourself in the most appropriate direction needed to reach the point of mastery. Mastery is the urge to get better at stuff, and then finally comes purpose. Seeing how others work together for a purpose, other than lets say to make profit, makes things so much more awesome.
Paradox of human natures is very interesting. It`s crucial for managers to motivate their subordinates to work harder in order to gain higher earnings. However, incentives such as bonus don`t always work if it comes to cognitive and creative jobs. According to Maslow`s hierarchy of needs, self-actualization is the most powerful desire which is deeply seated in our minds. If managers can successfully encourage our desire for self-actualization, corporations can create earn greater benefits, and contribute the society.
In order to gather more intrinsic motivation we need to balance the following things: 1. competence motivation vs fear of failure 2. performance motivation vs anxiety 3. balance in interest, discovery and inductive learning (your own activity to understand a problem) vs extrinsic reward 4. self-realization vs Identity diffusion (identity-confusion) Anxiety is the biggest enemy of intrinsic motivation, when you _have_ _to_ _do_ things vs when you enjoy doing things. That's why those with the largest rewards performed the worst. Anxiety causes difficulty in handling information and abstraction and weakens intellectual functions.
"I already have my prize. It's the joy of finding things out, the kick in the discovery, and the observation that other people use it. I don't want anything else, I don't need anything else" - Richard Feynman's reaction to winning the Nobel prize for physics.
This video came to me as a shock, learning the paradox that exists between the motivating factors in people. On one side people are motivated by a reward system however that only applies to manual labor and once a barrier of cognitive ability is crossed, the reward system becomes damaging both to the individual and the company. This is why studies like these are incredibly informative and allow us to dig deeper to the generalizations we make in any profession. Business, specifically, requires the study of the human brain to effectively give value back to the world. It is important to put together a successful team so the company produces better results. The way a business is run, why the business is running, and how it will continue to run is all dependent on the people working for the company. If we understand people at a deeper level, we can understand both our employees and our customers better. It’s when we understand your employees where business leaders can accommodate work methods to each individual and use their skill to the maximunimum. This would be the ideal situation, as the video explained, people are also motivated to master their skills. Therefore if each individual is given tasks that are tailored to their psychology and skill they can further master that skill and be an even better asset to the company as well as society.
I don't think these specific videos are animated. You can see the hand move naturally. Animated whiteboard videos are much more obvious - you should know since you actually share/create animated whiteboard videos..
This is great! I love how we grow more awareness about making workplaces a fun places for people to collaborate and reach great goals, instead of just being a cog in a machine ran by greedy CEOs who only care about profits. In the end we know that by having a fun, exciting and collaborative environment, by treating people like people instead of cogs, we can achieve more, create more and in the end have a greater impact and benefit on the world and in turn on ourselves.
Maybe I'm strange and I can't speak for others. I'm not sure I buy into this 100%. I like the idea of autotomy and encouraging people to be creative and contribute their ideas to make the organization great. However, there should be mechanisms in place to allow employees to participate in the company's success and be rewarded them for their individual contributions. It would be very selfish of me to stay at work until 2:00AM every other day, working on cool things, if my family is not allowed to benefit from that in some way. I'm having fun, they get neglected. That is wrong. Those greedy CEOs may be spending the evening with their kids while I'm in the lab. When the fiscal year is over, they may be able to take their families to a fancy vacation, after they get done bragging to their friends in the country club about how they were able to cut costs, increase productivity and get a fat bonus by getting a bunch of nerds to work for free. Companies can get away with that for awhile. But nerds are not stupid, although they may tend to be "not very business savvy". A lot of people don't mind working for free for a good cause. But I don't think many people like to work for free, just so somebody else can make an extra buck. No quarrel with the company making a great profit and the CEO getting a fat bonus. But the individual contributors should be rewarded in tandem with the impact of their contributions.
No big surprise here, where I work we have our most productive and enjoyable days when management is off site at meetings and not breathing down our necks.
Excellent piece. For several years we have maintained that most people who reached respectable levels in their service do not work for money any more. They work for challenge and service. Long ago many theorists have postulated the limits of monetary incentives. In fact it is our duty to make people enjoy work than the consequences of it in terms of money. The fun in life is gone when you assume people work for money classify them and create a caste system of performers using normal curves and incentives. In 1975 itself when we designed the HRD system in L&T Udai Pareek and I designed a system that delinked appraisal ratings given by seniors from incentives. In recent years even Chris Argyris argues that it is extrinsic motivation that devalued people and treated them as though they work only for money. When you focus on intrinsic motivation you have a system that provides autonomy, purpose and many other things as outlined in this video.
How true. When I get incentivised with money for doing good work, it assumes I have a price for my commitment and passion... When I am trusted with autonomy and freedom I am elevated and it places a larger onus on me to raise my thoughts and work to a greater level.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom, I figured this out when I was about 8 years old. And have become a great salesman and innovator. I was able to work for myself for 20 years and just studied everything because I wasn't being forced to. I really couldn't understand why I would learn something and try to help someone else by showing them, "hey look at this it will be good for you". People want to do what they want to do, no matter how much you want to help someone they first got to want what it is you want to help them with. That is possible, but you must frame them once you know what they want and what the need, then don't judge them, but help them see what it is they need and help them get it. Thank you for making this video it is AWESOME! God Bless you.
Daniel Pink's lecture to the RSA should be compulsory viewing for everyone interested in what makes us tick. His research into motivation gives great credence to the theories of geniuses like Abraham Maslow and many others who identify that Purpose, Autonomy and Mastery are essential ingredients for a fulfilling work and home life.
Being the head honcho of a big corporation while following this logic must be outstanding. You're paying people less, getting better results, all while you're taking home even more of the pie for yourself.
+Daniel It doesn't say pay people less. It says take the money off the table by paying them well. For high skilled tasks you have to pay for skill. I think the argument is that basically pay bonus structures don't work to provide more motivation (like what you see in a lot financial institutions). Just pay the salary - 1 monthly payment that is high enough so it doesn't become an issue. Then you just provide autonomy, a common purpose and encourage mastery - and they commit all their skillful energy towards that purpose. This all comes down to the fact we fundamentally want to make a difference. We want our lives to mean something. If we can do that with skills you've spent your whole life building then it gives you purpose and you no longer care about material things. However, only if you're paid enough in the first place. Nobody cares about a purpose that makes you poor. I resonate with this sentiment - I don't care how much I get paid as long as it covers the mortgage, the occasional holiday, the cost of living and it's not taking the piss. I don't care about having the most luxury car or house. Why? because it's an empty purpose and they don't add anything to my life.
I think a hybrid approach is best, where everyone is guaranteed at least enough to survive on. And by that, I basically mean a room with a bed, shower, toilet, and kitchen. This would be optional, BUT if you choose to collect, then you HAVE to do whatever work that the system requires of you, which would probably be non-trivial tasks that the private sector ignores because there's no money to be made. (This would depend on what kind of skills you have, of course. If you have none, then you do shit work.) After your required work is done, you can do whatever the hell you want. I think this meets the needs of both society and the poorest among us who have to work two jobs just to keep food on the table. I worked my way from poverty to middle class - it involved a lot of 14+ hour days, subsisting on Ramen, and sleeping on the floor. Nobody in a 1st world country like the US should have to endure something like that just to get to a point where they don't have to keep themselves awake at night worried about getting sick or having a flat tire. All because their father was a waste of space and their mother was an abusive alcoholic, and so they didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of coming out of high school.
Finally, a video with you can do and here's how that is so awesome and makes perfect sense. People are so into themselves with a position they don't pay attention to anyone else that are lower rung. These lower rung folks was once them fighting to give those great ideas! One day of allowing mass free thinking and sharing ting future business owners etc.
This video is so informative and I've watched it in a lot of my college courses but it's going so fast and my brain is trying to comprehend everything but I literally can't keep up lol
My summary from this video: We tend to think that if we give enough external motivation then performance will increase, but really, when there is a decent amount of external motivation, intrinsic motivation is more important. 3 factors in particular, lead to better performance AND personal satisfaction: 1. Autonomy, allowing people to freely navigate what they should do. 2. Mastery, people are often motivated to become better at something. 3. Purpose, people find motivation when they sense a purpose in what they are doing.
If we end the hierarchy of means and the supply-side model of business, we will free humanity from the paradigm of fight-or-flight economics and realize progress like we have never imagined. We don't need jobs, we need common interests.
I heard this one before. It was a book written during the Indian Wars in the 1800s by a man who had never held a day job in his life and fathered a half dozen bastards by maids he couldn't feed. His beard had more food scraps than a crows nest and his own best friend complained the smell around him was so bad you had to hold your breath when you were talking to him. His name was Karl Marx. Karl described it as "self-directed," but others just called him a "bum" who liked to rape chambermaids.
In the interest of educating anyone else who might read this thread, I'll feed this troll. You've been brainwashed and indoctrinated into the mindset of a slave. Marx wasn't even the originator of the ideas he wrote about, he simply conglomerated socialist ideologies prevalent in his day. He's used as a boogeyman because his name is memorable and capitalist despots of the 20th century (such as Lenin and Stalin) committed terrible acts under the guise of populist movements. In fact, no state has ever been socialist nor communist, no matter what the political leaders called their party. Both of those paradigms require first and foremost that the control of production be the result of the democratic process of those who actually perform labor. No nation has ever used such a model. Russia and China have always been state capitalist. They still have hierarchy, use money, trade internationally and control of resources and production remains in the hands of an elite class that hold wealth which stays in families. Government control of production is not socialism. That said, removal of hierarchy actually precludes central control entirely. There is no government necessary in a technocratic conservationist society. We have the means to provide for every human need for thousands of years if we stop wasting life on supply-side, consumer market chains. Capitalism is just another pyramid scheme.
Ascendant Madness Another secular utopia. I am sure yours won't end in rivers of blood like all those others throughout history. From that crooked timber no straight thing can be made sir.
