Altruism
I found the third article “The Power of Altruism” to be
really interesting. In every example but one that David Brooks, the author,
givers there is only a mechanism meant to dissuaded a certain behave and not
one meant to encourage. In every example that he gives there is only one
mechanism involved. This mechanism is meant to either dissuade or to encourage.
Each example does not provide the carrot and the stick. It either provides the
carrot OR the stick. This strikes me as incomplete. In the two “stick” examples
the people involved are given a mandate. You will be punished if you have
already taken 15 sick days and you take another, or you will be punished if you
do not pick up your kids. In both of these cases the participants are not give
an incentive. Brooks says that “arrangements that arouse the financial lens
alone are messing everything up.” I do
not think that this is true. I think the major problem with all of these example
is that the mechanisms do not fit with the pre-established rule of each scenario.
The parents, kids, and firemen were used to an altruistic system. Then an additional
rule is added that is not only incomplete (lacking the tradition carrot AND
stick) but also does not fit with the pre-established system. The additional
rule is after all built around a financial system. People would find it odd if a non-for-profit
volunteer had to pay a fine every time they were a few minutes late to work. Just
like people would find it odd if people started asking for donation on the
floor of the stock exchange. I think that moral motivation and financial
motivation both work. The problem is when you try to combine tactics from one
and add them to the other.
I have taken classes where if a student shows up they get
extra credit. I have also taken classes where if a student misses more than a
certain number of classes they will lose a percentage point from their final
letter grade per class they miss. In every one of these cases a student is
already incentives to go to class. This could be for a number of reasons, but
for the sake of simplicity I am going to say that a student goes to class solely
to increase their human capital. In my experience, both of these methods are
effective, to some degree, at gets students to go to class. Extra credit and a loss of percentage point
are both financial additions to a system that is bases in financial
motivations. This means that when an additional mechanism is added the
participants are already “playing the game”. This is very different from what
Brooks describes. In all three of the examples that Brooks gives the “game” was
initially altruistic, the mechanism changes the “game” from moral to financial.
I think that this is the major reason that the mechanisms that Brooks describes
fail. The mechanism changes the situation without providing the necessary
foundation for it to work. I do not think that financial motivation is
inherently inferior to moral motivation. I do think that both can be effective
if they are used in the right situation.
Let me say that I often think David Brooks gets the social science wrong, and he is very preachy in how he writes his pieces. Nonetheless, I thought this piece not bad in terms of conveying the message.
ReplyDeleteIt is good to frame the issue as starting with the status quo, noting how people behave then, and considering how changes in the environment that should influence the status quo impact behavior. To give a very simple example of this, until this past week we had course surveys about most, but not all class sessions. And there was a bonus points scheme for completing the survey, which were available to any student who had attended the session. (So attendance was being indirectly rewarded.) This past week I changed things. Now there is a tab on the Class site with form for students to comment on a class session, but there are no bonus points from doing so. Attendance hasn't been impacted by this change. But no student has yet to comment via the form.
I think you are over reading Brooks on the the value of economic incentives. He is really focusing on where altrusim is already expected (that's the status quo) and considering the introduction of economic incentives into that environment. That's one case where they can backfire.
I will be posting something to the class site soon about the relationship between economic incentives and intrinsic motivation. It is similar. If the intrinsic motivation is already there, bringing economic incentives into the story can adversely impact performance. This is one reason why movie stars and pro athletes have agents. The agent can worry about the economic incentives so the performer can focus on performance. This system persists even if the agent takes quite a big cut out of the ultimate contract.
I liked how you linked students association to going to class to increase human capital. However, realistically speaking I believe the main emphasis is on the marks itself. However for your example it is a good assumption to make. I feel the type of motivation to influence performance depends on the person. Hence, I feel a good manager will respectively use motivation techniques depending on the employee.
ReplyDelete