PSY 6450 Unit 7

1
PSY 6450 Unit 7

• Performance and Satisfaction
• The Hawthorne Studies
• Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Rewards

Schedule Monday and Wednesday, Lecture
Monday, 12/01, Exam
2
SO1 Two major speculations about the
relationship between performance and
satisfaction

• Most correlational studies have found low to
  moderate positive relationships between
  performance and satisfaction
• Satisfaction causes performance
• Most common one
• If workers are satisfied, they will perform well
• If workers are not satisfied they will not
  perform well
• Performance causes satisfaction
• If workers perform well, they will be satisfied
• If workers do not perform well, they will not be
  satisfied
• In either case, it is hypothesized that there is
  a causal relationship between the two

3
SO2 Causal vs. correlational analyses and Coke
example

• Most studies that have examined the relationship
  between performance and satisfaction have been
  correlational.
• However, you cannot determine causality from
  correlational research and therein lies much of
  the problem with respect to this topic
• Three potential interpretations of a strong
  correlation between two variables

4
Coke example, analysis and diagrams

• Early 1950s, polio epidemic
• Studies found that coke consumption was highly
  related to incidences of polio

(polio virus exactly what happened with ps
third variable, way rewards are delivered, headed)
5
High positive, high negative relationship between
performance and satisfaction

• High positive relationship
• People who perform well are satisfied
• People who dont perform well are not satisfied
• High negative relationship
• People who perform well are not satisfied
• People who dont perform well are satisfied

(Before going on, I just want to make sure you
understand what is meant by - set the stage for
SO3, click for line performance on x axis)
6
SO3 Zero relationship - 3 situationsBe able to
draw diagrams for the exam

• Random relationship
• Some who perform well are satisfied, some are not
• Some who dont perform well are satisfied, some
  are not
• Satisfaction is the same for all,
• performance differs
• All are relatively satisfied or
• None are relatively satisfied
• Performance is the same for all,
• satisfaction differs
• All are relatively high performers or
• All are relatively low performers

(Both sides of the same coin - be careful!!))
7
SO4 Skinners analysis

• 4A Feelings and emotions are accompaniments of
  behavior, not causes of behavior
• 4B Both operant behaviors and feelings/emotions
  are the products of the same environmental
  variables/causes
• 4C Satisfaction does not cause operant behavior
  (performance) rather it simply occurs at the
  same time because it is a conditioned response
  elicited by the same environmental variables (in
  this case, rewards) that are responsible for the
  operant behavior (performance)

(same pt and analysis as self-eficacy, U3)
8
SO4D Skinners analysis of feelings relevance
to satisfaction/performance

• Most traditional I/O psychologists maintain that
  there is a causal relationship between
  satisfaction and performance

• Skinners analysis would suggest, instead

C
Environmental stimulus e.g., receipt of reward
9
SOs 56 What determines the relationship
according to the authors?

• (SO5) The type of reward system
• (SO6) Describe reward systems and hypothesis
  about relationship between performance and
  satisfaction
• A random reward system will result in zero
  relationship between performance and satisfaction
• A positively contingent reward system will result
  in a high positive relationship between
  performance and satisfaction
• What we usually refer to just as a contingent
  relationship between performance and rewards
• A negatively contingent reward system will result
  in a high negative relationship between
  performance and satisfaction

(the answer to this sets the stage for the entire
article state the answer to SO5, but come back
to it after we do SO6)
10
SO7 Behavioral analysis Learn diagrams

• Key to the analysis
• Rewards cause/elicit satisfaction
• This is no different than what Skinner said about
  piece rate pay
• Piece rate pay may evoke feelings of confidence,
  certainty of success, and enjoyment
• He could well have added evoke feelings of
  satisfaction

R (working) gt Sr (rewards)
CS (rewards) gt CR (satisfaction)
(very important diagram what you want to keep in
mind is that rewards cause satisfaction, dont
forget the CS?CR!!)
11
SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont.

• Positively-contingent rewards should lead to a
  high positive relationship
• Good performers are rewarded
• Poor performers are not,
• Hence, the good performers who receive rewards
  will be satisfied and the poor performers who do
  not will not be satisfied

(note both diagrams are important!!)
12
SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont.