Technocratic conservationism doesn't involve blood nor battle because there are no leaders nor hierarchy and the only structure it requires is the freedom of information inherent in the internet. The transition can come to fruition through simple things like community gardens. Free people from the need to struggle to put food on the table and we could go miles toward alleviating poverty and hierarchy. The most twisted tree imaginable is rooted in the servant/master paradigm inherent in capital markets. It has failed to produce favorable outcomes for humanity for millennia, yet people who refuse to learn, cling to it because they take pride in being subjugated to the rich man. Cooperation is always superior to competition.
This is an extremely well argumented case for introducing an Unconditional Basic Income that would free people to do all those things that they would do for free, if they weren't obliged to do pointless trivial work just to pay the bills. I note that it also fits well with Paul Mason's recent book on Postcapitalism, that says that there will simply not be enough paid jobs to allow everyone to live decently, but that Wikipedia type projects where people do things because they want to.
+Simon Thorpe Who exactly "aspires" to dig ditches, pick up trash, sweep floors, or put cogs in widgets on an assembly line? "Pointless trivial work" doesn't just pay the bills, it also enables our society to function so other people can sit in air-conditioned offices and muse about being inspired to do "great things". If ensuring unconditional basic income was the solution, then our public schools would be a roaring success. Instead, 50+ years of collectively bargained guaranteed income have produced fewer and fewer high performing teachers and a public education system that churns out mediocrity as predictably as cars on an assembly line. Socialism (in any form) is not the answer because it inevitably demotivates high performers and fails to motivate low performers. The best it can achieve is mediocrity, or as you put it, to "live decently." If we aim at nothing more than to "live decency", then we are truly a nation in decline. If compensation is not primary motivator for "creative" professions, we are essentially saying it is a non-variable in the equation. How then would it follow that manipulating this non-variable (by standardizing it) would somehow drive a higher degree of motivation and thereby a greater result? It's illogical to conclude that manipulating compensation downward, upward or towards a "mean" salary would have any positive impact whatsoever in this equation.
+M McAllister People with low ambition do exist. Not everyone wants to be an artist, musician, engineer, programmer, or designer. Not every janitor hates their job. Maybe nobody wants to dig graves or run the sewage truck, I don't know. I don't think Unconditional Basic Income is the answer, but socialism is better than what America has now. Can people pay their bills on the wages they get doing that menial labor? Do the few unable to find a job deserve no income?
+HiroProtagonest There are plenty of great capitalist ideas out there that could solve much of what you're describing. The answer has never been and will never be socialism. In every country where the experiment of socialism has been tried, it has ultimately failed. You need look no further than the once-great European nations like Greece that are now in economic shambles. Even those that are thriving today are simply banking on future unfunded liabilities. When the pay day comes, they will crash and burn too. Capitalism holds all the cards necessary to solve our economic woes, get people back to work and provide a living wage. It is government social engineering that has brought us this mess. Artificially jacking up minimum wages or taxing the crap out of businesses has only led to fewer jobs and more outsourcing. It fixed nothing and only exacerbated the problem. Turning over even more control to a feckless, bloated and inefficient government is only going to take us down the drain faster. Given the reins back to the people, and prosperity will follow. To be more specific, lower corporate tax rates would bring manufacturing and blue collar work back to this country. A progressive minimum wage (lower rate for minors and "young adults" and higher for older adults or those with families) could bring common sense back to our labor laws and get more young kids working while bringing down overhead costs. This would lead to more small businesses and lower cost of goods -- a win-win for everybody. These are just a couple of ideas. You'd be amazed at the ingenuity of the private sector if the public sector would get out its way.
+Simon Thorpe the video makes a great point about creative or "sophisticated" jobs that require high education, not about tumultuous/manual labor jobs like cleaning a supermarket, or being a cashier. The study is also slightly flawed like most studies. They gave them one day of this exercise (when it was much needed) where they can do anything. This doesn't necessarily mean the same results will be achieved if this was a daily practice at work.
Glad to see motive & purpose originates in the spirit as well as the material. "In the conduct of life, man is actuated by two main motives: ‘The Hope for Reward’ and ‘The Fear of Punishment’." - Abdu'l-Bahá, Baha'i Faith, Paris Talks
Truth is everyone should be paid enough to not worry about money or slightly more. No need for all the excess, it destroys lives. Everyone ends up unhappy, even those who come out making millions most of the time.
Like someone said. Does it really matter is you have a 1 with six 0's or a 1 with nine 0's on your bank account when you die? Once you have a certain amount of money, you don't really need any more. If you have more money still, you reach a point where you can hardly spend all your money in your life at all...
Toby Hackmann Humans are obsessive creature who don't know how to stop. It's why we have a serious issue materialistic people, obesity, and of course, income inequality. Don't know if things will change all that much anytime soon though.
kid equinox actually that's the bases of our constitution. You are free to do whatever you want until it infringes upon someone else's freedom. someone else's pursuit of happiness.
For centuries man flourished in all aspects of life ......Profit was never a motivating factor, personal satisfaction and helping to make a contribution to your family friends and local community meant far more.
Oh man, I was in a huge assignment in cryptography and research led me here (RSA). Now I don't think I can make it without watching all your vids overnight!
I love these animations, and because I love watching them I've remembered this one when writing my dissertation. Coming back to it's really helped my work and I hope I see more of them in the future. :)
Why would you be miserable because you have money? That's not what the video is saying. It's saying that for work that required more thought and creativity, purely monetary incentives don't lead to better performance and often don't motivate people very much. Makes sense to me. It doesn't mean being poor is better than being rich.
WaffleMan I dislike when people state that money is immoral. It's not immoral, it's a simple means of exchanging goods and services between ourselves. Would you rather barter? That's quite inefficient I'd say. People can be immoral, and that immorality shines through certain mediums, sometimes it's drugs, guns, money, etc... doesn't matter the tool. People are the problem in that context. But I do agree with your point that there's much more to life than money or the pursuit of it. Finding something you love to do, something that satisfies you deep down, that gives you real power.
A lot of software at Apache project is done at those paying jobs and the companies pay for it. There is slightly different business model - free testing by the users from the whole world, no obligations for bugs (e.g. no SLAs), ideas from talented people for free. They make pretty good money out of it. Another business model there - professional services for money. OSS is becoming increasingly complex and hard to setup and deploy correctly. I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I do support your point, but it's just OSS part is not that simple.
Neo asked the the oracle, "Am I the one?" Looking pensive she said, "You have the gift, but you seem to be waiting for something." A most telling point. All of us have a gift, but few and far between are motivated to do or are made aware of the possibilities. While building a business, working to support it, raising a family, I wrote 4 books in 2 1/2 years. For example, why is it that some musicians write only handfull of songs while others write 100s, 1000s. Motivation, focus, commitment
This absolutely explains the affliction of overpaid, undermotivated CEOs that infest so many modern corporations; salaries in the 10's of millions of dollars or more, more money than anyone could ever spend, yet the companies they manage continue to slide into the pits of stagnation. They fail to innovate, fail to motivate, and sometimes even struggle to profit, because their success has no correlation to the success of the business they run. They literally have no reason to care how good of a job they do, or how good other people perceive them to be at their job.
The fact is that as a global species we're only getting to the point where finding a job in order to attain basic necessities for survival no longer motivates a a vast majority of the population. In some of the more progressive countries, politics is already turning away from "maximizing profits for the wealthy" to "maximizing the standard of living and synergy of all citizens, including through investment". The real takeaway message from this video as I see it is that classical capitalism is based on ideas about human nature which are only half true, and the values that our political and economic institutions operate need to be updated to allow for the other half of human nature to shine through: value, meaning, purpose, mastery, community, culture. The new political economy will include classical capitalism but also showcase all the non-material things which make us human, things which have sometimes been mocked by various names and discredited ad hominem by those who benefit by lying to the masses.
***** I've had this same thought for a while and in a much more broader and general sense. It's not just technology. Slowly, people may start to realize this but can you really achieve true technological progress, or any pure form of progress with the society we have today? I think the answer is no, changes that are required for this are too radical for the current system so it's going to take something miraculous to change it.
This video about motivation is really insightful for managers because it shows how to best motivate their subordinates. Before watching this video, I assumed that a higher monetary incentive would lead to higher motivation and performance. I was very surprised to learn that this motivation technique does not work if the manager is expecting their workers to do tasks that are above a rudimentary cognitive level. The video shows that the best way to motivate people is to give them autonomy. When managers allow their employees to do what they want and how they want to do it, employees will become extremely self-motivated. This concept ties back to the Catholic Social Teaching of subsidiarity, which is the teaching that decisions in an organization should be made at the lowest appropriate level. This method improves the manager's life and the employee's life. Another important method to motivate employees is to set a clear vision and mission for the organization. Employees will be more motivated to do a good job if they feel like their work is making a difference. This video also calls attention to the fact that employees need to have some internal motivation to become masters at what they are doing.
