How Rewards Sabotage Creativity

The best creativity arises from intrinsically motivated individuals – those who are doing something for the satisfaction within the task itself or for the satisfaction from the completion of a task. Intrinsic motivation is driven by curiosity and the desire to make a difference. Extrinsic motivation is driven by the temptation of a carrot or [...]

The best creativity arises from intrinsically motivated individuals – those who are doing something for the satisfaction within the task itself or for the satisfaction from the completion of a task. Intrinsic motivation is driven by curiosity and the desire to make a difference. Extrinsic motivation is driven by the temptation of a carrot or the fear from a stick.

Intrinsic motivation is sabotaged by rewards. It’s almost that simple.

With rewards, the focus is on the reward not on the desire to complete a task or to make a difference. People start to do the tasks for the reward rather than the satisfaction of doing something of value.

Old Psychology demonstrated that animals do things for reward or to get away from pain (the carrot or stick approach). Old Psychology holds when the animal has survival needs unsatisfied (the hungry cat can be tempted but the satisfied cat can’t) and the theory of manipulation by carrot or stick holds true (Skinner’s original work with animals actually only worked when they were frightened and half-starved).

New Psychology is different. Creation Companies are those that are becoming more and more tuned in to New Psychology and New Thinking Principles. A Creation Company will recognise that when a human being has most of their basic needs met, carrot and stick is not as effective as Old Psychology predicts (thought those that would say they are ‘hungry’ for success can be tempted by the really big rewards).

But as Alfie Kohn and now Daniel Pink have affirmed there is very little evidence that rewards improve human performance in the long-term. And the main reason is that extrinsic motivators sabotage intrinsic motivation. Linking pay to performance therefore sabotages long-term performance. The Banking Crisis is an example that partially arose when companies, and individuals, focussed on the carrots and not on the service. Lose sight of the task and you lose sight of the potential disastrous consequences of doing things for the wrong reasons. Thus it is not therefore a question of moderating the bonus culture,  with legislation if necessary, (as Politicians and Business Leaders would suggest) rather the question is how can we abolish the bonus culture.

We need to find mechanisms whereby people benefit from the long-term success of an organisation rather than rewarded for the profit they make on behalf of the company as individuals. We need this for companies to become Creation Companies that produce goods and services for the general good and well-being of people, life and the planet. That do things for the seventh-generation long term and not next year’s wage packet.

If you are a leader and you are not convinced by the idea that rewards sabotage intrinsic motivation (and thus also sabotage creativity and creative thought) then read Alfie Kohn’s “Punishment by Reward” or view Dan Pink’s video on the surprising science of motivation here

Now is the time for leaders to wake up to the fact that much of what we do in the guise of ‘management’ is detrimental to improvement (see here the Seven Deadly Diseases of Management)

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Identifying and Nurturing Personal Creativity

Personal Creativity: what type of person produces creative ideas?
We need to understand that we can all be creative and we can all learn to become more creative.
So what can we learn by looking at the background/opportunities of people who have produced some really big creative ideas? What can companies learn in order to ensure that [...]

Personal Creativity: what type of person produces creative ideas?

We need to understand that we can all be creative and we can all learn to become more creative.

So what can we learn by looking at the background/opportunities of people who have produced some really big creative ideas? What can companies learn in order to ensure that creativity happens in the workplace? I have already discussed some of the factors in a company that allow creativity to happen here.

However are there any personal characteristics that a Creation Company should look for when they employ new personnel? Well it’s not necessarily what we have been led to believe. And this also means that personality type profiles with an ‘either-or’ questioning approach can mislead.

In a landmark study on this subject, Csikszentmihalyi looked at the personality characteristics of ninety-one exceptional people (each of whom had made a difference to a major domain of culture). What he found (here) was that the creative people in his study had complex personalities. ((4) (Csikszentmihalyi   Creativity. Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention  ISBN 0-06-092820-4)

So if the question was “are they introvert or extravert” the answer was both (so this has implications for “old science” personality questionnaires that assumes an either/or approach to personality). What he found was that creative people could be both energetic and restful; smart and naïve; playful and disciplined; fantasy oriented and reality grounded; extrovert and introvert; humble and proud; masculine side and feminine side; conservative and rebellious; passionate and objective and could “suffer” yet enjoy what they did.