• Negatively-contingent rewards negative
  relationship
• Poor performers are rewarded
• Good performers are not,
• Hence, the poor performers who receive rewards
  will be satisfied and the good performers who do
  not will not be satisfied

13
SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont.

• Random rewards No relationship
• Equal number of good and poor performers are
  rewarded and
• Equal number of good and poor performers are not
  rewarded
• Hence, the good and poor performers who receive
  rewards will be satisfied and the good and poor
  performers who do not receive rewards will not be
  satisfied

1/2 good and 1/2 poor performers gt Sr (rewards
sustain performance, good or bad)
CR (satisfaction)
CS (rewards)
1/2 good and 1/2 poor performers gt No Sr (no
rewards)
No CS (no rewards), hence no CR (no satisfact)
14
SO8 Why is it that real high correlations btwn
performance satisfaction are unlikely?

• Some (many) rewards in the work setting are not
  going
• to be contingent upon performance
• Health benefits
• Retirement plans
• Flexible work hours
• Day care availability
• Good social relationships with coworkers
• Responsibility
• Independence

(Click provide at least some examples survey of
why staff work at WMU remember the components of
a compensation system from last unit - security)
15
Cherrington et al., brief overview

• Participants 90 undergraduates (groups of 7-9)
• Task Scoring tests
• Sessions Two back-to-back one hour sessions
• Procedures
• Ps were told they would be paid 1.00 an hour
  (1971 wages) and that the top 50 in the group
  would receive an additional 1.00 bonus
• Es picked up the tests every 10 minutes so they
  had a measure of performance by the end of the
  session
• The Ps were paid after the first hour. They were
  told the top performers received the 1.00 bonus
• The Ps also completed a self-report satisfaction
  questionnaire

16
Cherrington et al., brief overview

• Procedures, cont.
• Although Ps were told the top performers received
  the bonus and the bottom performers did not, in
  fact the bonus was given to 1/2 of the top
  performers and 1/2 of the bottom performers. This
  means that
• 50 of the top performers received rewards while
  50 did not
• 50 of the bottom performers received rewards
  while 50 did not
• After a 5-min break, the whole procedure was
  repeated
• At the end of the second hour, the monetary bonus
  was given to the same individuals who received it
  after the first hour
• Ps once again completed a self-report
  satisfaction questionnaire
• (SO12) Note that the total group represents a
  random reward group or system
• Rewards 1/2 of top performers and 1/2 of
  bottom performers
• No rewards 1/2 of top performers and 1/2 of
  bottom performers

17
Cherrington et al., brief review

• The authors then did several comparisons by
  dividing the Ps into different groups after the
  study was over (between grp)
• They compared the (a) performance and (b)
  satisfaction of
• Rewarded group vs. Nonrewarded group
• Appropriately rewarded group vs. Inappropriately
  rewarded group
• They then compared the relationship between
  satisfaction and performance for the
• Total group random reward system
• Appropriately rewarded group positively
  contingent reward system
• Inappropriately rewarded group negatively
  contingent reward system

18
SO9 Results for satisfaction forReward vs.
Nonreward groups

• Reward group
• 21 top performers
• 21 bottom performers
• Nonreward group
• 21 top performers
• 21 bottom performers
• Knowing nothing else but Rewards (CS) gt Satis
  (CR)
• What would you predict the results would be?
  Would satisfaction be
• Equal for the two groups?
• Greater for the reward group than the nonreward
  group, or
• Greater for the nonreward group than the reward
  group?
• Why?

(42 Ps who performed above md, 42 below, threw
out 6 who fell at the md answer not on click)
19
SO10A Explain sub groups that comprised the
appropriately and inappropriately rewarded groups.

• Appropriate Reward Group
• 21 top performers rewards
• 21 bottom performers no rewards

• Inappropriate Reward Group
• 21 top performers no rewards
• 21 bottom performers rewards

SO10B What type of reward system is represented
by each of the above?

• Appropriate Reward Group?

Positively contingent reward system

• Inappropriate Reward Group?

Negatively contingent reward system
20
SO11 Results for satisfaction of Appropriate
Reward Group vs. Inappropriate Reward Group

• Appropriate Reward Group
• 21 top performers rewards
• 21 bottom performers no rewards

• Inappropriate Reward Group
• 21 top performers no rewards
• 21 bottom performers rewards

• Knowing nothing else but Rewards (CS) gt
  Satis (CR)
• What would you predict the results would be?
  Would satisfaction be
• Equal for the two groups
• Greater for the appropriate reward group than the
  inappropriate group, or
• Greater for the inappropriate group than the
  appropriate group?
• Why?