First discussed over 60 years ago in the landmark essays by Frederick Brooks, The Mythical Man-Hour and the Mythical Man-Month. If after 60 years people are still proclaiming it to be an amazing discovery each week and almost nobody manages their company along these principles (except for the 5% of remarkably successful ones) is it safe to say that humans are utterly incapable of learning? People seem to either understand these things instinctively (many of the world's greatest software firms started their operations from day one according to these ideas) or they never understand them, ever ... even if they watch ten thousand TH-cam videos on the subject. The research shows what hackers have always known in their gut. People are born with animal capacity or they aren't. If they aren't they will never really get it. Successful software companies don't have cubicles from the beginning. They always had private offices from the very first day. Cubicles are for sociopaths and psychopaths who force their way into management when the company goes into the decline phase many years later after becoming too successful for their own good. These idiots put in cubicles, have a dress code that forbids comfort of any kind and start pointing surveillance cameras at all employees around the clock. Then they go bankrupt and are sold off for pennies on the dollar. I used to try to explain to people why two monitors on your desk can be extremely productive. They ignored me for 20 years. Then two monitors on the desk became a habit somehow as they dropped in price. Most people still don't use them and don't know why they have two monitors. Most human behavior is like this - simple animal habits and unconscious automatic sleepwalking. Some days I am not sure if human beings ever really understand anything at all. Except for that 5% who were just born with the right instincts and problem solving capacity the rest of mankind look like incurable narcoleptics. My work at work is incredibly boring and unchallenging no matter what. My work after work on my own stuff is unbelievably thrilling and rewarding. To release open source software that shows people what is important to you is a great feeling. It feels really nice to make something beautiful and powerful and then give it away to others. As for the so-called "modern" workplace, it looks to me like it has never really changed since the 18th century. It is a backwards, sterile place where they never accomplish anything and they go to enormous lengths to prevent anybody else from accomplishing anything. I just came off a 6 month contract where they never gave me access to source control. You need a strong constitution for the sheer idiocy of many workplaces. Also, opportunists on this thread who believe this has something to do with capitalism don't know it but you make your betters feel weary and drive brighter people to contemplate suicide. This has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with human beings so recently down out of the trees they are not qualified to work in complex technical environments in any capacity. P.S. "Human resources" is an ugly word used by psychopaths who first want to reduce human beings to things before they then kill them slowly or otherwise dehumanize and/or exterminate them. The correct word was always "Personnel." Somebody who thinks the employees in their company are "Human Resources" when they are warm blooded fur bearing mammals probably has got a screw loose upstairs reflected in damage to the frontal lobes or irregularities in their gray matter that make them try to act and talk like robots because they believe it will make them sound competent. Mammals are mammals and robots are not mammals so talking and acting like a robot when you are a mammal just means you are crazy, not robotic.
Just to add for those who don't know - competing with your fellow employees, trying to dominate them and using every opportunity to one up them, a strong desire to prove you are better than the people you work with and taking advantage of their situation to make them feel inadequate is joined at the hip to latent homosexuality in males. This is the reason homosexuals are far more likely to be found in senior management roles and making more money than others in the company. Consistently they will run the best people out of the company, turnover rate will be higher and most of your real quality staff will quietly rotate out to new jobs when given the opportunity. The owners of the company end up paying the last man standing the highest salary because he is the only person left, having driven out his competitors. Don't criticize sociopathy - the fact is that although it is bad for the overall civilisation it is extremely good for the individual sociopath. They come out on top of their fellows biologically and end up with all the opportunities. Unfortunately these same people so likely to graduate to management are organic wrecking machines for all forms of higher social complexity and technical work. This was first discussed in depth and proven by research done by Dr. Lawrence Peters in "The Peter Principle," of which most people have only heard that "people are promoted just beyond their competency" in most organizations. Management and software development would be a thousand times easier if it weren't for these damned humans. Most of them simply lack the correct qualities to ever be good at it but that doesn't stop them from making a living out of it anyway. A good case study is William Shockley, the inventor of solid state electronics. Shockley somehow ended up sharing credit with 4 people who had vanished years earlier leaving him to work largely alone. Shockley was then somehow shut out of his own patents and ended his life a pauper. Meanwhile the other 4 guys who had never actually done much of anything ended up amazingly wealthy off Shockley's work. Sometimes when you read the history of human progress you cannot help but feel the whole fragile system is hanging by a thread. The innovators and skilled technical people get screwed again and again and again and end up with nothing. You might start to reasonably ask if intelligence is even an indigenous trait for Homo Sapiens at all since it appears to be a very strongly selected against trait for the most part. For every Silicon valley millionaire I can name you 5000 other guys with double his IQ and ability who ended up eating from garbage cans and sleeping in a station wagon. Think about it. This problem is hardly a simple one.
What is the solution? Tests that flag sociopaths and keep them out of positions of power and management? Everyone would be better off knowing who is a sociopath, even if it causes a stigma around them. It's not like they'd notice or care anyway what others thought of them.
I don't know, lately I came to think that those "paths" are actually "clan type" people. Anybody outside the clan is prey. Nowadays the individual is the unit of living so then society gets people who are only interested in their own good. But in old times the family clan existed and fought for themselves. Perhaps when the company functions as a clan extension of the self, a manager leader can become a hero entrepeneur, like Steve Jobs with Apple.
rtasha I have heard they can now look at a simple CT scan of the brain and detect the sociopath with 80% accuracy every time. It's like announcing we have a test that can demonstrate a person is crazy and then trying to force the royal family to take it. The Kings and Queens don't want to take your test. They rule by divine right and your test is simply an inconvenience. The people who run the systems in most places are the same people who turn up sociopathic on the tests. That's why you will never see that test applied anywhere. The truth is, in the end the sociopath will always wreck you. Steve Jobs was not a sociopath and neither was Bill Gates. They were extremely competitive and driven to be successes, with a clear vision in mind. The sociopath is not just ambitious or aggressive or driven. They are people who simply want to win, period, by any means - without any concern for anyone else around them. If anything, the biggest critics of Gates and Jobs were frustrated sociopaths who envied their brains and merit. Oracle is a good example. Rather than increasing innovation and reducing socipathic trends in civilization, after a brief flourish at the start of the IT revolution you are now seeing all industries slow down as sociopaths match through the institutions and the "old boy" network seals their control over most companies and markets.
An example of how modern software companies -- from new small startups to large tech giants -- make use of the 3 motivations is by giving coders/developers free time for personal projects. Tends to work well in fostering a positive company-employee relationship, and even fosters creative ideas that add value to the company, itself. That's something I really love seeing: Win-win situation for both parties, go figure =). Also, interesting video content with nice animation.
Variety (mundane tasks sprinkled with exciting new tasks) will carry far also. One piece missing from this is the statement of the "coolness" factor. Developers will work on things they think are on the forefront of technology or better ways of solving old problems with an increased enthusiasm and some people (myself included) just need to brag about things. WITH THAT SAID... The counterpoint (and eventuality of this) is paying EVERYONE the same wage and just let them "do their thing"; removing the worries of basic needs (like money, housing, and food). Some will rise and some will sink (the same as what happens now). Some will discover they don't need to work at all while some will work ad infinitum. The richest 1% will still exist and the poor will still exist. Some will exploit the system and some will protest that others aren't doing "their fair share". Oh, yeah... Human Nature.
Did they ever figure out why people perform the worst when they get paid a lot for intellectual types of tasks? Is it just because more there's more pressure to perform better? It's not like getting paid more is depriving their autonomy, mastery or purpose.
You can really see this during the lockdown: although most people are still being paid due to the Government's furlough scheme, the vast, vast majority of people to whom I've spoken and whom I've seen on the news state adamantly that they're desperate to get back to work. They are bored and simply desire for purpose and the societal improvement that they provide.
@strike6tutorials Yeah, people would go completely bankrupt if they didn't. There would be absolute poverty across the nation and companies would have to fire employees due to a lack of fund, causing unemployment to skyrocket. Economic growth would collapse, so if the Government hadn't provided the relief of the furlough, it wouldn't have been great. Really, you can picture it as basically pretty similar to the dole because people are out of work and receiving welfare benefits as a consequence. The dole's pretty standard and so should this be. (They only paid for 80% of their wages by the way.) It's not their fault and and as I said, many of them would have actually liked to have been working. In order to mitigate the economic effects of coronavirus, this was critical.
I agree, very interesting way to present this material. I've actually had this video reccomended to me multiple times over the past years and never failed to see a little something more each time I watch it.
So my spending endless unpaid hours adding, changing, and searching for new and exciting material (such as this) for my intro to sociology classes makes sense after all?
How about studying why the hell banks and often governments reward failure? RBS bank made £8 billion in losses, they want to hand out 200% bonuses. The home office here in the UK had poor performance, they handed out £6.5 million in bonuses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the whole point of a bonus was to reward success. To motivate people to meet performance targets by offering them a cash incentive. What is with all the rewards for failure? RBS says they have to attract the best talent with cash incentives if they're going to get back on their feet. Well it's quite clear that isn't working, given how badly they are doing despite all the money they're throwing at "talent".
I would think most of are motivated by emotions before money especially when buying. That's why when selling, smart companies like Apple appeal to our desires of fun enjoyment etc. Leaders empower peoples emotions
It is true that motivation usually appears in houses and workplaces because there have tasks that you need to complete, so it forces you to be motivated. Also, the motivation can be anything. It depends on your culture, ethic, moral, structure of your life and other since it influences you to make decisions. I believe that if the motivation does not exist today, then we would not have successful goals. It is the key for us to keep commitment to complete your goals. I truly believe that money does not keep us motivating. Normally, you have goals, which make you to motivate to success. To be clarified, you want to motivate for the money, then you should live with the money without spending. That is silly to motivate for the money or the money makes us motivating.
*It's got nothing to do with "motivation"*. The reason you find that performance in complex tasks tends to drop with increases in pay/reward have to do with the *PRESSURE FACTOR*. When you are paid small amounts to do something complicated, you do not feel much under pressure to get it done well, because after all failure will not result in the "loss" of a large sum of money [the money is not actually "lost", but that which is _not gained_]. When this sum rises however, you feel a greater desire to perform above expectations, since you are itching to gain that money. This INCREASES PRESSURE on you to perform well, at which point you stop thinking about the task and focus on the pressure, and you perform worse. In other words, performance anxiety grips you. With simple mechanical tasks, the routine is much easier. There is not much to actually think about, so you require _less focus_. This means that although you might be under the same amount of pressure, and the amount of mental reserves being sapped by this pressure remain the same, you still have enough left over that you can perform well on the task. It just doesn't require the same level of mental energy as a complicated task. The second paragraph surely lends credence to the notion that people ARE motivated by monetary [or some type of] reward. It's just that less complex tasks are... well, _simpler_ to perform, and thus don't require the same level of mental energy that more complicated tasks do. Hence the same level of pressure [instigated by the same level of reward] do not correspond with performance in the same way in both cases. The *motivation* in both cases [to win the largest possible reward] remains the same, however. What you have to do to test this motivation factor is pick a particular task and then round up a bunch of EXTREMELY SKILLED or competent practitioners, who will not be fazed by the complexity of the task to the same degree as novices. THEN you run the same test, where you are progressively increasing the reward received by the participants. I would be VERY surprised if increasing the pay/reward resulted in a worse performance at that point. This is surely an example of where the researchers have performed a battery of tests that told them one thing, but they have concluded something entirely different.
