Background Information
The speech that I have chosen to critique is titled “The Puzzle of Motivation”. This speech was presented by Daniel Pink in July of 2009 in Oxford England as part of the TedGlobal 2009 series. The speech is meant to target those who are business owners, executives, and human resource individuals that are directly responsible for determining compensation for employees.
Analyzing the Speech The tone of this speech is based on pointing out flaws in the current way most companies try to motivate their employees through their compensation programs. The speaker appears to ridicule most business leaders for not being smart enough to incorporate scientific research regarding motivation in designing programs to increase productivity …show more content…
The speaker used scientific research done on creative problem solving and motivation. According to this research the completion time for solving the problem was not improved by moderate monetary compensation and was actually hindered by the use of significant monetary gain for a quicker completion time. The speaker tried to draw parallels between these experiments and how employee performance is affected by compensation plans that are solely based on extrinsic motivating factors, specifically monetary compensation. The speaker also noted the success of several companies who focused on increasing intrinsic motivation within their employees and how creative problem solving and job satisfaction had increased as a result of employing these tactics. These intrinsic motivators included flexibility in working hours and paid time to work on projects that are of interest to the employee. The speaker’s main contention was that many business owners were not using contemporary common sense and proven scientific strategies to encourage and motivate their employees. By failing to incorporate these proven tactics into their business plan, owners were actually hindering productivity and employee …show more content…
He takes this information and then draws parallels to how money could inhibit performance in a business environment. His main point of his speech revolves around businesses ignoring scientific data when developing compensation plans, however the data that he has provided is from a controlled laboratory environment and asks participants to engage in activity that has no relevance in a work environment. A business work environment can be very different than a controlled laboratory environment. Furthermore when someone is engaged in an activity that does not affect their livelihood or survival, they may be less inclined to perform better even when offered compensation. It would appear that the parallel between this experiment and work environment is lacking in that we are comparing a non-vital task to a possible vital task to sustain a job. He also fails to recognize that the experiments done were to reward for completing a task successfully one time. Many employee compensation plans (extrinsic motivators) are designed to reward repeated success. He also notes that based on studies of 51 companies that it has been found that the extrinsically motivated incentive plans were ineffective. He does not go into the specifics of the companies reviewed and exactly what their compensation entailed. It seems
The speech that I have chosen to critique is titled “The Puzzle of Motivation”. This speech was presented by Daniel Pink in July of 2009 in Oxford England as part of the TedGlobal 2009 series. The speech is meant to target those who are business owners, executives, and human resource individuals that are directly responsible for determining compensation for employees.
Analyzing the Speech The tone of this speech is based on pointing out flaws in the current way most companies try to motivate their employees through their compensation programs. The speaker appears to ridicule most business leaders for not being smart enough to incorporate scientific research regarding motivation in designing programs to increase productivity …show more content…
The speaker used scientific research done on creative problem solving and motivation. According to this research the completion time for solving the problem was not improved by moderate monetary compensation and was actually hindered by the use of significant monetary gain for a quicker completion time. The speaker tried to draw parallels between these experiments and how employee performance is affected by compensation plans that are solely based on extrinsic motivating factors, specifically monetary compensation. The speaker also noted the success of several companies who focused on increasing intrinsic motivation within their employees and how creative problem solving and job satisfaction had increased as a result of employing these tactics. These intrinsic motivators included flexibility in working hours and paid time to work on projects that are of interest to the employee. The speaker’s main contention was that many business owners were not using contemporary common sense and proven scientific strategies to encourage and motivate their employees. By failing to incorporate these proven tactics into their business plan, owners were actually hindering productivity and employee …show more content…
He takes this information and then draws parallels to how money could inhibit performance in a business environment. His main point of his speech revolves around businesses ignoring scientific data when developing compensation plans, however the data that he has provided is from a controlled laboratory environment and asks participants to engage in activity that has no relevance in a work environment. A business work environment can be very different than a controlled laboratory environment. Furthermore when someone is engaged in an activity that does not affect their livelihood or survival, they may be less inclined to perform better even when offered compensation. It would appear that the parallel between this experiment and work environment is lacking in that we are comparing a non-vital task to a possible vital task to sustain a job. He also fails to recognize that the experiments done were to reward for completing a task successfully one time. Many employee compensation plans (extrinsic motivators) are designed to reward repeated success. He also notes that based on studies of 51 companies that it has been found that the extrinsically motivated incentive plans were ineffective. He does not go into the specifics of the companies reviewed and exactly what their compensation entailed. It seems