The Secret of Effective Motivation
Article by: Amy Wrzesniewski & Barry Schwartz.
THERE
are two kinds of motive for engaging in any activity: internal and
instrumental. If a scientist conducts research because she wants to
discover important facts about the world, that’s an internal motive,
since discovering facts is inherently related to the activity of
research. If she conducts research because she wants to achieve
scholarly renown, that’s an instrumental motive, since the relation
between fame and research is not so inherent. Often, people have both
internal and instrumental motives for doing what they do.
What mix of motives — internal or instrumental or both — is most conducive to success? You might suppose that a scientist motivated by a desire to discover facts and by
a desire to achieve renown will do better work than a scientist
motivated by just one of those desires. Surely two motives are better
than one. But as we and our colleagues argue in a paper newly published
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, instrumental
motives are not always an asset and can actually be counterproductive to
success.
We
analyzed data drawn from 11,320 cadets in nine entering classes at the
United States Military Academy at West Point, all of whom rated how much
each of a set of motives influenced their decision to attend the
academy. The motives included things like a desire to get a good job
later in life (an instrumental motive) and a desire to be trained as a
leader in the United States Army (an internal motive).
How did the cadets fare, years later? And how did their progress relate to their original motives for attending West Point?
We
found, unsurprisingly, that the stronger their internal reasons were to
attend West Point, the more likely cadets were to graduate and become
commissioned officers. Also unsurprisingly, cadets with internal motives
did better in the military (as evidenced by early promotion
recommendations) than did those without internal motives and were also
more likely to stay in the military after their five years of mandatory
service — unless (and this is the surprising part) they also had strong instrumental motives.
Remarkably,
cadets with strong internal and strong instrumental motives for
attending West Point performed worse on every measure than did those
with strong internal motives but weak instrumental ones. They were less
likely to graduate, less outstanding as military officers and less
committed to staying in the military.
The
implications of this finding are significant. Whenever a person
performs a task well, there are typically both internal and instrumental
consequences. A conscientious student learns (internal) and gets good
grades (instrumental). A skilled doctor cures patients (internal) and
makes a good living (instrumental). But just because activities can have
both internal and instrumental consequences does not mean that the people who thrive in these activities have both internal and instrumental motives.
Our
study suggests that efforts should be made to structure activities so
that instrumental consequences do not become motives. Helping people
focus on the meaning and impact of their work, rather than on, say, the
financial returns it will bring, may be the best way to improve not only
the quality of their work but also — counter-intuitive though it may
seem — their financial success.
There
is a temptation among educators and instructors to use whatever
motivational tools are available to recruit participants or improve
performance. If the desire for military excellence and service to
country fails to attract all the recruits that the Army needs, then
perhaps appeals to “money for college,” “career training” or “seeing the
world” will do the job. While this strategy may lure more recruits, it
may also yield worse soldiers. Similarly, for students uninterested in
learning, financial incentives for good attendance or pizza parties for
high performance may prompt them to participate, but it may result in
less well-educated students.
The
same goes for motivating teachers themselves. We wring our hands when
they “teach to the test” because we fear that it detracts from actual
educating. It is possible that teachers do this because of an over
reliance on accountability that transforms the instrumental consequences
of good teaching (things like salary bonuses) into instrumental
motives. Accountability is important, but structured crudely, it can
create the very behavior (such as poor teaching) that it is designed to
prevent.
Rendering
an activity more attractive by emphasizing both internal and
instrumental motives to engage in it is completely understandable, but
it may have the unintended effect of weakening the internal motives so
essential to success.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/the-secret-of-effective-motivation.html?_r=0