I've seen this artist (or someone that draws in a very similar style) 'animate' a number of talks and advertisements, and I'm curious where this presentation method came from. It is fun and seems to be really effective to maintain an audience's attention, despite seeming a little juvenile. Anyone know where it came from?
Money has been proven not to be PRIMARY motivator for years. This discussion agrees with: you will be successful doing what you love to do! To the comments below, society improves with education, including the 6 yr old level so video can be applied to better teaching methods. Do you feel better when you are motivated to learn or shamed into it?
I just love this. Keep coming back to it. Also, when you have teens you realize he's right - reward and punishment does not motivate behaviour as others say. It works pretty well for infants and toddlers, and then the human brain starts thinking for itself in adolescence and all hell breaks loose.
doesn't even work then! toddlers thrive on self-direction and mastery....ever watch a 15 month old do the same task over and over? Discipline should be based on love and logic not reward and punishment.
As you can see in the conference "Pursuing Happiness: what works and why", autonomy, mastery and purpose are also the driving forces to activities that lead to long-term happiness.
I'm skeptical about applying this theory, because I suspect it appeals most to, and is applied most by, companies who don't want to pay more. Or maybe it illustrates that IT people are odd indeed. "Purpose motive" rewards don't pay the mortgage.
You don't work for the company I do. When they talk about rewarding people with something other than raises, it reflects the penury of the owner. I've been in the workforce since 1988, and I've worked for 4 companies in that time, and it's been true in 3 of those 4 cases. In the fourth case, the company used cash bonuses as incentives.
They're not saying this as a way to justify companies screwing people over, remember they said it themselves: the best thing you can do in terms of paying somebody is pay them enough to make sure they're not worrying about money. You obviously still were.
Marshymallow I'm not saying anyone "screwed anyone over", either. You apparently inferred that. I am skeptical of the conclusion, and I think it ignores that most businesses will consider the bottom line and look for ways to motivate their staff in ways that do not cost them more money than they have to spend.
Great presentation of culture and leadership in organisations. This adds depth to any leader needing to develop their management skills and for those managers needing to develop leadership.
I still agree with the overall consensus but is it not possible that the reason performance drop in cognitive abilities when the money was in bigger quantities was because of the people would overact react and for lack of a better word would choke? I think the speaker implied this a little when talking about how the money should be out of the person's mind but he didn't really expand on it or make it clear.
My children went to public school and are brilliant.There are parents who lay too much emphasis on schooling substituting what parenting+schooling is the Foundation to personality development.Schooling is important but so is parenting.How many of us are good and involved parents?
Great point! I never posted publicly about this (anywhere), but I left a career about a year ago. I would have gladly taken a paycut in exchange for some recognition or appreciation. The lack of really takes a toll on your body after a few years. Obviously money wasn't an issue if I was willing to take a paycut. I will not allow myself to be put in a similar situation again.
So true, this is why I love going to work! I work at a mobile game studio called Roadhouse Interactive in BC. They pay us enough and give us autonomy for self-directed work.
Working together on something for a purpose (other than just making profit) is awesome. People love to work but they hate to do useless work.
+eXtremeDR Can you please summarize this video for me ?
+Lugain A It's only ten minutes long, just watch it..
+eXtremeDR useless work that adds disproportionately to someone else's profits
+eXtremeDR Which is why robots will be everywhere! They already control our elevators. Soon they will control our cars.
isnt that what 13 years of school is....
wish they showed the entire drawing at the end.
I love the musical analogy. I spend endless time pursuing mastery in jazz (I've started a little too late) and I think am a better business person for it. Being able to work in a close knit ensemble, taking clues from workmates, bandmates, and being able to pivot to various and creative ideas is useful. Plus it's fun. It's fun to do fun things. As John Coltrane said, "Invest yourself in everything you do. There's fun in being serious."
I have found that musical skill and accomplishment is very correlated with strong engineering talent
People are ultimately motivated by love and the desire to live a life of "purpose" that helps to make the world a better place for everyone. Money is not the bottom line in fact money should serve us not the other way around. Glad there are so many people waking up to reality of our true motivating force... love.
This makes perfect sense in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If you make money not an issue anymore is key. If people are worried about money, How they're going to pay the bills and survive, they're not going to be able to focus on cognitive tasks and perform well. "Autonomy," "Mastery," and "Purpose" fall under the "self-actualization" capstone. Money is not as important at that level of motivation.
Always like Maslow
Nice piece. Agreed, the management of organizational behavior research supports the idea that we need both profit and purpose. Profit is the price of getting people to work. Purpose, self-direction and mastery, is what gets them to perform at higher levels. What is surprising is that many people still don't get it.
from the other side if people will think about how they're going to pay the bills and survive, they would earn money too. It calls negative motivation. I remember when my teacher told me that some people motivate theirselves by death. its sad but true
I agree completely souly because people are concerned over their well being and (if they have a family) they will be concerned and keeping their family happy and healthy. Honestly people should be payed enough so they won't focus on getting money but rather focus on completing the work they do and the work they present to be efficient and very nice. We all know organizations and companies want people who can drive their business to newer heights, to be successful, to be better then any other organization, but how can they accomplish that without even concerning the people working FOR THEM, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WORRY FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR LOVED ONES, it's a shame yet very obvious all at the same time...
This has been a post by Leonit Banipalsin, assigned by Mrs. Sheaff from English Class Per.2 Grade 11th.
Actually, not all people work this way. There are dysfunctioned people either by nature or by the influence of environment. Psychopaths/Sociopaths/Narcissists dont think about usefulness, helpfulness before their benefit and power of controlling; and other people (sheep) easily influenced/brainwashed by them will also eventually become the close versions of these psychopaths. Plus close-minded sheep, they're not smart but unwilling to collaborate with others or try to learn things. We end up with a less than 50% population who work the normal way as suggested by these motivation theory. But, the strongest motivation was not EVER addressed: THE BLIND BELIEF, whatever blind belief that brings about super willpower (Gods, idols, superman, fairies, angels, devils, imaginary lover..). This is the ONLY long term motivation, others are just short-term and more of a life guideline.
12 years later & still 100% relevant.
This is really a great short movie.
I have a company and in my factory there was always a big mess. That's mostly because i am really chaotic and you can see that in the way I organize things. So I asked one of my employees what he would change if my company was his. And he had a lot of ideas. So I told him to do what ever he wanted to do. And he couldn't believe me. So the first days he called me twice a day to ask permission for an idea. But I didn't even listen, I told him just to do it. Now my factory starts to get better organized then ever before. This man is more enthousiastic and motivated and working harder than ever before. And I can concentrate me more on my bussiness and not about where to store all my stuff.
I love what you did with this employee. No sophisticated, philosophical stuff, just plain and simple practical empowerment. According to Steven Covey, you liberate a person to think, and you bring out the best in them. Well done - your business will reap the rewards, you will be happy and your employee will be fulfilled.
That is good management!
Did you pay him well? It'd be unfair to give him more responsibility without giving more reward.
Hendy Irawan, I do hope that was tongue-in-cheek, given the content of the video. ;)
Grimmy Grimm Not really. The video says that money isn't the *only* reward. While giving an employee more freedom is its own reward, given the extra responsibility it's only fair there's additional monetary reward.
You could possibly translate this ideology into the classroom by making learning the primary focus rather than grades.
Shabangy Wangy True
Yes. Absolutely! I always show this video to my students during the very first class.
Grades are not like money. Grades motivate by being a marker of mastery, not a resource or reward.
@Crimcon Mask. Depends on how you look at it. Mastery should be the object in itself. Many view grades as the reward which leads to other things (better jobs, money). Hence, getting the good grade becomes the object rather than mastery itself, which would lead students to cheat or to hide their weaknesses rather than bettering themselves.
YES.
I had to watch this for my Ethics class, and i subscribed. I think this is quite true because i am like this. I drum a lot and the only thing i care about when it comes to playing drums is mastery and purpose. I've quite recently got into autonomy. I do want to teach a drumline for free, i just want to teach and see people improve and building people with your inspiration and watching them manifest. It's one of the coolest things ever, and i want to this with anthropology, sociology and psychology.
This is a great piece, especially in the field of development. I agree with your point "Pay people enough money to ensure that they are not distracted by money problem." I also, think that it's good to trust your employees once they have shown their trust, trust them to know what they are doing, avoid micromanage just give deadline, expectation and the objective.
Our motivations to do things are very interesting and challenging at the same time. Many people have different ways of acting towards incentives given at an organization. Motivation is what makes us understand the importance of achieving a goal or a dream. Money is always a good motivator, since many people think that paying their employees a good salary will make them be more focused at work, not having to worry about money issues. There are three important factors mentioned in this video that lead to better performance and satisfaction : autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Autonomy is when people want to be self-directed. This can bring good engagement for a work environment. Mastery is about always trying to become better at something. These are the main factors that lead to better performance and satisfaction in the workplace. On the other hand, we have a motive which is a predominant purpose. A good example could be that companies always need new talent, and that is why they become so successful. New talent brings new ideas, new strategies and new ways of thinking. In conclusion, straightforward tasks work with the reward scheme.But when we have more intellectual and creative thinking tasks, motivators do not work. Furthermore, if we start treating people in a nice way, organizations and work life will flourish and evolve.
I watch this every year or so for the past 10+ years, and the message still stands.
As an aspiring entrepreneur this talk was invaluable to me the first time I came across it. The whiteboard animation is such a good delivery method. Great stuff. My drive is to help others wherever I can. I have found that this mindset combined with genuine honesty naturally brings people together.