Thus for creativity to blossom in the workplace, we need to value complex personality, not expect people to fit into neat boxes. Indeed we need to allow people to “be themselves” and to honour the uniqueness in everyone.

So maybe, upon reflection you have a complex personality. Your ‘personality’ is not the box that some survey or ‘expert’ put you in. Maybe also you are fortunate to work in a ‘creation company’ (ie one that is or is becoming). Then what other factors appear to be important for each individuals creativity to emerge?

Coming Next: The Circumstances for Creativity

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Creation Companies: Apply the principles of New Psychology to Business

Applying the principles of “New Psychology” to Business
Both New Psychology and New Science are underlying themes in this Superblog. Let’s just take a first brief look at what we mean by the terms New Psychology and Old Psychology and next time we’ll look at “New Science”.
The following is adapted from a Paper presented by Barry [...]

Applying the principles of “New Psychology” to Business

Both New Psychology and New Science are underlying themes in this Superblog. Let’s just take a first brief look at what we mean by the terms New Psychology and Old Psychology and next time we’ll look at “New Science”.

The following is adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”

Psychology has always been important in Business

In Business, psychology (i.e. our understanding of, or beliefs about, human behaviour) has always been an important factor in “how we do things around here”. Psychology thus underpins the workings of both the old and new style company paradigms.

The Psychology of Compliant Companies is “Old Psychology” (behaviour that is predicted primarily from studies on starving animals or unhappy or sick human beings).

The Psychology that underpins successful Creation Companies is “New Psychology” where people behaviour is predicted from the studies of animals that were happy and cared for, or from research on human beings that are living happy and fulfilled lives.

Note that nearly all textbook psychology is “Old Psychology” – so you won’t find much about new psychology from standard psychology books.

It is interesting to note that most of our business advisory groups (like Business Link in the UK) still promote business systems based on old psychology and indeed their own organisational structures and processes are rooted in old psychology.

Most Government strategy around influencing business and services is based on old psychology and even most business consultants (including those who profess to be thinking outside the box) are often using “old psychology” techniques and theories.

The following table shows some of the fundamental differences between Old Psychology and New Psychology approaches.

Old Psychology Principles (this includes):

  • (extensive use of) Extrinsic Motivators (Carrot and Stick)
  • People Treated like children (heavy on rules and regulations)
  • External Targets set from above (nearly all are arbitrary!)
  • Blame culture. Whose fault?  Whose head must roll?
  • Visible are many of the Seven Deadly Diseases of Management
New Psychology Principles (this includes):
  • (Mostly) Intrinsic Motivation (very reduced use of punishment or rewards, work not bonus driven)
  • People Treated like adults (owning the work principles)
  • Goal setting by the people  (seeking alignment with the leaders goals)
  • A ‘No Blame’ culture. What happened? What can we learn?
  • Cured, or nearly cured, of the Seven Deadly Diseases of Management
In many ways the Old Psychology is the Psychology of the exceptions – the study of the minority studied under unusual or poor conditions.

New Psychology is based upon understanding how the majority will behave under good conditions. So Old Psychology does hold true under stressful or fear conditions, and likewise New Psychology holds true under joyful and happy conditions.

The New Psychologies embrace ideas like those of Glasser (Choice Theory), Kelly (Constructive Alternativism) and Griffin and Tyrell (Human Givens approach). New Psychology is congruent with Kohn’s research on Co-operation and Motivation, with Dweck’s research on “Self-Theories” and with Deming’s ideas on the transformation of management. (More about each of these Psychologies in later blogs)

Coming Next: New Science, New Thinking and Creation Companies

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Five Working Principles of Creation Companies

Five Working Principles of the Creation Company
The first three principles mentioned in Tom McGehee’s book Whoosh are:
1) a leadership style free from command-and-control principles
2) a corporate culture that values individual expression and collaborative work
3) An understanding that success means creating the new not replicating the old
The two additional principles of those Creation Companies that will [...]

Five Working Principles of the Creation Company

The first three principles mentioned in Tom McGehee’s book Whoosh are:

1) a leadership style free from command-and-control principles

2) a corporate culture that values individual expression and collaborative work

3) An understanding that success means creating the new not replicating the old

The two additional principles of those Creation Companies that will survive for the Long-term is that they learn to:

4) Inoculate themselves from the seven deadly diseases of management which are endemic “diseases” in ‘Compliance Companies’.

