提高團(tuán)隊創(chuàng)造力？現(xiàn)金獎勵或許更有效
Tom Jacobs, Pacific Standard
2017-11-01
|
你正在努力啟發(fā)你的員工或?qū)W生的創(chuàng)造性思維？哪一種方式效果更好，是公開表揚他們的聰明才智，還是用金錢獎勵？ 最新發(fā)表的一項研究認(rèn)為，答案很明確：真金白銀的現(xiàn)金獎勵更有效。 該項研究的主要作者、來自伊利諾伊大學(xué)（University of Illinois）的拉維·邁赫特在宣布研究結(jié)果時表示：“重視創(chuàng)造力的人，所注重的是那些奇異的‘超出常規(guī)’的事物。所以，他們不太可能關(guān)心他人的認(rèn)同，或者在同事中的歸屬感。” 他補充道，現(xiàn)金獎勵會讓我們專注于手頭的任務(wù)，“而社會認(rèn)同獎勵卻會扼殺創(chuàng)造力。因為它會讓我們產(chǎn)生從眾心理，避免做出頭鳥，會讓你選擇折中，而不是勇于突破邊緣。” 邁赫特與他的同事在《消費者研究雜志》（Journal of Consumer Research）中闡述了五項研究，來證明這種動態(tài)變化。在第一項研究中，140名大學(xué)本科生獲得的任務(wù)是創(chuàng)造性地解決“擦鞋問題”，即在參加一次重要的公司宴會之前，如何快速清除鞋上的磨損處。 有三分之一的參與者被告知，想出最有創(chuàng)造性的解決方案的參與者將贏得50美元。另外三分之一得知的獎勵是他們的“解決方案、姓名和照片將刊登在校內(nèi)雜志上。”最后三分之一沒有任何獎勵。 結(jié)果：競爭現(xiàn)金獎勵的一組比另外兩組提出了更多獨創(chuàng)解決方案（由15位評委認(rèn)定）。期待社會認(rèn)可和不期望任何獎勵的兩組“創(chuàng)造力水平相當(dāng)”，這意味著登上雜志的獎勵基本無效。 后續(xù)的研究得出了相同的結(jié)果，其中一項研究給出了一個重要的警告。這項研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果你所在的社會圈子將“獨創(chuàng)性和創(chuàng)新性作為公認(rèn)準(zhǔn)則”，那么公眾認(rèn)可的激勵效果與現(xiàn)金相同。 當(dāng)然，如果你是一名想要打動其他同行的藝術(shù)家，高知名度的獎勵確實能夠帶來激勵。但對于哪些沒有資格獲得普利策獎或艾美獎的普通人來說，例如被邀請?zhí)峁┬庐a(chǎn)品創(chuàng)意的消費者，金錢才是更有效的激勵手段。 邁赫特稱：“要求別人更有創(chuàng)造力，其實是在要求他們離經(jīng)叛道 — 突破社會準(zhǔn)則。”會被同事指指點點的想法可能抑制團(tuán)隊的創(chuàng)造力，但兌現(xiàn)一張支票的美好期望，則肯定能夠激發(fā)我們的內(nèi)部創(chuàng)新者。（財富中文網(wǎng)） 譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓 |
So you’re trying to inspire a group of people—perhaps your employees, perhaps your students—to think more creatively. Will you get better results offering them public recognition of their brilliance, or a monetary reward? Newly published research suggests the clear answer is cold, hard cash. “People who value creativity value the bizarre, the stuff that’s ‘out there,'” lead author Ravi Mehta, of the University of Illinois, said in announcing the findings. “Therefore, they’re less likely to care about the approval of others, or a sense of belonging with their peers.” While a cash reward focuses us on the task at hand, “a social-recognition reward kills creativity,” he added. “It appeals to conformity, to not standing out, which drives you to the middle, not the edge.” In the Journal of Consumer Research, Mehta and his colleagues describe five studies that demonstrate this dynamic. In the first, 140 university undergraduates were assigned to creatively solve “the shoeshine problem”—that is, figure out a way to quickly remove the scuffs from their shoes before attending an important company dinner. One-third were told the participant who came up with the most creative solution would win $50. Another third were told that person would have their “solution, name, and picture featured in the school magazine.” The final third were not offered any reward. The results: Those vying for a cash prize came up with more original solutions (as determined by 15 judges) than their counterparts in the other two groups. People anticipating social recognition and those not expecting any reward produced “comparable levels of creativity,” suggesting the thought of being in the magazine was extremely ineffective. The follow-up studies replicated those results, and one added an important caveat. It found that, if you’re part of a social circle where “originality and innovation were accepted norms,” public recognition is just as effective an incentive as cash. Sure, if you’re an artist trying to impress other artists, that high-profile prize can indeed be inspirational. But for those not eligible for a Pulitzer or Emmy—such as consumers who are invited to come up with new product ideas—money is the more effective motivator. “When you ask someone to be creative, you’re asking them to be transgressive—to think beyond social norms,” Mehta notes. The idea of being judged by our peers can be inhibiting, but our inner innovator can be activated by the pleasant anticipation of cashing a check. |