(answer not on click!)
21
SO13A The relationship between performance and
satisfaction for the three reward systems

• Total group of Ps random reward system
• Zero relationship between performance and
  satisfaction
• Appropriately rewarded group positively
  contingent reward group
• Positive relationship between performance and
  satisfaction
• Inappropriately rewarded group negatively
  contingent reward system
• Negative relationship between performance and
  satisfaction

22
13B Why the results make sense referring to
subgroups

• Random reward group
• 21 low performers who did not receive rewards
• 21 low performers who received rewards
• 21 high performers who did not receive rewards
• 21 high performers who received rewards

Equal number of performers in each quadrant, that
is 21 low performers who did not receive
rewards not satisfied 21 low performers who
received rewards satisfied 21 high performers
who did not receive rewards not satisfied 21
high performers who received rewards satisfied
23
13B Why the results make sense referring to
subgroups

• Appropriately Rewarded Group
• 21 low performers who did not receive rewards
• 21 high performers who received rewards

• Inappropriately Rewarded Group
• 21 low performers who received rewards
• 21 high performers who did not receive rewards

(last slide on this next Hawthorne studies)
24
Hawthorne studies, intro

• As I indicated in U1, the Hawthorne studies are
  often cited as one of the most important episodes
  in the history of I/O psychology and management
  putting the O in I/O
• Article by Parsons, published in Science in 1974,
  required reading for all behavior analysts,
  certainly for those in OBM
• You have probably heard about the Hawthorne
  effect as it relates to experimental psychology
  -
• Lest you think this is passe, people talk about
  this effect all the time

(but, it wasnt the intention of researchers to
do that for the most part, they were looking at
the same type of variables that had been examined
in past work breaks and duration of work )
25
SO14 The Hawthorne Effect

• Changes in the behavior of participants in a
  study that are NOT due to the IV being examined,
  but instead are due to the fact that the
  participants know they are in a study

(study objectives are pretty straightforward,
thus I am only going to cover a few in lecture)
26
SO15 How many studies and the dates of those
studies?

• Most textbooks only refer to the light
  illumination study in the relay assembly test
  room - that was only a minor study in the series
  of studies
• Seven studies conducted between 1924 and 1932 at
  the Chicago plant of Western Electric (located
  officially in Hawthorne, IL)

27
Relay Assembly Test Room Study
What are relays? Electromagnetic switches used
in telephone circuits so calls could be
automatically directed to the correct place (very
basic and unsophisticated definition!!). They
have been replaced by computer chips.
Relays had from 26-52 parts most had between
34 38. Consider it a complex assembly task.
28
SO18 First Relay Assembly Test Room Incentive
system and how it was altered

• Prior to the study, the assemblers were paid a
  base salary and received group monetary
  incentives
• There were 100 workers in the unit
• When group performance exceeded a specified
  standard, then each assembler received the same
  amount of incentive based on the groups
  productivity

(absolutely critical to mention the group
incentive plan)
29
SO18 First Relay Assembly Test Room Incentive
system and how it was altered

• During the study, the pay system itself was not
  altered
• But, the five workers who were participants were
  moved to a separate room, and their group
  incentives were based on only the performance of
  the five workers - now their performance
  contributed 20 to the groups performance rather
  than 1
• And, in fact, the wages of these five workers
  (because of their increased productivity) went
  from 16.00 a week to 28-50.00 a week.

30
SO19 The other important difference in the Relay
Assembly Test Room

• To accurately measure performance, the
  researchers implemented a new measurement system
  that also provided feedback to the workers
• Chutes were located at each of the assemblers
  work station. When an assembler completed a
  relay, she would put it in the chute which
  automatically incremented a counter. The counters
  displayed both individual and group performance
  and were readily in view of the assemblers at all
  times
• Readings from the counters were taken by the
  supervisor every 1/2 hour
• At the end of the day, a report was issued and
  posted indicating the number of relays each
  worker had assembled and the total groups
  productivity

31
Relay Assembly Test Room
32
SO22 Bank Wiring Room

• According to Homans, what factor made workers
  maintain rather than increase their performance
  and also made them punish members who worked too
  fast even though workers were paid incentives?
• Workers believed that management would lower the
  piece work rate if they increased performance
  and thus
• They would have to work harder to get the same
  amount of pay they were currently getting
• What does lower the piece work rate mean?
• Decreasing the amount of incentive that is paid
  for each part that is completed.

