Want to Increase Motivation? Step 1: Stop Crushing Spirits
Team leaders often think about ways they can increase motivation – but little thought goes into how they might be killing it.
Dan Ariely is the James B Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University. He is the founder of The Center for Advanced Hindsight and co-founder of BEworks, which helps business leaders apply scientific thinking to their marketing and operational challenges. His books include Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, both of which became New York Times best-sellers. as well as The Honest Truth about Dishonesty and his latest, Irrationally Yours.
Ariely publishes widely in the leading scholarly journals in economics, psychology, and business. His work has been featured in a variety of media including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Business 2.0, Scientific American, Science and CNN.
Dan Ariely: So the first lesson is don’t kill motivation. You know businesses are often not about just increasing it, it is by stop decreasing it. I’ll tell you a story I gave a talk at a company in Seattle a few years ago. It’s a big software company and I was giving a talk and I was in this room with 200 really depressed engineers talking to them. It turns out they were working on whatever the next version of the – they were working on something really important and big for that company and the week before I showed up the CEO of the company came to them and canceled the project. And they were incredibly devastated. This was a group that worked for two years on something that they felt would be the next great thing for that company and the week before he just canceled it. And they did not show up on time. They were just devastated. They were just morally devastated and by the way after that many of them just left the company. They were very good people. They were just so demoralized. And I asked them I said okay, let’s just assume the CEO had to cancel the project. Let’s assume he had to cancel for whatever reason. Let’s not question that.
What could the CEO have done not to get you to be so depressed? And they came up with all kinds of ideas. They said what if he allowed them to make a few working prototypes and distribute them within the company for a few years. Just kind of see what people do with them. They say what if he allowed them to take parts of this new technology that we’re developing and see which parts will be useful in other parts of the organization, right, have some kind of leftovers from the project. They said what if you would allow them to do a workshop for the whole company to show them the journey of the last two years. What they’ve accomplished, what they’ve learned, what they struggled with, what they figured out. And the thing about all of those suggestions, all of them would have needed some time, money and effort, right. And if the CEO thinks that those people are just like rats in a cage he said oh, I told you to go this way, you went this way. Now I want to go somewhere else. I’ll close that gate. I’ll tell you to go somewhere else. Then you don’t need to worry about motivation. But if you understand that motivation is incredibly important then you say how do we get these people who have invested a lot I this and how we don’t just crush their spirits. But what he did was to crush their spirits. So lesson number one is stop crushing people’s spirit. And, you know, it might seem like a ridiculous obvious thing to do but if you look at lots of companies you’ll see lots of places where not because people intend to do harm but just because we don’t truly appreciate where meaning comes to life.
We do lots of those things. We get people to start projects and we cut it in the middle. We get people to prepare presentations and they never get delivered. We do all kinds of things that eliminate motivation. Imagine we were doing this little video segment and we knew all along there’s a good chance it will never see the light of day. It will just never be posted or anything like it. A black hole where it’s being posted and nobody, nobody, nobody will see it. How exciting would that be. You know lots of people are working in an environment like that. Now the more important question is how do we get people to be, you know, get more motivation, not just stop decreasing motivation but increasing the sense of meaning. Lots of ways to do it and maybe the best example is to think about the open source community. One of the things that happened in the open source community is that there was a legal advance where they basically agreed that everybody who writes a piece of code their name would always be connected to it. Now you can say who cares. People care. If your name is connected to a piece of code you’re going to maintain that piece of code forever. There was a period in time where people were worried about getting open source software. They said who’s going to maintain it? If your name is connected to it you’re going to maintain it. And indeed people maintain all kinds of software in all kinds of unlikely events.
And people invest in it and knowing that if I create something and other people build on it, it would always have my name and my connection and my sense of contribution is incredibly motivating. So just think about that simple idea of where do we put people’s names. On every piece of software. Like why on the hood of the car all the people who are involved could sign their name in a very small print. And then of course there’s other things, right. It’s not just about name association. It’s about the feeling of contribution and the feeling that you have a say, autonomy right. That you’re not just told what you’re going to do, it’s that you are doing it. There’s a very cute experiment in which they take kids. They come with their mother to a lab and they go into a separate room with the research assistants. And they do a drawing together and one time the research assistant does the drawing and the kid tells them what to do. So the kids give the instructions and the research assistant does the mechanical work. Another condition the research assistant gives the instruction and the kids, the kid does the mechanical work. And then as they finish it the research assistant takes the drawing in their hand, go out of the room first before the kid, shows it to the mother and says look what I did. And the question is when will the kid be more upset, right. So the research assistant takes credit for the kid’s job. When will the kid be more upset? When the kid did the drawing but the idea was somebody else’s or when the idea was the kid’s and somebody else did the mechanical thing?
