8 Answers

  1. Street magicians, actors sometimes write a sign: “Do not applaud, it's better with money.” A certificate of honor and a rolling red banner are nice, but the material reward is more significant. Otherwise, the idea arises that you are simply being bred. Praising an employee to management is inexpensive and can save them money. So if a kind word is backed up with a reward, it's more satisfying than just a kind word.

  2. In Russia, this is still a long way off, but abroad it is much better seen. Yes, it is important. Only non-material motivation can keep a person in the company for decades.�

    In Russia (at least in the IT sphere), the most common model is when a person works for 2-3 years in one place, and then jumps to a new one with an increase in salary/position.

    In the company where I currently work in Germany, a lot of attention is paid to the non-material side of the business. This is natural and inspires the power of the brand you work under. �This is the participation of absolutely all employees in all kinds of workshops, surveys, and votes that directly affect the strategy issues of the entire company. These are fireside meetings with the company's top management and the opportunity to ask them any questions and listen to interesting stories about their experience. These are regular parties, sporting events, grill parties for lunch, etc.�

    All together, this creates a very favorable atmosphere in which it is easy and pleasant to work and you will think 10 times whether you should change jobs for the sake of winning money, despite the fact that no one promises you that you will not experience constant stress from tense relationships in the team, or management, indifferent to the personal problems of employees.

  3. Non-material motivation in work is very important. A person's needs grow in proportion to his well-being, and money is always scarce. If a system of non-material motivation is built, then the employee does not feel like a passenger on board, but a member of the team. The manager must maintain a balance between the material and non-material, so that the employee does not feel cheated.

  4. To each his own. As long as a person is hungry and naked – he needs food, clothes, praise can not replace it. When a person has enough material goods, he wants non-material ones. First bread, and then circuses. It's just that everyone has their own bar of material needs. The employer needs to take this into account.

  5. As long as there are fools in the world,
    We can live by deception, therefore, from our hands.
    What a blue sky,
    We are not supporters of robbery:
    A fool doesn't need a knife,
    You can't lie to him in three boxes –
    And do with it what you want!

    Non-material motivation is very good, it allows you to save money for the owner, while people convince themselves that this motivation plays a role for them: they are not some kind of redneck!

    Well, if a little more serious, then non-material motivation is a subtle tool that you need to be able to use, and if it is appropriate to use it.�
    Non-material motivation is good if the issue of material motivation has already been resolved.
    In simple terms, praise does not replace a salary.
    At the same time, there are a number of jobs where it is difficult to use normal material motivation, for example, the work of a clerk: if the clerk “shifts papers” 2 times more intensively, then the company's profit will not grow in any way; but if he does it poorly and not on time, then the company will have losses. Therefore, it makes no sense to pay him a bonus, but to sing him songs about the greatness of responsibility and accuracy is the most important thing.
    But on the part of the employee, non-material motivation is evil.
    For the certificate of the best employee of the month, you can't buy a child a meal.

  6. Exactly the opposite – the last century is a material motivation and a carrot and stick, now:�

    Recent research from MIT and the University of Chicago has shown that the carrot-and-stick approach used by organizations doesn't really work. It turned out that the desire for self-improvement is the driving goal of a person, and the old-fashioned monetary reward stops working when employees are asked to do complex tasks instead of linear ones. New York Times and Wall Street Journal contributor Dan Pink talks about how motivation works.

    Reward for doing a job is much more effective than punishment.

    A group of students were given a variety of tasks: they were asked to memorize sequences of numbers, solve crosswords, or even just throw the ball into the basket. It was decided to make three options for remuneration. The study participants were told that if they simply completed the tasks, they would receive a small monetary reward. If they show average results, they will get a higher amount. Finally, the most active participants will receive the biggest cash prize. This system, in fact, is a traditional motivational scheme that is used in all large organizations: the best employees are awarded, the worst and average employees are ignored. As a result, the university conducted a test using the employee reward schemes described above, and came to an unexpected conclusion: while tasks involve only mechanical actions, the reward scheme works fine: more pay means better execution. But as soon as the task requires at least basic cognitive skills (for example, imagination, comparison, concentration, systematization), a large reward leads to worse performance!

    The experiment was conducted by economists: two from MIT, another from the University of Chicago and, finally, the last one was from Carnegie Mellon University — the forge of the world's best specialists in economics. They came to a conclusion that completely contradicts everything that they taught us in economics departments, namely — the higher the remuneration, the better the work will be done. As soon as you rise above the level of elementary cognitive skills, the above scheme begins to work in reverse order. Funds for this study were allocated by the Federal Reserve Bank. This result was extremely strange and unexpected for the researchers. In the end, they decided to try the experiment elsewhere. Perhaps the $ 50-60 prize wasn't motivating enough for MIT students. So it was decided to find a place where $ 50 would be a really big sum of money. As a result, a second experiment is being conducted in the city of Madurai, in one of the provinces of India.

    This time, in the case of mediocre performance of the task, the participant was promised the monetary equivalent of two weeks 'salary as a reward, with average results, he could count on the monetary equivalent of a month's salary, and with the highest quality of work, it was possible to get an amount equivalent to two months' salary. Thus, this time the reward was really large for the study audience, so the scientists expected a slightly different result. But in the end, those who received the average reward did not try harder to complete tasks on the use of cognitive skills than those who received the lowest reward. But, surprisingly, out of all three groups, those who received the largest reward performed the worst on these tasks. Once again, the scheme worked.