(so ever since the days of the Hawthorne we have
known that workers will restrict their output if
you increase the standards (lower the piece
rate), yet this is still the 1 error mgrs. make
with goals and incentives)
33
SO23 Cohesive groups

• People often believe that cohesive groups will
  perform better than non-cohesive groups. The
  results from the Bank Wiring Room dispel that
  myth.
• While it is true that cohesive groups are
  likely to control/affect the performance of group
  members more effectively than non-cohesive
  groups, cohesive groups can perform better or
  worse than non-cohesive groups.
• What determines whether cohesive groups will
  perform better or worse than non-cohesive groups?
  (for the exam)
• The types of social/group contingencies that
  members implement within the group. Do members
  reinforce or punish high levels of productivity?

(that is, members in cohesive groups act more
similarly peer pressure, social
reinforcers/punishers are more potent but that
does not mean be more productive or do the
right thing fraternities alcohol poisoning
continues on the next slide)
34
SO23 Cohesive groups, cont.

• Note that the group contingencies were very
  different in the Bank Wiring Room than in the
  first Relay Assembly Test Room study.
• In the Bank Wiring Room, workers punished
  individuals who performed either too well or too
  poorly
• In the Relay Assembly Test Room first study,
  the top three workers ostracized and punished the
  two poor performers, leading to their replacement
  in the study

35
When cohesive groups go wrong

• Hollywood Division of the Los Angeles Police
  Department, early 1980s
• Many division officers and detectives were
  extensively involved in property crimes
• They would break into retail stores and then
  radio in that they were responding to the ringing
  of burglar alarms
• The placed the stolen goods in the trunks of
  their cars and the proceeded to investigate the
  break-ins
• The officers later met at specific locations to
  hide and sell the stolen merchandise
• Officers who were not involved knew about it, but
  did not report them

(aamodt example)
36
The Real Hawthorne Effect (NFE)

• Generalizing from the particular situation at
  Hawthorne, I would define the Hawthorne effect as
  the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail
  to realize how the consequences of subjects
  performance affect what subjects do.
• To avoid such a confound, Dont let subjects see
  the data or reward them according to their
  performance. But such precautions are not the
  same thing as keeping subjects unaware that
  they are in an experiment.
• Parsons, p. 930

37
Intrinsic motivation and Extrinsic Rewards
(This area of controversy, by the way, is one of
the reason I believe that every single person
trained in applied fields, including OBM, should
have a very strong conceptual/theoretical
background in BA otherwise, a person might well
be led astray by these type of issues when they
come up and/or not be able to respond adequately)
38
Intro, Intrinsic motivation

• I am including this material because of a book
  that was published by Daniel H. Pink in 2010
  Drive The surprising truth about what motivates
  us
• Its become very popular in business and industry
• Bestselling list NY Times, Wall Street Journal,
  Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, San
  Francisco Chronicle Publishers Weekly
• Bestseller in Japan and United Kingdom
• Being translated into 32 languages

(has anyone read it?, former speechwriter for Al
Gore, BA from Northwestern, JD from Yale
Law written 3 other best sellers speaker circuit
for corporations, associations universities on
economic transformation and the new workplace )
39
Intro, Intrinsic motivation

• Articles have appeared in the NY Times, Harvard
  Business Review, Wired, Fast Company and The
  Sunday Telegraph
• Appeared on CNN, CNBC, ABC, NPR, etc., etc., etc.
• In 2011, Thinkers50 ranked him as one of the 50
  most influential business thinkers in the world
• My consulting colleagues in OBM say the same
  thing as I He is driving them crazy
• (to paraphrase Aubrey Daniels)

(his publicity material states that he uses 50
years of behavioral science to overturn the
conventional wisdom about human motivation and
offer a more effective path to high
performance. felt it necessary to talk about
this a bit Im afraid it is not going to go away
for a while and it may get worse before better)
40
Intro, Intrinsic Motivation

• Motivation 1.0 The ancient human drive to
  survive
• Motivation 2.0 Rewards and punishment
• Motivation 3.0 Intrinsic, innate rewards that
  come from autonomy, mastery, and purpose