And the kids get more upset when it was their idea, which was their idea. Think about how much we don’t give credit in this world to other people’s ideas. How many people feel that their ideas were taken, somebody else is using it and they don’t get credit. Credit is free, right. Credit is great. Give everybody credit, right. There’s a team of a 100 people, give everybody credit. Why not? Why are we so stingy with giving people credit. Anyway, so there’s lots of other examples like this where you could just say let’s look at all the things that give people a sense of meaning and let’s just try to give more of it on an every day basis.
We shouldn’t have to be told that people’s hearts and souls are not piñatas, and yet here we are. Duke psychology professor and behavioral economist Dan Ariely says when it comes to increasing motivation, there’s a precursor lesson many managers, teachers and parents miss: stop crushing spirits.
It sounds so obvious but perhaps that’s why it’s such an overlooked facet of motivation. Bosses and people in authority positions often unknowingly demoralize those around them. "We do lots of those things," says Ariely. "We get people to start projects and we cut it in the middle. We get people to prepare presentations and they never get delivered. We do all kinds of things that eliminate motivation… lots of people are working in an environment like that."
Ariely was called in to speak with a group of 200 software engineers whose CEO axed the project they’d been developing for two years, just like that. The engineers were devastated, depressed, and some left the company. When Ariely asked them how the CEO could have caused them less pain, they answered that this project they’d built could be useful internally in the company, they could have built just a few prototypes as an experiment, they could have broken down the software into modules that could be used in other existing projects. The dominant feeling was that these engineers just wanted something to happen with their work. Managers don’t intend to do harm, says Ariely, they just don’t appreciate the role that meaning plays in motivation.
Once managers have curbed their habit of accidentally killing of motivation, they can start to swing back into positive terrain by increasing it. One of the most simple strategies is also the most inexpensive: giving people credit where it’s due. Credit is free, says Ariely, so give it to everyone. If someone has their name on something or is publicly recognized for their work, they are much more committed to maintaining that work and develop a level of ownership that drives motivation. "It’s not just about name association. It’s about the feeling of contribution and the feeling that you have a say, autonomy, right? That you’re not just told what you’re going to do, it’s that you are doing it."
Ariely explains an experiment done with children regarding ownership over their drawings that is both amusing and enlightening – it's in the video above.
Ariely's newest book is Payoff: The Hidden Logic That Shapes Our Motivations.
Get smarter, faster. Subscribe to our daily newsletter.
What makes some people more likely to shiver than others?
Some people just aren't bothered by the cold, no matter how low the temperature dips. And the reason for this may be in a person's genes.
Eating veggies is good for you. Now we can stop debating how much we should eat.
- A massive new study confirms that five servings of fruit and veggies a day can lower the risk of death.
- The maximum benefit is found at two servings of fruit and three of veggies—anything more offers no extra benefit according to the researchers.
- Not all fruits and veggies are equal. Leafy greens are better for you than starchy corn and potatoes.
An open letter predicts that a massive wall of rock is about to plunge into Barry Arm Fjord in Alaska.
- A remote area visited by tourists and cruises, and home to fishing villages, is about to be visited by a devastating tsunami.
- A wall of rock exposed by a receding glacier is about crash into the waters below.
- Glaciers hold such areas together — and when they're gone, bad stuff can be left behind.
The Barry Glacier gives its name to Alaska's Barry Arm Fjord, and a new open letter forecasts trouble ahead.
Thanks to global warming, the glacier has been retreating, so far removing two-thirds of its support for a steep mile-long slope, or scarp, containing perhaps 500 million cubic meters of material. (Think the Hoover Dam times several hundred.) The slope has been moving slowly since 1957, but scientists say it's become an avalanche waiting to happen, maybe within the next year, and likely within 20. When it does come crashing down into the fjord, it could set in motion a frightening tsunami overwhelming the fjord's normally peaceful waters .
