“There’s a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.” Daniel Pink at TED Talks 2009
According to Dan, what science knows is that when people are offered rewards for simple, structured tasks results improve. But, when rewards are offered for tasks that are conceptual they have a negative impact on performance.
What business does, especially American business, is almost uniformly attempt to motivate staff through monetary incentives.
The alternative? Intrinsic rewards: Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose.
This video was an introduction to Dan’s new book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. I just ordered my copy.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=25f498a2-a354-4e2f-99cb-2e87c0965a07)
Incetives work well in the very short term, which means you have to keep creating, managing, monitoring, implementing, and tracking them. Not only is their actual impact suspect and open to debate, they also create an enormous cost that only grows when they are done poorly. Are precious resources better spent managing incentive programs, or creating environments where high performance occurs naturally?