I really like the video because it explains what really motivates us. The video describes how when tasks require conceptual and creative thinking, monetary does not motivate the people to perform better. It first tells how if you do not pay people enough, they won't be motivated. However, it then talks about another paradox: the best use of money as a motivator is to pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table. In order words paying people enough, so they're not thinking about the money but the work. Here we learned that they are three factors that led to better performance and personal satisfaction. The first factor is autonomy which is our desire to be self-directed, direct our own lives. It explained that if you want engagement in the workforce as people are doing more sophisticated things, self-direction is better. So one day of autonomy in a workplace can produce something that had never emerged before. The second factor is mastery which is the urge to get better at stuff. Lastly, the last factor is purpose which is something that inspires and motivates a person. This is where a person wants to contribute to the world to make it a better place with the product that is being created and focuses on this purpose and not on the profit gained from creating the product.
This is not just about the Maslow hierarchy of needs, and I think it accurately reflects my own experience about what motivates knowledge workers. Speaking for myself, I am most highly motivated when working on my own ideas; and Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose are all part of my conscious or sub-conscious motivation. I'm going to do what Atlassian did with my team!
This truly makes more sense than the profit motive. I can speak from personal experience, money is the worst motivator anyone has ever given me.
I found this video to be very interesting because it speaks a message. The message is all about the truth behind what really motivates us as humans in the workplace. The three factors that hold the biggest influence on learning about your own employee’s motivations are autonomy, mastery, and purpose. These three factors I find quite interesting because it reflects on humans in a way that others wouldn’t think we are not as endlessly manipulable and predictable as you would think. It also reflects Maslow’s “self-actualization” level in his hierarchy of needs he created because it allows people to worry about things like autonomy, mastery, and purpose rather than things like money. Beginning with autonomy, this is our desire to be self-directed and how would we be in control of that? By self-directing yourself in the most appropriate direction needed to reach the point of mastery. Mastery is the urge to get better at stuff, and then finally comes purpose. Seeing how others work together for a purpose, other than lets say to make profit, makes things so much more awesome.
Paradox of human natures is very interesting. It`s crucial for managers to motivate their subordinates to work harder in order to gain higher earnings. However, incentives such as bonus don`t always work if it comes to cognitive and creative jobs. According to Maslow`s hierarchy of needs, self-actualization is the most powerful desire which is deeply seated in our minds. If managers can successfully encourage our desire for self-actualization, corporations can create earn greater benefits, and contribute the society.
In order to gather more intrinsic motivation we need to balance the following things:
1. competence motivation vs fear of failure
2. performance motivation vs anxiety
3. balance in interest, discovery and inductive learning (your own activity to understand a problem) vs extrinsic reward
4. self-realization vs Identity diffusion (identity-confusion)
Anxiety is the biggest enemy of intrinsic motivation, when you _have_ _to_ _do_ things vs when you enjoy doing things. That's why those with the largest rewards performed the worst.
Anxiety causes difficulty in handling information and abstraction and weakens intellectual functions.
"I already have my prize. It's the joy of finding things out, the kick in the discovery, and the observation that other people use it. I don't want anything else, I don't need anything else" - Richard Feynman's reaction to winning the Nobel prize for physics.
This video came to me as a shock, learning the paradox that exists between the motivating factors in people. On one side people are motivated by a reward system however that only applies to manual labor and once a barrier of cognitive ability is crossed, the reward system becomes damaging both to the individual and the company. This is why studies like these are incredibly informative and allow us to dig deeper to the generalizations we make in any profession. Business, specifically, requires the study of the human brain to effectively give value back to the world. It is important to put together a successful team so the company produces better results. The way a business is run, why the business is running, and how it will continue to run is all dependent on the people working for the company. If we understand people at a deeper level, we can understand both our employees and our customers better. It’s when we understand your employees where business leaders can accommodate work methods to each individual and use their skill to the maximunimum. This would be the ideal situation, as the video explained, people are also motivated to master their skills. Therefore if each individual is given tasks that are tailored to their psychology and skill they can further master that skill and be an even better asset to the company as well as society.
This made me tear up a bit :') a bit of hope in my day for what drives humanity. Thank you for this information.
how big is this freaking board?
Hey Kyle, these videos are called whiteboard animation videos, Drawings are 100% custom but the hand is computerized.
Spread Sheet►→As big as the universe.
I don't think these specific videos are animated. You can see the hand move naturally. Animated whiteboard videos are much more obvious - you should know since you actually share/create animated whiteboard videos..
They used a Surface Hub, which has an infinite whiteboard.
please elaborate!!
these animations are the reason why i watch these videos. they feel so interactive. I love them
This is great! I love how we grow more awareness about making workplaces a fun places for people to collaborate and reach great goals, instead of just being a cog in a machine ran by greedy CEOs who only care about profits.
In the end we know that by having a fun, exciting and collaborative environment, by treating people like people instead of cogs, we can achieve more, create more and in the end have a greater impact and benefit on the world and in turn on ourselves.
Maybe I'm strange and I can't speak for others. I'm not sure I buy into this 100%. I like the idea of autotomy and encouraging people to be creative and contribute their ideas to make the organization great. However, there should be mechanisms in place to allow employees to participate in the company's success and be rewarded them for their individual contributions. It would be very selfish of me to stay at work until 2:00AM every other day, working on cool things, if my family is not allowed to benefit from that in some way. I'm having fun, they get neglected. That is wrong. Those greedy CEOs may be spending the evening with their kids while I'm in the lab. When the fiscal year is over, they may be able to take their families to a fancy vacation, after they get done bragging to their friends in the country club about how they were able to cut costs, increase productivity and get a fat bonus by getting a bunch of nerds to work for free. Companies can get away with that for awhile. But nerds are not stupid, although they may tend to be "not very business savvy". A lot of people don't mind working for free for a good cause. But I don't think many people like to work for free, just so somebody else can make an extra buck. No quarrel with the company making a great profit and the CEO getting a fat bonus. But the individual contributors should be rewarded in tandem with the impact of their contributions.
No big surprise here, where I work we have our most productive and enjoyable days when management is off site at meetings and not breathing down our necks.
Excellent piece. For several years we have maintained that most people who reached respectable levels in their service do not work for money any more. They work for challenge and service. Long ago many theorists have postulated the limits of monetary incentives. In fact it is our duty to make people enjoy work than the consequences of it in terms of money. The fun in life is gone when you assume people work for money classify them and create a caste system of performers using normal curves and incentives. In 1975 itself when we designed the HRD system in L&T Udai Pareek and I designed a system that delinked appraisal ratings given by seniors from incentives. In recent years even Chris Argyris argues that it is extrinsic motivation that devalued people and treated them as though they work only for money. When you focus on intrinsic motivation you have a system that provides autonomy, purpose and many other things as outlined in this video.
Very insightful!! thank you !
How true. When I get incentivised with money for doing good work, it assumes I have a price for my commitment and passion... When I am trusted with autonomy and freedom I am elevated and it places a larger onus on me to raise my thoughts and work to a greater level.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom, I figured this out when I was about 8 years old. And have become a great salesman and innovator. I was able to work for myself for 20 years and just studied everything because I wasn't being forced to. I really couldn't understand why I would learn something and try to help someone else by showing them, "hey look at this it will be good for you". People want to do what they want to do, no matter how much you want to help someone they first got to want what it is you want to help them with. That is possible, but you must frame them once you know what they want and what the need, then don't judge them, but help them see what it is they need and help them get it. Thank you for making this video it is AWESOME! God Bless you.
Daniel Pink's lecture to the RSA should be compulsory viewing for everyone interested in what makes us tick. His research into motivation gives great credence to the theories of geniuses like Abraham Maslow and many others who identify that Purpose, Autonomy and Mastery are essential ingredients for a fulfilling work and home life.
Being the head honcho of a big corporation while following this logic must be outstanding. You're paying people less, getting better results, all while you're taking home even more of the pie for yourself.
+Daniel It doesn't say pay people less. It says take the money off the table by paying them well. For high skilled tasks you have to pay for skill. I think the argument is that basically pay bonus structures don't work to provide more motivation (like what you see in a lot financial institutions). Just pay the salary - 1 monthly payment that is high enough so it doesn't become an issue. Then you just provide autonomy, a common purpose and encourage mastery - and they commit all their skillful energy towards that purpose. This all comes down to the fact we fundamentally want to make a difference. We want our lives to mean something. If we can do that with skills you've spent your whole life building then it gives you purpose and you no longer care about material things. However, only if you're paid enough in the first place. Nobody cares about a purpose that makes you poor. I resonate with this sentiment - I don't care how much I get paid as long as it covers the mortgage, the occasional holiday, the cost of living and it's not taking the piss. I don't care about having the most luxury car or house. Why? because it's an empty purpose and they don't add anything to my life.
I think a hybrid approach is best, where everyone is guaranteed at least enough to survive on. And by that, I basically mean a room with a bed, shower, toilet, and kitchen. This would be optional, BUT if you choose to collect, then you HAVE to do whatever work that the system requires of you, which would probably be non-trivial tasks that the private sector ignores because there's no money to be made. (This would depend on what kind of skills you have, of course. If you have none, then you do shit work.) After your required work is done, you can do whatever the hell you want.
I think this meets the needs of both society and the poorest among us who have to work two jobs just to keep food on the table. I worked my way from poverty to middle class - it involved a lot of 14+ hour days, subsisting on Ramen, and sleeping on the floor. Nobody in a 1st world country like the US should have to endure something like that just to get to a point where they don't have to keep themselves awake at night worried about getting sick or having a flat tire. All because their father was a waste of space and their mother was an abusive alcoholic, and so they didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of coming out of high school.
RSA and RSAnimate are my new favorite source of fresh education. Awesome speakers & subject matter, enriching in so many ways. Thanks for existing!
I stood up and applauded all of you for taking your time and talents to allow bringing out the best of us
Finally, a video with you can do and here's how that is so awesome and makes perfect sense. People are so into themselves with a position they don't pay attention to anyone else that are lower rung. These lower rung folks was once them fighting to give those great ideas! One day of allowing mass free thinking and sharing
ting future
business owners etc.
This video is so informative and I've watched it in a lot of my college courses but it's going so fast and my brain is trying to comprehend everything but I literally can't keep up lol
You can use TH-cam controls to slow it down.
Now I just have to find a way to send this piece of advice back in time 3 years ...
