💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 6462.gmi captured on 2023-12-28 at 18:06:13. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)

➡️ Next capture (2024-05-10)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

What Motivates Employees More: Rewards or Punishments?

2017-09-28 13:28:09

Tali Sharot

September 26, 2017

The 18th-century polymath Jeremy Bentham once wrote, Pain and pleasure govern

us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think. Modern neuroscience strongly

supports Bentham s intuition. The brain s limbic system, which is important for

emotion and motivation, projects to the rest of the brain, influencing every

aspect of our being, from our ability to learn, to the people we befriend, to

the decisions we make.

It is not surprising, then, that when we attempt to motivate people, we try to

elicit an anticipation of pleasure by promising rewards (for example, a bonus,

a promotion, positive feedback, public recognition), or we try to warn of the

pain of punishment (a demotion, negative feedback, public humiliation). But

what s not always clear is: Which should we be using the promise of carrots

or the threat of sticks? And when?

A study conducted at a New York state hospital provides some answers. The goal

of the study was to increase the frequency by which medical staff washed their

hands, as sanitization in medical settings is extremely important for

preventing the spread of disease. The medical staff is repeatedly made aware of

this, and warning signs about the consequences of unsanitized hands are often

placed alongside sanitization gel dispensers. Yet cameras installed to monitor

every sink and hand sanitizer dispenser in the hospital s intensive care unit

revealed that only 10% of medical staff sanitized their hands before and after

entering a patient s room. This was despite the fact that the employees knew

they were being recorded.

Then an intervention was introduced: An electronic board was placed in the

hallway of the unit that gave employees instant feedback. Every time they

washed their hands the board displayed a positive message (such as Good job! )

and the current shift s hand-hygiene score would go up. Compliance rates rose

sharply and reached almost 90% within four weeks, a result that was replicated

in another division in the hospital.

Why did this intervention work so well? The answer provides a general lesson

that goes beyond hand washing.

The brilliance of the electronic board was that, instead of using the threat of

spreading disease, the common approach in this situation, the researchers chose

a positive strategy. Every time a staff member washed their hands, they

received immediate positive feedback. Positive feedback triggers a reward

signal in the brain, reinforcing the action that caused it, and making it more

likely to be repeated in the future.

But why would inconsequential positive feedback be a stronger motivator than

the possibility of spreading disease? This may seem odd, but it fits well with

what we know about the human brain.

Neuroscience suggests that when it comes to motivating action (for example,

getting people to work longer hours or producing star reports), rewards may be

more effective than punishments. And the inverse is true when trying to deter

people from acting (for example, discouraging people from sharing privileged

information or using the organization s resources for private purposes) in

this case, punishments are more effective. The reason relates to the

characteristics of the world we live in.

To reap rewards in life, whether it is a piece of cherry pie, a loved one, or a

promotion, we usually need to act, to approach. So our brain has evolved to

accommodate an environment in which often the best way to gain rewards is to

take action. When we expect something good, our brain initiates a go signal.

This signal is triggered by dopaminergic neurons deep in the mid-brain that

move up through the brain to the motor cortex, which controls action.

In contrast, to avoid bad things poison, deep waters, untrustworthy people

we usually simply need to stay put, to not reach out. So our brain has evolved

to accommodate an environment in which often (though not always) the best way

to not get hurt is to avoid action altogether. When we anticipate something

bad, our brain triggers a no go signal. These signals also originate in the

mid-brain and move up to the cortex, but unlike go signals, they inhibit

action, sometimes causing us to freeze altogether. (Even in situations where

real danger is imminent, the freeze response often precedes the fight-or-flight

response that may follow it, like a deer in the headlights.)

This asymmetry partially explains why electronic positive feedback was more

successful at motivating the medical staff to wash their hands than the threat

of illness to themselves and others. There are a number of other reasons too,

such as social incentives, that I uncovered when researching and writing my

book.

Other work demonstrates how we are biologically wired such that anticipating

rewards elicits action. In an experiment led by neuroscientist Marc

Guitart-Masip, which I and others collaborated on, we found that volunteers

were quicker to press a button (that is, to act) when we offered them a dollar

(anticipating a reward) than they were to press a button to avoid losing a

dollar (anticipating punishment). However, they did a better job when they were

asked not to press buttons (to not act) to avoid losing a dollar than they did

when we offered them a dollar in return. In the latter case they sometimes

instinctively pressed the button.

While we should be cautious translating such basic research to real-world

situations, it would seem that creating positive anticipation in others

(perhaps with a weekly acknowledgment of the most productive employee on the

company website) may be more effective at motivating action than threatening

poor performance with a demotion or pay cut. Fear and anxiety can cause us to

withdraw and give up rather than take action and improve. In line with this

notion, studies have shown that giving people small monetary rewards for

exercising or eating healthily was more effective at changing behavior than

warning of obesity and disease.

There is another reason why warnings often have limited impact. Our research

has shown that the brain encodes positive information (such as learning that

the likelihood of obesity is lower than previously thought) better than

negative information (such as learning it is higher). In fact, people often

assume negative information is unrelated to them, but view positive information

as very much relevant, which generates an optimistic outlook.

When we notice others making suboptimal decisions, we automatically fast

forward in our heads and visualize their failure, leading us to warn them about

the devastation we envision. But what the research here suggests is that we

need to consciously overcome our habit of trying to scare people into action,

and instead highlight the rewards that come with reaching our goals.

Tali Sharot is an associate professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at University

College London, director of the Affective Brain Lab, and the author most

recently of The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals About Our Power to

Change Others.