The Barry Arm Fjord
Camping on the fjord's Black Sand Beach
Image source: Matt Zimmerman
The Barry Arm Fjord is a stretch of water between the Harriman Fjord and the Port Wills Fjord, located at the northwest corner of the well-known Prince William Sound. It's a beautiful area, home to a few hundred people supporting the local fishing industry, and it's also a popular destination for tourists — its Black Sand Beach is one of Alaska's most scenic — and cruise ships.
Not Alaska’s first watery rodeo, but likely the biggest
Image source: whrc.org
There have been at least two similar events in the state's recent history, though not on such a massive scale. On July 9, 1958, an earthquake nearby caused 40 million cubic yards of rock to suddenly slide 2,000 feet down into Lituya Bay, producing a tsunami whose peak waves reportedly reached 1,720 feet in height. By the time the wall of water reached the mouth of the bay, it was still 75 feet high. At Taan Fjord in 2015, a landslide caused a tsunami that crested at 600 feet. Both of these events thankfully occurred in sparsely populated areas, so few fatalities occurred.
The Barry Arm event will be larger than either of these by far.
"This is an enormous slope — the mass that could fail weighs over a billion tonnes," said geologist Dave Petley, speaking to Earther. "The internal structure of that rock mass, which will determine whether it collapses, is very complex. At the moment we don't know enough about it to be able to forecast its future behavior."
Outside of Alaska, on the west coast of Greenland, a landslide-produced tsunami towered 300 feet high, obliterating a fishing village in its path.
What the letter predicts for Barry Arm Fjord
Moving slowly at first...
Image source: whrc.org
"The effects would be especially severe near where the landslide enters the water at the head of Barry Arm. Additionally, areas of shallow water, or low-lying land near the shore, would be in danger even further from the source. A minor failure may not produce significant impacts beyond the inner parts of the fiord, while a complete failure could be destructive throughout Barry Arm, Harriman Fiord, and parts of Port Wells. Our initial results show complex impacts further from the landslide than Barry Arm, with over 30 foot waves in some distant bays, including Whittier."
The discovery of the impeding landslide began with an observation by the sister of geologist Hig Higman of Ground Truth, an organization in Seldovia, Alaska. Artist Valisa Higman was vacationing in the area and sent her brother some photos of worrying fractures she noticed in the slope, taken while she was on a boat cruising the fjord.
Higman confirmed his sister's hunch via available satellite imagery and, digging deeper, found that between 2009 and 2015 the slope had moved 600 feet downhill, leaving a prominent scar.
Ohio State's Chunli Dai unearthed a connection between the movement and the receding of the Barry Glacier. Comparison of the Barry Arm slope with other similar areas, combined with computer modeling of the possible resulting tsunamis, led to the publication of the group's letter.
While the full group of signatories from 14 organizations and institutions has only been working on the situation for a month, the implications were immediately clear. The signers include experts from Ohio State University, the University of Southern California, and the Anchorage and Fairbanks campuses of the University of Alaska.
Once informed of the open letter's contents, the Alaska's Department of Natural Resources immediately released a warning that "an increasingly likely landslide could generate a wave with devastating effects on fishermen and recreationalists."
How do you prepare for something like this?
Image source: whrc.org
The obvious question is what can be done to prepare for the landslide and tsunami? For one thing, there's more to understand about the upcoming event, and the researchers lay out their plan in the letter:
"To inform and refine hazard mitigation efforts, we would like to pursue several lines of investigation: Detect changes in the slope that might forewarn of a landslide, better understand what could trigger a landslide, and refine tsunami model projections. By mapping the landslide and nearby terrain, both above and below sea level, we can more accurately determine the basic physical dimensions of the landslide. This can be paired with GPS and seismic measurements made over time to see how the slope responds to changes in the glacier and to events like rainstorms and earthquakes. Field and satellite data can support near-real time hazard monitoring, while computer models of landslide and tsunami scenarios can help identify specific places that are most at risk."
In the letter, the authors reached out to those living in and visiting the area, asking, "What specific questions are most important to you?" and "What could be done to reduce the danger to people who want to visit or work in Barry Arm?" They also invited locals to let them know about any changes, including even small rock-falls and landslides.
The famous cognition test was reworked for cuttlefish. They did better than expected.
- Scientists recently ran the Stanford marshmallow experiment on cuttlefish and found they were pretty good at it.
- The test subjects could wait up to two minutes for a better tasting treat.