@@TomWonderful HAHA
You can find the original speech at Ted "The puzzle of motivation | Dan Pink "
Dan Pink. The study of motivation. That's him narrating.
Watch his TED talk. It's great!
My summary from this video:
We tend to think that if we give enough external motivation then performance will increase, but really, when there is a decent amount of external motivation, intrinsic motivation is more important.
3 factors in particular, lead to better performance AND personal satisfaction:
1. Autonomy, allowing people to freely navigate what they should do.
2. Mastery, people are often motivated to become better at something.
3. Purpose, people find motivation when they sense a purpose in what they are doing.
¡PLEASE WE NEED THIS IN ALL LANGUAGES! I need it in spanish to show it to my boss
NO RAISE 4 U
If we end the hierarchy of means and the supply-side model of business, we will free humanity from the paradigm of fight-or-flight economics and realize progress like we have never imagined. We don't need jobs, we need common interests.
I heard this one before. It was a book written during the Indian Wars in the 1800s by a man who had never held a day job in his life and fathered a half dozen bastards by maids he couldn't feed. His beard had more food scraps than a crows nest and his own best friend complained the smell around him was so bad you had to hold your breath when you were talking to him. His name was Karl Marx. Karl described it as "self-directed," but others just called him a "bum" who liked to rape chambermaids.
In the interest of educating anyone else who might read this thread, I'll feed this troll. You've been brainwashed and indoctrinated into the mindset of a slave. Marx wasn't even the originator of the ideas he wrote about, he simply conglomerated socialist ideologies prevalent in his day. He's used as a boogeyman because his name is memorable and capitalist despots of the 20th century (such as Lenin and Stalin) committed terrible acts under the guise of populist movements.
In fact, no state has ever been socialist nor communist, no matter what the political leaders called their party. Both of those paradigms require first and foremost that the control of production be the result of the democratic process of those who actually perform labor. No nation has ever used such a model. Russia and China have always been state capitalist. They still have hierarchy, use money, trade internationally and control of resources and production remains in the hands of an elite class that hold wealth which stays in families. Government control of production is not socialism.
That said, removal of hierarchy actually precludes central control entirely. There is no government necessary in a technocratic conservationist society. We have the means to provide for every human need for thousands of years if we stop wasting life on supply-side, consumer market chains. Capitalism is just another pyramid scheme.
Ascendant Madness Another secular utopia. I am sure yours won't end in rivers of blood like all those others throughout history. From that crooked timber no straight thing can be made sir.
Technocratic conservationism doesn't involve blood nor battle because there are no leaders nor hierarchy and the only structure it requires is the freedom of information inherent in the internet. The transition can come to fruition through simple things like community gardens. Free people from the need to struggle to put food on the table and we could go miles toward alleviating poverty and hierarchy.
The most twisted tree imaginable is rooted in the servant/master paradigm inherent in capital markets. It has failed to produce favorable outcomes for humanity for millennia, yet people who refuse to learn, cling to it because they take pride in being subjugated to the rich man. Cooperation is always superior to competition.
Ascendant Madness Tell the truth - you've never been punched in the face as an adult, have you?
This is great!! It's a MUST SEE for every person, no matter her/his age ... Maximizing Purpose!!
Thnks Camilo Aguilar
This Dan Pink video is required viewing for my class on Leadership & Organization at The Catholic University of America
This is an extremely well argumented case for introducing an Unconditional Basic Income that would free people to do all those things that they would do for free, if they weren't obliged to do pointless trivial work just to pay the bills.
I note that it also fits well with Paul Mason's recent book on Postcapitalism, that says that there will simply not be enough paid jobs to allow everyone to live decently, but that Wikipedia type projects where people do things because they want to.
+Simon Thorpe Who exactly "aspires" to dig ditches, pick up trash, sweep floors, or put cogs in widgets on an assembly line? "Pointless trivial work" doesn't just pay the bills, it also enables our society to function so other people can sit in air-conditioned offices and muse about being inspired to do "great things". If ensuring unconditional basic income was the solution, then our public schools would be a roaring success. Instead, 50+ years of collectively bargained guaranteed income have produced fewer and fewer high performing teachers and a public education system that churns out mediocrity as predictably as cars on an assembly line.
Socialism (in any form) is not the answer because it inevitably demotivates high performers and fails to motivate low performers. The best it can achieve is mediocrity, or as you put it, to "live decently." If we aim at nothing more than to "live decency", then we are truly a nation in decline. If compensation is not primary motivator for "creative" professions, we are essentially saying it is a non-variable in the equation. How then would it follow that manipulating this non-variable (by standardizing it) would somehow drive a higher degree of motivation and thereby a greater result? It's illogical to conclude that manipulating compensation downward, upward or towards a "mean" salary would have any positive impact whatsoever in this equation.
Not as good as A Whole New Mind. download mp3 version @ tinyurl . com \ oh48vu7 . delete spaces.
+M McAllister People with low ambition do exist. Not everyone wants to be an artist, musician, engineer, programmer, or designer. Not every janitor hates their job. Maybe nobody wants to dig graves or run the sewage truck, I don't know. I don't think Unconditional Basic Income is the answer, but socialism is better than what America has now. Can people pay their bills on the wages they get doing that menial labor? Do the few unable to find a job deserve no income?
+HiroProtagonest There are plenty of great capitalist ideas out there that could solve much of what you're describing. The answer has never been and will never be socialism. In every country where the experiment of socialism has been tried, it has ultimately failed. You need look no further than the once-great European nations like Greece that are now in economic shambles. Even those that are thriving today are simply banking on future unfunded liabilities. When the pay day comes, they will crash and burn too. Capitalism holds all the cards necessary to solve our economic woes, get people back to work and provide a living wage. It is government social engineering that has brought us this mess.
Artificially jacking up minimum wages or taxing the crap out of businesses has only led to fewer jobs and more outsourcing. It fixed nothing and only exacerbated the problem. Turning over even more control to a feckless, bloated and inefficient government is only going to take us down the drain faster. Given the reins back to the people, and prosperity will follow.
To be more specific, lower corporate tax rates would bring manufacturing and blue collar work back to this country. A progressive minimum wage (lower rate for minors and "young adults" and higher for older adults or those with families) could bring common sense back to our labor laws and get more young kids working while bringing down overhead costs. This would lead to more small businesses and lower cost of goods -- a win-win for everybody. These are just a couple of ideas. You'd be amazed at the ingenuity of the private sector if the public sector would get out its way.
+Simon Thorpe the video makes a great point about creative or "sophisticated" jobs that require high education, not about tumultuous/manual labor jobs like cleaning a supermarket, or being a cashier. The study is also slightly flawed like most studies. They gave them one day of this exercise (when it was much needed) where they can do anything. This doesn't necessarily mean the same results will be achieved if this was a daily practice at work.
That was one of the most useful 10 minutes in my entire life
I wish more economists would be honest when it comes to the myths about the profit motive.
I know! And maybe admit socialism is on to something lol
Glad to see motive & purpose originates in the spirit as well as the material.
"In the conduct of life, man is actuated by two main motives: ‘The Hope for Reward’ and ‘The Fear of Punishment’." - Abdu'l-Bahá, Baha'i Faith, Paris Talks
watched this on my moms recomendation. thanks mom
Truth is everyone should be paid enough to not worry about money or slightly more. No need for all the excess, it destroys lives. Everyone ends up unhappy, even those who come out making millions most of the time.
Well said.
Like someone said. Does it really matter is you have a 1 with six 0's or a 1 with nine 0's on your bank account when you die? Once you have a certain amount of money, you don't really need any more. If you have more money still, you reach a point where you can hardly spend all your money in your life at all...
Toby Hackmann Humans are obsessive creature who don't know how to stop. It's why we have a serious issue materialistic people, obesity, and of course, income inequality. Don't know if things will change all that much anytime soon though.
kid equinox freedom is to stop where someone else's freedom starts.
kid equinox actually that's the bases of our constitution. You are free to do whatever you want until it infringes upon someone else's freedom. someone else's pursuit of happiness.
What I like about these videos is that it reminds me of a sarcastic person asking" what? Do I need to draw it out for you ?" Yes. Yes you do!
What a refreshing outlook on a tired and often mismanaged subject.
i dont understand anything from what the speaker said, but the drawings are absolutely masterpieces!
+kyle lance Yep!
For centuries man flourished in all aspects of life ......Profit was never a motivating factor, personal satisfaction and helping to make a contribution to your family friends and local community meant far more.
Funny that the animator wrote "destructive" when the narrator said "disruptive". :)
Oh man, I was in a huge assignment in cryptography and research led me here (RSA). Now I don't think I can make it without watching all your vids overnight!
#Motivation
PURPOSE-driven rather than PROFIT-driven.
I love these animations, and because I love watching them I've remembered this one when writing my dissertation. Coming back to it's really helped my work and I hope I see more of them in the future. :)
as an unemployed person i really like this. i would rather live poor and with purpose than rich and miserable.
why?
Why would you be miserable because you have money? That's not what the video is saying. It's saying that for work that required more thought and creativity, purely monetary incentives don't lead to better performance and often don't motivate people very much.
Makes sense to me. It doesn't mean being poor is better than being rich.
im just stating that life is not fulfilled by money but by deeper desires with more moral and or emotional value
WaffleMan I dislike when people state that money is immoral. It's not immoral, it's a simple means of exchanging goods and services between ourselves. Would you rather barter? That's quite inefficient I'd say.
People can be immoral, and that immorality shines through certain mediums, sometimes it's drugs, guns, money, etc... doesn't matter the tool. People are the problem in that context.
But I do agree with your point that there's much more to life than money or the pursuit of it. Finding something you love to do, something that satisfies you deep down, that gives you real power.
***** Huh? If you read what I said, you'll see I agree with his attitude on life. There is more to money. I just don't see it as evil.
Now I am older and finding out I might have dyslexia.. this is just GREAT! Thanks RSA! So helpful to focus :)
A lot of software at Apache project is done at those paying jobs and the companies pay for it. There is slightly different business model - free testing by the users from the whole world, no obligations for bugs (e.g. no SLAs), ideas from talented people for free. They make pretty good money out of it.
