- November 2, 2020
- Blog
I recently met with a couple of past employees in a public place. We will name them, for now, Rajesh and Sujesh. I always had good opinion about them. I had interviewed them and thought they should be extremely good at work, team playing and achievement orientation. Yet we had lost them. Was it better pay with a competitor? I thought this may be a good opportunity to find out.
After some very awkward pleasantries, I suggested coffee. More out of deference, they both agreed and we settled in a coffee-shop. I asked them what they were doing. They seemed happy. They sang paeans about the new workplace. After more banter, I dropped the question in my mind rather quite bluntly: "Why did you both leave?"
I knew the first several lines of answers would never be the real answer. So, with every answer, I compared and pointed out that our organization had the same if not better score. Finally, the answer did come out. And I remembered Dan Ariely’s work.
Dan Ariely, a world-famous behavioral decision scientist, conducted a very unique experiment. I have taken some liberties to change the original script:.
Participants in the experiment were handed a sheet of paper filled with typed letters and paid Rs. 10 for finding ten instances of two consecutive ones. They will be paid Rs. 9 for analyzing a second page, Rs. 8 for a third page, and so on. Participants perform the task under one of three conditions.
- In condition 1, the subjects were asked to write their name on each sheet prior to starting the task. The instructions explained that after completing the task, they would hand the sheet over to the experimenter who would carefully examine it top to bottom. The experimenter would smile, nod, and keep the filled sheet to the left side of his desk. Next, he would ask if the subjects would like to attempt one more paper for Rs. 9 (and less for each succeeding attempt). If the subjects declined, they would be paid the amounts for the papers already submitted.
- In condition 2, the subjects were not instructed to write their name on the sheets, and in fact none did so. Moreover, the instructions explained that, after the subject completed the task, the experimenter would place the sheet on a high stack of papers. The experimenter in fact did so without examining the completed sheets. There was no smile, no nod and asked if they would like to attempt one more paper for Rs. 9 (and less for each succeeding attempt). If the subjects declined, they would be paid the amounts for the papers already submitted.
-
In condition 3, very similar to condition 2, except that the instructions explained that the completed sheets would be immediately put through a paper shredder. As the subjects turned in the sheets, the experimenter shredded them without a glance. They were asked if they would like to attempt one more paper for Rs. 9 (and less for each succeeding attempt). If the subjects declined, they would be paid the amounts for the papers already submitted.
Now, I am sure you are guessing under which condition would maximum output occurred? While you are at it, let me digress a bit.
Being really good souls, you may have missed a possibility that in both the conditions 2 and 3, the subjects could have simply submitted additional sheets without real attempt and made a lot of money. No? Now, let us get back to the experiment.
Here are the results:
In condition 1, subjects stopped when the pay per paper reached about Rs. 2.50; that is, they attempted about 8 sheets. In condition 3, it stopped at about Rs. 6.00; that is, they attempted no more than 5 sheets.
Clearly, condition 1 has some acknowledgement of the work. There is a name on the work, the experimenter is examining the work carefully, nodding, smiling and so on. Therefore, subjects attempt almost 8 sheets before giving up (possibly the payoff was not worth another fresh attempt).
In condition 3, there is no examination, nod, smile and so on. On the other hand the paper is immediately put in a shredder. Recall, subjects could have cheated rampantly. Yet subjects quit after about attempt of 5 sheets. I am sure you all understand what ‘shredding’ in the context of the workplace means. Demeaning an employee, improper examination of work, and more is similar to ‘shredding’.
Now, you may ask what happened to condition 2? That should be in between 1 and 3? It turns out no. Note that in condition 2, there is no examination, nod, smile and so on. But neither is there shredding. The experimenter just ignored the subjects. Turns out ignoring is more dangerous than shredding. The subjects stopped when the pay per paper reached about Rs. 7.00; that is, they attempted no more than 4 sheets.
Clearly, my friends at the coffee table were unwittingly in the condition 2. Their immediate superior had seldom looked at their work; even if he did, the manager’s mind was not in it – it was very short, and cursory. Possibly he was busy. Possibly he did it on purpose. I would never know. One even said, “I decided to quit when by chance I saw three mails of mine, with my work output, were not even opened by my manager.” They were so negatively motivated that they simply quit.
I am sure this comes as a shocker to many of us who think the modern millennials would hardly bother about such things and continue to work so long as pay is market beater, incentives are world class, work place is jazzy, and there is flowing coffee, games, and eats. These are important. No doubt. But not sufficient.
Ignoring an employee can lead to some clear tell-tale behavior of the employee. Did we discuss the possibility of cheating in condition 2 and 3? Yes. That did emanate in different ways in our case. Sujesh continued “My boss did not even notice that I came late and left early”.
So how to destroy motivation? Ignore. If you can’t ‘shred’ their work. It is the best way to drive employees out. Or kill a partnership.
Until then, a rat should seriously consider whether it wants a kitten for a pet.