(clearly, I am not going to do justice to his
position 2.0 replaced 1.0 and is where we are
now)
41
Intro, Intrinsic Motivation

• Carrots and sticks The seven deadly flaws (p.
  57)
• They can extinguish intrinsic motivation
• They can diminish performance
• They can crush creativity
• They can crowd out good behavior
• They can encourage cheating, shortcuts, and
  unethical behavior
• They can become addictive
• They can foster short-term thinking

(his term pejorative déjà vu all over again
channeling Deci Ryan, and Alfie Kohn we dealt
with these issues 20 years ago dissertation,
1989 paper, 2 studies, 1995 paper and talks,
Camerons work instead of reinventing the wheel,
use articles that I wrote back then it doesnt
address all of these, but comes close enough
romantic view of behavior also realistic
rewards can cause problems but reward systems
are to blame, not the rewards themselves make
this point in both articles)
42
SO27 Why the concern that extrinsic rewards may
decrease intrinsic motvn

• Two types of motivation intrinsic and extrinsic
  and persons behavior is primarily motivated one
  or the other
• Intrinsic motivation is innate, and intrinsically
  motivated behavior (which is self-initiated) is
  believed to be more creative, spontaneous, and
  flexible than extrinsically motivated behavior
• Thus, the concern that extrinsic rewards
  decrease much highly valued behavior

(two articles, written for behavior analysts, the
other for a lay audience study objectives over
the scholarly one Pinks position is that
autonomy, mastery, and purpose are innate drives)

43
SO29 Define intrinsic motivation behaviorally
give an original example

• Intrinsically controlled behavior is behavior
  maintained by consequences that are the natural
  and automatic results of responding
• In contrast, extrinsically controlled behavior is
  behavior controlled by consequences that are
  external to the task (often programmed by our
  social environment)
• From a behavioral perspective, no functional
  difference between these types of behaviors
  they are still controlled by rewards

(traditionally, int motvn has been defined by
default that is behaviors that occurs in the
apparent absence of extrinsic rewards has been
and is still said to be intrinsically
motivated. automatic pun)
44
SO29 Examples of automatic reinfmt

• Painting when you paint a picture, your painting
  behavior is automatically reinforced as the
  picture begins to form by each brush stroke
• Jigsaw puzzle when doing a puzzle, your behavior
  is automatically reinforced by pieces fitting
  together and by progress toward completing the
  puzzle

45
SO29 Examples of automatic reinfmt

• Skinner, a complex example when learning how to
  write, or writing a paper, the important
  reinforcers are largely automatic a sentence
  comes out right, it says something interesting,
  if fits another sentence.
• If these automatic reinforcers are powerful
  enough, the student may continue to write and
  improve his writing even though he receives few
  if any comments
• Money, grades, and honors must be husbanded
  carefully, but the automatic reinforcement of
  being right and moving forward are
  inexhaustible.

(Holland Skinner, 1961, page 160 Skinner,
Technology of teaching, 1968, p. 158 learning to
read Harry Potter books thick, long books
The hunger games)
46
SO30 Innate vs. innate or learned

• Traditional accounts generally assume that
  intrinsic motivation is innate
• Thus, signs of self-determination (autonomy),
  competence (mastery), and control over the
  environment function as unconditioned reinforcers
• Behavioral interpretation makes no such
  assumption Intrinsic reinforcers, like extrinsic
  reinforcers, may be unconditioned or conditioned
  reinforcers, or generalized conditioned
  reinforcers

(this is Pinks position for autonomy, mastery,
purpose his motivation 3.0 exception, Lepper
Greene who talk about intrinsic interest, not
intrinsic motivation and maintain that interest
in a task might be learned)
47
Innate or learned, cont. but this slide NFE

• For example, Skinner stated (SHB, 1953)
• Behaviors that occur in the absence obvious
  rewards may be maintained by control over the
  environment, and that control may function as
  either generalized conditioned or generalized
  unconditioned reinforcement
• Instrinsic reinforcers could also be a simple
  form conditioned reinforcement in which stimuli
  associated the task have been correlated with
  approval, praise, or some other form of
  reinforcement
• VB when a child is learning to talk, sounds
  that mimic the parent or adult are automatically
  reinforcing show that when teaching VB to
  autistic children for whom that may not be true

(if you want more detail, you can read my quote
in the paper babys rattle rattle might be
unconditioned rft evolutionary history of
making the world behave mn pt intrinsic
motivation Is innate vs. a behavioral position in
which intrinsic consequences can be unconditioned
or learned )
48
SO31 Irreversibility of intrinsic motivation and
interest?