    Psychologists, sociologists, and economists have already received this answer, and the point is always the same: the quality of work performed will be directly proportional to the increase in remuneration, as long as we are talking about simple, linear tasks. When you have a set of simple and clear rules and you only need to move from question to question, finding the right answer, then the “if you do this, you get this” scheme works perfectly. But when the task becomes more complex, when it requires conceptual, creative thinking, then the classic motivational schemes ostentatiously cease to work. Fact: Money is a motivator at work. But, oddly enough, in order for people to stay motivated, they need to pay not too much money for their work. And here there is another paradox, which is as follows:the best way to use money as a motivator is to pay people enough so that the very question of money in this case they did not stand. Pay people enough so that they don't think about money, but think about their work. With this approach, according to research, productivity begins to depend on only three factors (not taking into account, of course, your own satisfaction from work): autonomy, striving for mastery, and having a goal.

    Autonomy is our desire for self-government, our desire to manage our own lives. Here it is necessary to clarify that traditional management methods contradict this idea. Management is great if you want to get obedient employees. But if you want to get your employees engaged and passionate about their work (which is exactly what we expect today from employees who are doing increasingly complex and multitasking work), then autonomy and self-management will be the best solution.

    Let's start with Atlassian from Australia. They are quite successful in software development. Every quarter, on a Thursday, they announce to their developers: “In the next 24 hours, you can work on whatever you want. You can work as you wish. You can work on it with whoever you want. Our only condition is to show us the results after these days.” And this is not an ordinary banal meeting, this is a fun event with beer, homemade food, and so on. When they tried to organize such an event for the first time, the result of just one day of real employee autonomy was a huge number of solutions to fix errors in the company's product code, as well as a lot of ideas for new products that would not have appeared if such an event had not happened. And this is not at all like the traditional approach.

    This is not something I would have done 3 years ago when I didn't already know about this research. It's more likely that I would say something like ,” Do you want your employees to be creative and innovative? Give them a fucking motivational bonus. Tell them, ” If you can do something cool, I'll pay you $2,500.” However, the management of this Australian company acted quite differently. They basically told their employees the following: “You may want to do something interesting and worthwhile. Let's just let us get out of your way.” One day of autonomy brings things that could not have happened on their own.

    Mastery is our desire to do something better. This is the desire to make progress in our skills. That's why people play musical instruments on weekends. Imagine what a huge number of people are engaged in absolutely inefficient things from the point of view of the economy. These people play musical instruments on weekends because it's fun, because they can improve their skills, and it gives them pleasure.

    If I had gone to my first economics teacher, a lady named Mary Alice Shulman, in 1983 and told her that I had an idea that was bothering me, she would have asked me what I meant. And I would answer: “Professor Shulman, I have an idea for a business model. I'd like to share it with you. Actually, it works like this: all over the world, you recruit a certain number of people who do complex, high-tech work in the office, but they want to do it for free and spend 20-30 hours of their free time a week on it.” She's supposed to give me a skeptical look, but I keep going: “But that's not all. Then, when they create a product, they will distribute it for free, instead of selling it for money. No one has ever done this before. If I really told her all this, she would probably think I was crazy.

    Look at the world we live in right now! We have Linux installed on each of the four corporate servers and in each of the Forbes 500 companies. There is Apache, which runs most web servers. Wikipedia, after all. What's going on anyway? Why do people volunteer? Why do these people, many of whom have knowledge of complex, high-tech fields and have paid jobs, do this? Despite everything, they spend their not infinite personal time not on their employer, but on someone completely different, and even absolutely free of charge. This is a strange behavior. Economists don't understand why this is happening. Although in fact everything is quite simple: this is the desire to improve, multiplied by the opportunity to contribute to the common cause.

    As a result, we are now seeing the emergence of a new phenomenon that can be called “purpose motivation”. It is the desire of an increasing number of organizations to have some kind of transcendental shared goal-partly because it improves the mood of employees when they come to work, and partly because it is one of the ways to develop their skills. And, in fact, now we periodically observe that in the case when monetary motivation is disconnected from the motivation of the goal, this leads to bad results. Sometimes these are bad results from an ethical point of view, but sometimes they are just bad results: mediocre products, disgusting service, boring and uninspiring office space designs. When monetary motivation is key, or when it is disconnected from the goal's motivation, people start to perform poorly. A growing number of organizations are coming to understand this fact, and many are trying to merge these two types of motivations.

    Take, for example, the founder of Skype. He says ,” Our goal is to be an aggressive company, but only for the sake of making the world a better place.” Great goal. Another example is Steve Jobs with his “I want to make a mark on history.” Also not bad. This is just one of those ideas that you would wake up early in the morning and happily rush to the office for. In short, I am convinced that we are all maximalists not only in terms of income, but also in terms of having a good goal. I believe that science shows us that we are very serious about mastering and improving our skills. And science also tells us that we want to guide ourselves in our own lives. Therefore, in my opinion, the most valuable thing that can be learned from all of the above is that we begin to treat people as people, and not as workhorses.

    And here I write absolutely for free : -)))))

  7. I will answer not as a psychologist (because I am not a psychologist), but as an employee.�

    Non-material motivation is necessary. Because it is what makes you (most often) approach work with the soul. Not when it is “serving your military service”, but when it is an interesting job, promising, in a good company. In short, not only the wallet should be happy, but also the soul.

Leave a Reply