- The study suggests cuttlefish are smarter than you think but isn't the final word on how bright they are.
Proof that some people are less patient than invertebrates<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/H1yhGClUJ0U" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> The common cuttlefish is a small cephalopod notable for producing sepia ink and relative intelligence for an invertebrate. Studies have shown them to be capable of remembering important details from previous foraging experiences, and to adjust their foraging strategies in response to changing circumstances. </p><p>In a new study, published in <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2020.3161" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Proceedings of the Royal Society B</a>, researchers demonstrated that the critters have mental capacities previously thought limited to vertebrates.</p><p>After determining that cuttlefish are willing to eat raw king prawns but prefer a live grass shrimp, the researchers trained them to associate certain symbols on see-through containers with a different level of accessibility. One symbol meant the cuttlefish could get into the box and eat the food inside right away, another meant there would be a delay before it opened, and the last indicated the container could not be opened.</p><p>The cephalopods were then trained to understand that upon entering one container, the food in the other would be removed. This training also introduced them to the idea of varying delay times for the boxes with the second <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/cuttlefish-can-pass-a-cognitive-test-designed-for-children" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">symbol</a>. </p><p>Two of the cuttlefish recruited for the study "dropped out," at this point, but the remaining six—named Mica, Pinto, Demi, Franklin, Jebidiah, and Rogelio—all caught on to how things worked pretty quickly.</p><p>It was then that the actual experiment could begin. The cuttlefish were presented with two containers: one that could be opened immediately with a raw king prawn, and one that held a live grass shrimp that would only open after a delay. The subjects could always see both containers and had the ability to go to the immediate access option if they grew tired of waiting for the other. The poor control group was faced with a box that never opened and one they could get into right away.</p><p>In the end, the cuttlefish demonstrated that they would wait anywhere between 50 and 130 seconds for the better treat. This is the same length of time that some primates and birds have shown themselves to be able to wait for.</p><p>Further tests of the subject's cognitive abilities—they were tested to see how long it took them to associate a symbol with a prize and then on how long it took them to catch on when the symbols were switched—showed a relationship between how long a cuttlefish was willing to wait and how quickly it learned the associations. </p>
All of this is interesting, but what use could it possibly have?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTcxNzY2MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MTM0MzYyMH0.lKFLPfutlflkzr_NM6WmnosKM1rU6UEIHWlyzWhYQNM/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C10%2C0%2C88&height=700" id="77c04" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7eb9d5b2d890496756a69fb45ceac87c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />
A diagram showing the experimental set up. On the left is the control condition, on the right is the experimental condition.
Credit: Alexandra K. Schnell et al., 2021<p> As you can probably guess, the ability to delay gratification as part of a plan is not the most common thing in the animal kingdom. While humans, apes, some birds, and dogs can do it, less intelligent animals can't. </p><p>While it is reasonably simple to devise a hypothesis for why social humans, tool-making chimps, or hunting birds are able to delay gratification, the cuttlefish is neither social, a toolmaker, or is it hunting anything particularly <a href="https://gizmodo.com/cuttlefish-are-able-to-wait-for-a-reward-1846392756" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">intelligent</a>. Why they evolved this capacity is up for debate. </p><p>Lead author Alexandra Schnell of the University of Cambridge discussed their speculations on the evolutionary advantage cuttlefish might get out of this skill with <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/mbl-qc022621.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eurekalert:</a> </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"> "Cuttlefish spend most of their time camouflaging, sitting and waiting, punctuated by brief periods of foraging. They break camouflage when they forage, so they are exposed to every predator in the ocean that wants to eat them. We speculate that delayed gratification may have evolved as a byproduct of this, so the cuttlefish can optimize foraging by waiting to choose better quality food."</p><p>Given the unique evolutionary tree of the cuttlefish, its cognitive abilities are an example of convergent evolution, in which two unrelated animals, in this case primates and cuttlefish, evolve the same trait to solve similar problems. These findings could help shed light on the evolution of the cuttlefish and its relatives. </p><p> It should be noted that this study isn't definitive; at the moment, we can't make a useful comparison between the overall intelligence of the cuttlefish and the other animals that can or cannot pass some variation of the marshmallow test.</p><p>Despite this, the results are quite exciting and will likely influence future research into animal intelligence. If the common cuttlefish can pass the marshmallow test, what else can?</p>