1. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards- Is there any controversy?<br />Habet Madoyan<br />Trulaske Business School<br />Geen, Beatty and Arkin (1984) define two types of motivation – “extrinsically motivated” to perform “some activity (say, a job) solely as a means to an end (say for a paycheck)”, or intrinsically motivated “to perform activity for its own sake (say, out of interest) and appears to derive enjoyment from it” (p. 279). By distinguishing two types of motivation, we can also differentiate the rewards that drive them. Notz (1975) listed pay and fringe benefits, as extrinsic rewards “because they are controlled by someone other than the employee” (p. 884). While tasks that would challenge, allow for creativity and valued abilities are described as intrinsic motivators, however, intrinsic rewards “are those over which the employee has a high degree of self-control and that are an integral part of the work activity itself” (p. 884). In employee management both motivations are important. As Thomas (2002) says “When organizations wanted only compliance from workers, they bought it with money and other tangible benefits (extrinsic motivation)” (p. 6). While intrinsic motivation drives employees to self-determination and job satisfaction including trying to make a difference, being innovative and being more passionate towards the job (Thomas 2002). Whereas both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards are more complementary than mutually exclusive, some researchers think that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. <br />DeCharms (1968) insists that rewards can change our attitudes towards what we do. When people are doing something for an external reward they start to see the cause of their behavior in the reward rather than in their interest or enjoyment. Deci (1971) conducted two laboratory and one field experiments to examine the effect of rewards on intrinsic motivation. His main findings indicate that “when money was used as an external reward, intrinsic motivation tended to decrease, whereas when verbal reinforcement and positive feedback were used, intrinsic motivation increased” (p. 105). Lepper, Greene and Nisbett (1973) conducted an experiment where children were asked to perform specific tasks in different conditions; a) in order to gain an extrinsic reward, b) with no knowledge of the reward until after finishing the activity, c) children neither expected nor received any reward. The experiment shows that children under the first condition had the least intrinsic motivation to perform the task. Ross (1975) performed the same experiment with two groups of preschool children. The children were asked to play drums and were told that the activity would be rewarded. For the first group the reward was salient, so during the experiment the kids could always see what reward was waiting for them. The second group was told about the reward but it was non-salient. The results showed that children from the first group played less than those in the second group. Geen, Beatty and Arkin (1984) assert that a shift from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation can have negative consequences. Even if the shift will not change the person’s behavior (overall motivation), it can strongly decrease the satisfaction derived from the activity. On the other hand, if the extrinsic reward will be removed, overall motivation will also decrease. <br />In organizations, rewards are mostly used to control employees and move them as desirable for the company’s direction. Thus, when extrinsic rewards are used, the locus of control becomes external. Deci and Ryan (2000) analyzed how external control with different types of rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation. For example, with engagement-contingency reward “people have to work on the task to get the reward, so the reward is likely to be experienced as controlling” (p. 20). As the reward brings little or no affirmation of competence, it could not counteract the negative effects of external control. As Deci and Ryan (2000) “engagement-contingent rewards are predicted to undermine intrinsic motivation” (p. 20). With completion-contingent rewards (is given upon completing a task or activity) external control is even higher. Here, positive feedback can somewhat decrease the negative effect of external control, if the task requires some skills. However, on average, it is expected to undermine intrinsic motivation as well (Deci and Ryan 2000). On the other hand, Cameron and Pierce (2002) assert that completion-contingent rewards can increase intrinsic motivation. The trick is the development of employee perceptions of self-sufficiency. “Rewards given for achieving challenging standards are also indicative of competence. Thus, according to social learning theory, when rewards are linked to attaining challenging performance standards, these incentives help people develop a sense of self-efficacy, interest, and involvement in activities” (p. 93).<br />The undermining theory has its opponents as well. Cameron and Pierce (2002) underline some aspects of supporting experiments that could create a bias in results. They assert that there could be other moderating variables rather of reward, such as reward expectancy, maximal versus less than maximal reward, reward salience, level of initial task interest, interpersonal context, reward attractiveness etc. For example, with interpersonal context, if people are feeling pressure or strong external control, intrinsic motivation will decrease. If the rewards are administrated in a non controlling style, rewards are perceived as more informational than controlling. Thus, negative effects on intrinsic motivation will be much less. So, Cameron and Pierce (2002) argue that “from the perspective of social learning theory, research on the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation has focused almost exclusively on the effects of non– competency-contingent rewards, with no systematic investigation of the types of reward procedures that lead to increased performance and motivation” (p. 93). Another opponent of undermining theory, Reiss (2005) gives key unresolved issues that bring into question the validity of undermining theory saying “construct invalidity (all four definitions are unproved and two are illogical); measurement unreliability (the free-choice measure requires unreliable, subjective judgments to infer intrinsic motivation)”. He also argues that there is “inadequate experimental controls (negative affect and novelty, not cognitive evaluation, may explain quot;
underminingquot;
effects); and biased metareviews (studies with possible floor effects excluded, but those with possible ceiling effects included)” (p. 1). In his arguments Reiss goes deeper “But there is no real evidence that intrinsic motivation even exists” (Grabmeier para 4).<br />Undermining theory is important for management and organizational behavior as it brings into question the use of bonuses, reinforcements and other incentives in order to make a job more attractive and interesting for employees and motivate them to pursue the desired behavior. If undermining theory is correct, then external incentives can give control over an employee’s behavior but will decrease interest in the job. If it is incorrect, then incentives can be used for both purposes. Cameron and Pierce (2002) conclude that the truth can be somewhere in between, “Rewards and reinforcement can be used to promote desired behavior and, at the same time, maintain people’s interest. In other words, there is no need to ban the use of rewards in classrooms and industry. Instead, more effort needs to be devoted to the effective management of rewards in applied settings” (p.232).<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />References<br />Cameron, J., Pierce D.W. (2002). Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation : Resolving the Controversy. Greenwood Press <br />DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal Causation: The internal effective determinants of behavior. New York. Academy Press<br />Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115<br />Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (2000). When rewards compete with nature: The undermining of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. In Sanson and Harackiewicz (Ed.s), Intrinsic And Extrinsic Motivation: The Search For Optimal Motivation and Performance. Academic Press<br />Geen, R.R., Beatty, G.G., Arkin, R.M. (1984). Human motivation. Physiological, Behavioral, and Social Approaches. Allyn and Bacon, INC, Boston<br />Grabmeier, J. 2005. Intrinsic motivation doesn’t exist. Ohio state research news. Retrieved from http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm<br />Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the quot;
overjustificationquot;
hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129-137<br />Notz, W. W. (1975). Work Motivation and the negative effects of extrinsic rewards: A review with implications for theory and practice. American Psychologist, 30(9), 884-891.<br />Reiss, S. (2005). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation at 30: Unresolved scientific issues. The Behavior Analyst. 28 (1) Spring, 1-14<br />Ross, M. (1975) Salience of reward and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 245-254. <br />Thomas, K.W. (2002). Intrinsic motivation at work: building energy & commitment. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, INC. San-Francisco<br />