5) Apply the principles of “New Psychology” and “New Science” to “how we do things around here”. This includes continually applying new knowledge (as it is acquired) about the brain, the human spirit, learning, and human potential etc

Let’s look at these last two principles in more detail

First, the seven deadly diseases of management? (as outlined by W Edwards Deming)

  • There is a Lack of constancy of purpose.
  • There is an Emphasis on short-term profits.
  • There is Evaluation by performance, merit rating, or annual review of performance.
  • There is Mobility of management (resulting in high staff turnover)
  • There is Running a company on visible figures alone.
  • There is Excessive medical costs (this point is related more to the American Market, but we could reframe this as the cost high costs that companies bare of early retirements and redunduncies)
  • There are Excessive costs of warranty and Litigation, fuelled by lawyers who work for contingency fees.

There are these Lesser Category of Obstacles also mentioned by Deming:

  • Neglect of long-range planning.
  • Relying on technology to solve problems.
  • Seeking examples to follow rather than developing solutions.
  • Excuses such as “Our problems are different”.

Here are three different perspectives on these seven deadly diseases:

  1. csqa
  2. riskmanagementinsight
  3. curiouscat

Coming next: The final principle of Creation Companies: Applying “New Psychology” and “New Science” to the Business

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

What makes a “Creation Company”?

Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”
A Creation Company can be thought of as a place (business) where the work systems, work processes, work culture, work management and work leadership are aligned with people and [...]

Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”

A Creation Company can be thought of as a place (business) where the work systems, work processes, work culture, work management and work leadership are aligned with people and how people work best.

Where such alignment occurs this can lead to extraordinary results.

When the systems do not get in the way of the work, human spirit and human joy and passion unfold.

When alignment happens between people and systems, the work can “flow”, unimpeded by artificial constraints, boundaries, controls or hierarchy.

When the work is aligned with how people like to work, then every person in the business is able to perform at their very best, such that everyone has the opportunity to produce extraordinary results.

When there is such alignment, individuals have a sense of control or influence over the work and a sense of responsible for their own work

The Fundamental Principles for creating a Creation Company

Tom McGehee says there are three fundamental principles for a Creation Company (and ANY company can generate the excitement, energy, confidence, and audacity of the “whoosh” of a Creation Company by subscribing to these fundamental principles):

1)     A  leadership style free from command-and-control principles

2)     A corporate culture that values individual expression and collaborative work

3)     An understanding that success means creating the new not replicating the old

From my personal experience, I would also add two additional principles required for (long-term) Creation Company performance (this makes it five principles in all) and these will be discussed in the next blog

Coming next:  Five Working Principles of Creation Companies

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

On Creating Creation Companies -an overview

Creating Creation Companies
(Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”)
Let’s take a preliminary look at the differences between a “Compliance Company” and a “Creation Company”.  These are terms that I like, that were first penned by [...]

Creating Creation Companies

(Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”)

Let’s take a preliminary look at the differences between a “Compliance Company” and a “Creation Company”.  These are terms that I like, that were first penned by Tom McGehee in his book Whoosh.

Today a key business challenge is to recognise and realise the full potential of each organisation. However when we continue to lead and manage our organisations in the same way as we have always done, we are going to get what we have always got. The call to lead and manage in a totally different way – to transform “western management”- was first issued by W.Edwards Deming. Many have cherry-picked from Deming’s ideas but few have attempted to transform management along the lines that he proposed.

Most organisations continue to be run in “the old ways” based on “old psychology”,“old science” and “old management” principles (each of these terms will be explored more fully in later blogs). As Russell Ackoff pointed out a few years ago, most business schools are part of the problem because they still teach “old way” approaches.  However more and more iconoclasts of our era, from different fields and domains, are backing the need to transform management thinking. Tom McGehee is one of many calling for a change in our thinking. He calls the transformed organisation a  “Creation Company” and the old-style organisation a “Compliance Company” – terms that I will use also.

Compliance Companies, whether they realise this or not, erect barriers to change and innovation by insisting on control of (1)information, (2)resources and (3)decision making, in order to preserve the status quo. In such companies (which remain the vast majority) people have never been trusted to supervise themselves and inspect their own work. People are never able to do their best efforts because the management systems get in the way.

Coming Next: So what makes a “Creation Company”?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...