Timwi wrote:
Krzysztof Kowalczyk wrote:
There there's also this fact that, while the issue isn't completely settled, there is psychological research saying that extrinsic rewards, contrary to naive but popular belief, not only doesn't increase performance, but actually lowers it, see e.g.: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/cont_reward.html http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/motivate.html http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap4/chap4q.htm
The important conclusion is that there is lack of conclusive evidence that extrinsic rewards actually help and there is psychological research showing the opposite.
I wouldn't take this "research" too seriously. I'm not doubting the seriousness and/or competency of the researchers, but this seems like one of those "scientific conclusions" that are made once and then taken for instant truth by a large group of people (volunteer online project participants, in this case) because it simply "fits the picture". In other words, the conclusion is backed up by wishful thinking more than concrete evidence. Not surprisingly, the first time I heard of this "scientific evidence" was on a page on the server of the Free Software Foundation, and in general you hardly ever hear of it outside of free-software or open-source communities.
I first read about this study in an issue of "Scientific American" last spring. Thank you for letting us know that the theme has also been taken up by the Free Software Foundation. I would never have thought to look there for more information.
It's like with the milk and the lightning. People have observed that milk tends to go sour when there is a thunderstorm. They conclude from that that the thunderstorm causes the milk to go sour, because that would fit the picture. But the conclusion is false. In reality there is a third factor, namely humidity, which causes both the milk to go sour and a thunderstorm.
This kind of analogical argument is extremely unsound. In that investigation proposing the initial hypothesis that thunderstorms caused milk to go sour was perfectly valid. It was a hypothesis, not a conclusion. Subsequent experimentation showed the hypothesis to be false, and that was what science is all about. At best raising this issue is completely irrelevent.
Similarly it is possible that people produce less-quality work for money not because of the money, but because of some undetermined third factor. Work for money tends to be less volunteered (i.e. you're stuck in a contract with an employer, you can't opt out at any time). Work for money tends to involve other people (colleagues or a boss) whom you might not like, but can't walk away from. Loads of possibilities.
There are certainly undetermined factors involved. A long accepted premise among economists is that people would act rationally. Rationality in this context was defined in terms of bettering one's economic situation. This thread of rationality could be applied very conveniently at both the micro- and macroeconomic level. For the economist taking time off work to care for a sick child is not a rational act. Where does the economist ask the question, "What motivates people when their economic goals are achieved?" Are the economics of greed a universal motivator? If my 10-year old automobile adequately gets me wherever I want to go, why would I ever want a bigger fancier one? Why work a 40-hour week when the pay for a 30-hour week is sufficient? Is it the big salary that motivates you to keep working for Wikipedia?
Ec