Another business model there - professional services for money. OSS is becoming increasingly complex and hard to setup and deploy correctly.
I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I do support your point, but it's just OSS part is not that simple.
Neo asked the the oracle, "Am I the one?" Looking pensive she said, "You have the gift, but you seem to be waiting for something." A most telling point. All of us have a gift, but few and far between are motivated to do or are made aware of the possibilities. While building a business, working to support it, raising a family, I wrote 4 books in 2 1/2 years. For example, why is it that some musicians write only handfull of songs while others write 100s, 1000s. Motivation, focus, commitment
This absolutely explains the affliction of overpaid, undermotivated CEOs that infest so many modern corporations; salaries in the 10's of millions of dollars or more, more money than anyone could ever spend, yet the companies they manage continue to slide into the pits of stagnation. They fail to innovate, fail to motivate, and sometimes even struggle to profit, because their success has no correlation to the success of the business they run. They literally have no reason to care how good of a job they do, or how good other people perceive them to be at their job.
Great video and it explains to me why I hate my job so much and have no motivation. I clearly have no choice but to leave and find a new job.
08:08 It gives me goosebumps, that mix of anger and "OPEN your damn eyes!!"
The fact is that as a global species we're only getting to the point where finding a job in order to attain basic necessities for survival no longer motivates a a vast majority of the population. In some of the more progressive countries, politics is already turning away from "maximizing profits for the wealthy" to "maximizing the standard of living and synergy of all citizens, including through investment".
The real takeaway message from this video as I see it is that classical capitalism is based on ideas about human nature which are only half true, and the values that our political and economic institutions operate need to be updated to allow for the other half of human nature to shine through: value, meaning, purpose, mastery, community, culture. The new political economy will include classical capitalism but also showcase all the non-material things which make us human, things which have sometimes been mocked by various names and discredited ad hominem by those who benefit by lying to the masses.
***** I've had this same thought for a while and in a much more broader and general sense. It's not just technology. Slowly, people may start to realize this but can you really achieve true technological progress, or any pure form of progress with the society we have today? I think the answer is no, changes that are required for this are too radical for the current system so it's going to take something miraculous to change it.
my hand would be burning after this much straight writing/drawing...
This video about motivation is really insightful for managers because it shows how to best motivate their subordinates. Before watching this video, I assumed that a higher monetary incentive would lead to higher motivation and performance. I was very surprised to learn that this motivation technique does not work if the manager is expecting their workers to do tasks that are above a rudimentary cognitive level. The video shows that the best way to motivate people is to give them autonomy. When managers allow their employees to do what they want and how they want to do it, employees will become extremely self-motivated. This concept ties back to the Catholic Social Teaching of subsidiarity, which is the teaching that decisions in an organization should be made at the lowest appropriate level. This method improves the manager's life and the employee's life. Another important method to motivate employees is to set a clear vision and mission for the organization. Employees will be more motivated to do a good job if they feel like their work is making a difference. This video also calls attention to the fact that employees need to have some internal motivation to become masters at what they are doing.
This video aged extremely well
First discussed over 60 years ago in the landmark essays by Frederick Brooks, The Mythical Man-Hour and the Mythical Man-Month.
If after 60 years people are still proclaiming it to be an amazing discovery each week and almost nobody manages their company along these principles (except for the 5% of remarkably successful ones) is it safe to say that humans are utterly incapable of learning? People seem to either understand these things instinctively (many of the world's greatest software firms started their operations from day one according to these ideas) or they never understand them, ever ... even if they watch ten thousand TH-cam videos on the subject.
The research shows what hackers have always known in their gut. People are born with animal capacity or they aren't. If they aren't they will never really get it.
Successful software companies don't have cubicles from the beginning. They always had private offices from the very first day. Cubicles are for sociopaths and psychopaths who force their way into management when the company goes into the decline phase many years later after becoming too successful for their own good. These idiots put in cubicles, have a dress code that forbids comfort of any kind and start pointing surveillance cameras at all employees around the clock. Then they go bankrupt and are sold off for pennies on the dollar.
I used to try to explain to people why two monitors on your desk can be extremely productive. They ignored me for 20 years. Then two monitors on the desk became a habit somehow as they dropped in price. Most people still don't use them and don't know why they have two monitors. Most human behavior is like this - simple animal habits and unconscious automatic sleepwalking. Some days I am not sure if human beings ever really understand anything at all. Except for that 5% who were just born with the right instincts and problem solving capacity the rest of mankind look like incurable narcoleptics.
My work at work is incredibly boring and unchallenging no matter what. My work after work on my own stuff is unbelievably thrilling and rewarding. To release open source software that shows people what is important to you is a great feeling. It feels really nice to make something beautiful and powerful and then give it away to others. As for the so-called "modern" workplace, it looks to me like it has never really changed since the 18th century. It is a backwards, sterile place where they never accomplish anything and they go to enormous lengths to prevent anybody else from accomplishing anything. I just came off a 6 month contract where they never gave me access to source control. You need a strong constitution for the sheer idiocy of many workplaces.
Also, opportunists on this thread who believe this has something to do with capitalism don't know it but you make your betters feel weary and drive brighter people to contemplate suicide. This has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with human beings so recently down out of the trees they are not qualified to work in complex technical environments in any capacity.
P.S. "Human resources" is an ugly word used by psychopaths who first want to reduce human beings to things before they then kill them slowly or otherwise dehumanize and/or exterminate them. The correct word was always "Personnel." Somebody who thinks the employees in their company are "Human Resources" when they are warm blooded fur bearing mammals probably has got a screw loose upstairs reflected in damage to the frontal lobes or irregularities in their gray matter that make them try to act and talk like robots because they believe it will make them sound competent. Mammals are mammals and robots are not mammals so talking and acting like a robot when you are a mammal just means you are crazy, not robotic.
reMARKable story.
Seems the cognitive skills of personnel and the domination drive of managers are at odds in the workplace.
Just to add for those who don't know - competing with your fellow employees, trying to dominate them and using every opportunity to one up them, a strong desire to prove you are better than the people you work with and taking advantage of their situation to make them feel inadequate is joined at the hip to latent homosexuality in males. This is the reason homosexuals are far more likely to be found in senior management roles and making more money than others in the company. Consistently they will run the best people out of the company, turnover rate will be higher and most of your real quality staff will quietly rotate out to new jobs when given the opportunity. The owners of the company end up paying the last man standing the highest salary because he is the only person left, having driven out his competitors. Don't criticize sociopathy - the fact is that although it is bad for the overall civilisation it is extremely good for the individual sociopath. They come out on top of their fellows biologically and end up with all the opportunities. Unfortunately these same people so likely to graduate to management are organic wrecking machines for all forms of higher social complexity and technical work. This was first discussed in depth and proven by research done by Dr. Lawrence Peters in "The Peter Principle," of which most people have only heard that "people are promoted just beyond their competency" in most organizations. Management and software development would be a thousand times easier if it weren't for these damned humans. Most of them simply lack the correct qualities to ever be good at it but that doesn't stop them from making a living out of it anyway.
A good case study is William Shockley, the inventor of solid state electronics. Shockley somehow ended up sharing credit with 4 people who had vanished years earlier leaving him to work largely alone. Shockley was then somehow shut out of his own patents and ended his life a pauper. Meanwhile the other 4 guys who had never actually done much of anything ended up amazingly wealthy off Shockley's work. Sometimes when you read the history of human progress you cannot help but feel the whole fragile system is hanging by a thread. The innovators and skilled technical people get screwed again and again and again and end up with nothing. You might start to reasonably ask if intelligence is even an indigenous trait for Homo Sapiens at all since it appears to be a very strongly selected against trait for the most part. For every Silicon valley millionaire I can name you 5000 other guys with double his IQ and ability who ended up eating from garbage cans and sleeping in a station wagon. Think about it. This problem is hardly a simple one.
What is the solution? Tests that flag sociopaths and keep them out of positions of power and management? Everyone would be better off knowing who is a sociopath, even if it causes a stigma around them. It's not like they'd notice or care anyway what others thought of them.
I don't know, lately I came to think that those "paths" are actually "clan type" people. Anybody outside the clan is prey. Nowadays the individual is the unit of living so then society gets people who are only interested in their own good. But in old times the family clan existed and fought for themselves. Perhaps when the company functions as a clan extension of the self, a manager leader can become a hero entrepeneur, like Steve Jobs with Apple.
rtasha I have heard they can now look at a simple CT scan of the brain and detect the sociopath with 80% accuracy every time. It's like announcing we have a test that can demonstrate a person is crazy and then trying to force the royal family to take it. The Kings and Queens don't want to take your test. They rule by divine right and your test is simply an inconvenience. The people who run the systems in most places are the same people who turn up sociopathic on the tests. That's why you will never see that test applied anywhere. The truth is, in the end the sociopath will always wreck you. Steve Jobs was not a sociopath and neither was Bill Gates. They were extremely competitive and driven to be successes, with a clear vision in mind. The sociopath is not just ambitious or aggressive or driven. They are people who simply want to win, period, by any means - without any concern for anyone else around them. If anything, the biggest critics of Gates and Jobs were frustrated sociopaths who envied their brains and merit. Oracle is a good example. Rather than increasing innovation and reducing socipathic trends in civilization, after a brief flourish at the start of the IT revolution you are now seeing all industries slow down as sociopaths match through the institutions and the "old boy" network seals their control over most companies and markets.
That is actually surprisingly interesting.
Thank you, it helped me.
An example of how modern software companies -- from new small startups to large tech giants -- make use of the 3 motivations is by giving coders/developers free time for personal projects. Tends to work well in fostering a positive company-employee relationship, and even fosters creative ideas that add value to the company, itself.
That's something I really love seeing: Win-win situation for both parties, go figure =). Also, interesting video content with nice animation.