• Explanations by Deci Lepper maintain that once
  intrinsic motivation is lost it may never be
  regained
• That position assumes that the cognitive and
  motivational processes responsible for its
  weakening are not reversible
• That is, this position appears to indicate that
  once intrinsic motivation or intrinsic interest
  is lost/damage, it can never be regained it can
  be damaged or destroyed but not restored
• If rewards are removed and the individual engages
  in the formerly intrinsically-motivated task
  (lets say painting or even reading), intrinsic
  motivation or intrinsic interest will not be
  regained
• That asymmetry seems odd to me Are the cognitive
  and motivational processes associated with the
  loss of intrinsic motivation and interest so
  powerful and overwhelming, they wont reverse?

49
SO32AB Type of rewards that does appear to
result in post-reward decrmts.

• Task contingent when rewards are provided for
  simply engaging in a task, irrespective of
  quality or quantity
• This is of no great social import because
  rewards are rarely showered on people regardless
  of how they behave
• Banudra, 1987

50
SO33 Type of rewards that do not result in
decrements

• Success-contingent rewards when individuals
  receive rewards for success performing well
• Success-contingent rewards sustain or increase
  intrinsically controlled behavior
• This effect is robust and consistent
• This is recognized by even strong opponents of
  performance-contingent rewards yet they still
  argue against the use of any type of contingent
  rewards (i.e., Deci Ryan, Kohn)
• This has always seemed strange to me

(Pink seems to argue a little more specifically,
against if-then rewards rewards after the fact
are OK in some cases)
51
SO34 Deci and my reply to Deci

• Deci
• Rewards that are appropriately linked to
  performance, representing positive feedback in an
  informational context, ought not to be
  detrimental. The cost to the system, however, in
  signifying good performance through the use of
  performance-contingent rewards is that many
  people end up receiving the message that they are
  not doing very well and this is likely to be
  amotivating

(my reply next)
52
SO34 My reply to Deci

• Dickinson
• If, under performance-contingent reward systems,
  many people end up receiving the message that
  they are not doing very well..the fault lies not
  in the contingent rewards, but with the
  performance standards upon which the rewards are
  based
• I should have added or the reward system is a
  competitive system that divides employees into
  winners and losers

53
SO35 What critical difference in nonbehavioral
and behavioral studies could account for
different results?

• Nonbehavioral researchers have reported
  post-reward decreases most behavioral
  researchers have not and in the few cases where
  decreases occurred they only lasted 1-2 sessions
  post-reward
• Most nonbehavioral researchers have purposely
  used nonreinforcing rewards, while behavioral
  researchers have used only reinforcing rewards
• Williams (1980) demonstrated that unattractive
  rewards decreased performance, attractive
  rewards did not, however, attractiveness based
  on survey data

(next slide research design, will help you
understand. why? Did not want results to be
confounded by task exposure, boredom, etc.
Reinforcers less likely to generate feelings of
begin controlled and less countercontrol than
nonreinforcing rewards )
54
To understand SO35 Basic research paradigm (nfe)

• Pre-reward baseline session/phase during which
  task performance is measured
• Reward session/phase during which rewards are
  provided for task performance
• Post-reward session/phase during which rewards
  are not provided (return to baseline)
• If task performance is lower than initial
  baseline, the conclusion is that the rewards have
  damaged intrinsic motivation/interest

Why is the post-reward session/phase considered
the key phase and determination of whether
rewards have decreased intrinsic
motivation? During the second phase, when
rewards are being provided, you cant tell the
extent to which task performance is being
controlled by intrinsic rewards and extrinsic
rewards.
55
SO36 NFE, Banduras quote

• Social commentators who decry the use of
  extrinsic incentives rarely foreswear such
  rewards for themselves when it comes to salary
  increases, book royalties, and performance fees,
  for fear the currency of the realm will sap their
  interest. Valued rewards are accepted as though
  innocuous to oneself but harmful to others

(thus, as I ended the article, this whole area
is)
56
Much ado about nothing!!
(last slide no sos over the other article very
curious to know whether any of you have
encountered this objection to rewards in an
applied setting)
57

• Questions?
• Comments?