Variety (mundane tasks sprinkled with exciting new tasks) will carry far also. One piece missing from this is the statement of the "coolness" factor. Developers will work on things they think are on the forefront of technology or better ways of solving old problems with an increased enthusiasm and some people (myself included) just need to brag about things. WITH THAT SAID... The counterpoint (and eventuality of this) is paying EVERYONE the same wage and just let them "do their thing"; removing the worries of basic needs (like money, housing, and food). Some will rise and some will sink (the same as what happens now). Some will discover they don't need to work at all while some will work ad infinitum. The richest 1% will still exist and the poor will still exist. Some will exploit the system and some will protest that others aren't doing "their fair share". Oh, yeah... Human Nature.
how did they not zoom out and show the whole thing
cauz this is not paper and a real pen :)
Did they ever figure out why people perform the worst when they get paid a lot for intellectual types of tasks? Is it just because more there's more pressure to perform better? It's not like getting paid more is depriving their autonomy, mastery or purpose.
It's like kids getting paid to play with their toys. Kids will lose interest quickly, despite enjoying it before.
This is still one of my favourite videos on youtube.
You can really see this during the lockdown: although most people are still being paid due to the Government's furlough scheme, the vast, vast majority of people to whom I've spoken and whom I've seen on the news state adamantly that they're desperate to get back to work. They are bored and simply desire for purpose and the societal improvement that they provide.
@strike6tutorials Yeah, people would go completely bankrupt if they didn't. There would be absolute poverty across the nation and companies would have to fire employees due to a lack of fund, causing unemployment to skyrocket. Economic growth would collapse, so if the Government hadn't provided the relief of the furlough, it wouldn't have been great. Really, you can picture it as basically pretty similar to the dole because people are out of work and receiving welfare benefits as a consequence. The dole's pretty standard and so should this be. (They only paid for 80% of their wages by the way.) It's not their fault and and as I said, many of them would have actually liked to have been working. In order to mitigate the economic effects of coronavirus, this was critical.
well, this was rather ...enlightening
9:47 I think he says "be disruptive" not "be destructive"
I agree, very interesting way to present this material. I've actually had this video reccomended to me multiple times over the past years and never failed to see a little something more each time I watch it.
So my spending endless unpaid hours adding, changing, and searching for new and exciting material (such as this) for my intro to sociology classes makes sense after all?
How about studying why the hell banks and often governments reward failure?
RBS bank made £8 billion in losses, they want to hand out 200% bonuses.
The home office here in the UK had poor performance, they handed out £6.5 million in bonuses.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the whole point of a bonus was to reward success. To motivate people to meet performance targets by offering them a cash incentive. What is with all the rewards for failure?
RBS says they have to attract the best talent with cash incentives if they're going to get back on their feet. Well it's quite clear that isn't working, given how badly they are doing despite all the money they're throwing at "talent".
I would think most of are motivated by emotions before money especially when buying. That's why when selling, smart companies like Apple appeal to our desires of fun enjoyment etc. Leaders empower peoples emotions
It is true that motivation usually appears in houses and workplaces because there have tasks that you need to complete, so it forces you to be motivated.
Also, the motivation can be anything. It depends on your culture, ethic, moral, structure of your life and other since it influences you to make decisions. I believe that if the motivation does not exist today, then we would not have successful goals. It is the key for us to keep commitment to complete your goals. I truly believe that money does not keep us motivating. Normally, you have goals, which make you to motivate to success. To be clarified, you want to motivate for the money, then you should live with the money without spending. That is silly to motivate for the money or the money makes us motivating.
*It's got nothing to do with "motivation"*. The reason you find that performance in complex tasks tends to drop with increases in pay/reward have to do with the *PRESSURE FACTOR*. When you are paid small amounts to do something complicated, you do not feel much under pressure to get it done well, because after all failure will not result in the "loss" of a large sum of money [the money is not actually "lost", but that which is _not gained_]. When this sum rises however, you feel a greater desire to perform above expectations, since you are itching to gain that money. This INCREASES PRESSURE on you to perform well, at which point you stop thinking about the task and focus on the pressure, and you perform worse. In other words, performance anxiety grips you.
With simple mechanical tasks, the routine is much easier. There is not much to actually think about, so you require _less focus_. This means that although you might be under the same amount of pressure, and the amount of mental reserves being sapped by this pressure remain the same, you still have enough left over that you can perform well on the task. It just doesn't require the same level of mental energy as a complicated task.
The second paragraph surely lends credence to the notion that people ARE motivated by monetary [or some type of] reward. It's just that less complex tasks are... well, _simpler_ to perform, and thus don't require the same level of mental energy that more complicated tasks do. Hence the same level of pressure [instigated by the same level of reward] do not correspond with performance in the same way in both cases. The *motivation* in both cases [to win the largest possible reward] remains the same, however.
What you have to do to test this motivation factor is pick a particular task and then round up a bunch of EXTREMELY SKILLED or competent practitioners, who will not be fazed by the complexity of the task to the same degree as novices. THEN you run the same test, where you are progressively increasing the reward received by the participants. I would be VERY surprised if increasing the pay/reward resulted in a worse performance at that point.
This is surely an example of where the researchers have performed a battery of tests that told them one thing, but they have concluded something entirely different.
I've seen this artist (or someone that draws in a very similar style) 'animate' a number of talks and advertisements, and I'm curious where this presentation method came from. It is fun and seems to be really effective to maintain an audience's attention, despite seeming a little juvenile. Anyone know where it came from?
no... but after 8y.. there may be automated tools that supports to create these designs
Money has been proven not to be PRIMARY motivator for years. This discussion agrees with: you will be successful doing what you love to do! To the comments below, society improves with education, including the 6 yr old level so video can be applied to better teaching methods. Do you feel better when you are motivated to learn or shamed into it?
I just love this. Keep coming back to it. Also, when you have teens you realize he's right - reward and punishment does not motivate behaviour as others say. It works pretty well for infants and toddlers, and then the human brain starts thinking for itself in adolescence and all hell breaks loose.
doesn't even work then! toddlers thrive on self-direction and mastery....ever watch a 15 month old do the same task over and over? Discipline should be based on love and logic not reward and punishment.
2:50 ...he spells "weird" wrong. (he spells it "wierd"). Pet peeve of mine. So much so that I had to comment on it LMAO.
my university made me watch this! ;3
Cual universidad? jajajajaj el Sena papi el Sena.
Me too its awful
I came back 2 years after I first watched this video (aged 14 then)
My understanding of the subject matter has grown significantly from then to now
That yeti has some awesome pen skills
As you can see in the conference "Pursuing Happiness: what works and why", autonomy, mastery and purpose are also the driving forces to activities that lead to long-term happiness.
Wow! Great vid RSA, You should see short psych vid " WTF Bending a Mans Mind " You would love it!
ha ha, alright I gotta admit, that was pretty cool my man!
whoa, that was CRAZY! Thank you!
Excellent work Ian, Heard alot about you lately online. We should work together soon.
I'm skeptical about applying this theory, because I suspect it appeals most to, and is applied most by, companies who don't want to pay more.
Or maybe it illustrates that IT people are odd indeed.
"Purpose motive" rewards don't pay the mortgage.
You really don't get it, do you? 😂
You don't work for the company I do. When they talk about rewarding people with something other than raises, it reflects the penury of the owner. I've been in the workforce since 1988, and I've worked for 4 companies in that time, and it's been true in 3 of those 4 cases. In the fourth case, the company used cash bonuses as incentives.
They're not saying this as a way to justify companies screwing people over, remember they said it themselves: the best thing you can do in terms of paying somebody is pay them enough to make sure they're not worrying about money. You obviously still were.
Marshymallow
I'm not saying anyone "screwed anyone over", either. You apparently inferred that. I am skeptical of the conclusion, and I think it ignores that most businesses will consider the bottom line and look for ways to motivate their staff in ways that do not cost them more money than they have to spend.
In the infamous words of Jerry McGuire, "Show me da money"!!!
Great presentation of culture and leadership in organisations. This adds depth to any leader needing to develop their management skills and for those managers needing to develop leadership.
quien mas esta aqui por el ingles dot work del SENA
jajajajaja parcero si tienes algo de esto me podrias ayudar es lo unico que me falta.
@@juandavidmarquez8021 sorry men yo ya acabe todo :''''vvvv
@@davidmain3257 todos XDD
-JAJAJAJAAJ
SEGURAMENTE TODOS LOS INSCRITOS A EDW4 . PERO MUY BUENA CONTRIBUCION AL TEMA PERSONAL . LA REFLEXION ES MUY VALIDA
I still agree with the overall consensus but is it not possible that the reason performance drop in cognitive abilities when the money was in bigger quantities was because of the people would overact react and for lack of a better word would choke? I think the speaker implied this a little when talking about how the money should be out of the person's mind but he didn't really expand on it or make it clear.
As great as this is or there any sources for this? If so can I see them?
+Czeslaw Morse - His book is called Drive. Has plenty of sources. www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/1594484805
thanks very much!
Funny we have to watch this video for PD and yet we won’t be implementing any of it’s ideas because it has to start at the top. Love the video!
My children went to public school and are brilliant.There are parents who lay too much emphasis on schooling substituting what parenting+schooling is the Foundation to personality development.Schooling is important but so is parenting.How many of us are good and involved parents?
I think there is a lot of sense here but I think he missed 'recognition' as a motivator.
That's actually part of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, wanting to be recognized for some achievement by the group you are a part of. Good point.
Great point! I never posted publicly about this (anywhere), but I left a career about a year ago. I would have gladly taken a paycut in exchange for some recognition or appreciation. The lack of really takes a toll on your body after a few years. Obviously money wasn't an issue if I was willing to take a paycut. I will not allow myself to be put in a similar situation again.
What does RSA stand for?
+Fernando Romera it stands for The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce
I guess RSEAMC was too large to remember haha. Thank you and keep up the good work!
Retarded Socialists of America
And yet you write this comment.... for free??? Bwahahaha ;)
Alicia-Pilar Mogollon ya, bueno... Sería raro que tuviese que pagar por escribirlo, no?
So true, this is why I love going to work! I work at a mobile game studio called Roadhouse Interactive in BC. They pay us enough and give us autonomy for self-directed work.