【TED】やる気に関する驚きの科学/ダニエル・ピンク（日本語字幕）

Summary

このスクリプトでは、20年以上前に法学校に行き、その経験を深く後悔する告白から始まります。その後、心理学者カル・ダンッカーのキャンドル問題という実験を通じて、報酬やインセンティブが創造性や問題解決能力に与える影響について議論します。報酬が創造性や問題解決能力を阻害するという社会心理学の研究結果を紹介し、21世紀のビジネスに適した新しい動機づけのアプローチとして自己決定性、達成感、目的の3要素を提案します。

Takeaways

• 📚 過去20年以上にわたって、法律学校を卒業しましたが、その成績は非常に低い水準でした。その後、法律を実践することはありませんでした。
• 👨‍🏫 心理学者カル・ダンッカーによって1945年に作成されたキャンドル問題は、機能的固定観念を克服する必要があるという重要な教訓を提供しています。
• 💡 キャンドル問題の実験では、インセンティブが創造性や思考を鈍らせることがあるという驚くべき結果が示されています。
• 💰 アメリカの経済学者サイモン・ギャックスバーグによる実験では、報酬が高くなるほど、特に創造性に必要なタスクにおいてはパフォーマンスが低下する傾向があります。
• 🌐 科学が示すところによると、外在的なインセンティブは特定の状況では効果がなく、時には逆効果になることが多いです。
• 🔍 ビジネスの運用システムは、主に外在的なインセンティブに基づいており、これは21世紀のタスクには適していないことがわかっています。
• 🛠️ ビジネスにおける新しいアプローチは、自己決定性、熟達、目的という3つの要素に焦点を当てています。
• 🏢 企業における自己決定性の例として、アトラシアンの「FedEx Day」やGoogleの「20%の時間」が挙げられています。
• 🌟 結果のみの仕事環境（ROE）では、従業員はスケジュールに縛られず、自分のペースで働くことができ、その結果、生産性と満足度が向上し、退職率が低下する傾向があります。
• 🤔 ビジネスは科学が示すことと一致しない古い考え方に基づいて人員の動機付けを行っていることが示されています。
• 🌱 科学とビジネスのギャップを埋めることで、ビジネスを強化し、21世紀の課題に対処し、世界を変えることができる可能性があります。

Q & A

スピーチの冒頭で話者が告白したこととは何ですか？

話者は20年以上前に法律学校に行き、そこであまり良い成績を収めず、実際には法の専門家として働くことがなかったことを告白しています。

「キャンドル問題」とはどのような実験ですか？

「キャンドル問題」は1945年に心理学者カル・ダンッカーによって作成された実験で、キャンドル、くっつき、マッチを用いてキャンドルを壁に取り付け、蝋がテーブルに滴らない方法を見つけ出すことです。

サム・グラックスブルクが実施した実験で報酬が創造性にどのような影響を与えたか説明してください。

グラックスブルクの実験では、報酬が与えられたグループが報酬なしのグループに比べて平均で3.5分以上かかって問題を解決しました。これは報酬が思考を鈍らせ、創造性を阻害する可能性があることを示しています。

報酬が創造性に悪影響を与えるという研究結果はなぜ繰り返されているのですか？

報酬が創造性に悪影響を与えるという研究結果は、近40年間繰り返し実証されており、社会科学において最も信頼性の高い発見の一つですが、ビジネス界では無視されることが多いです。

話者はなぜ法のスキルを再び使うことに決めたのですか？

話者は、ビジネスの運営方法を再考するために、自分の法のスキルを再び使うことに決め、妻の反対にもかかわらず証拠に基づく論理的根拠を提示することを望んでいます。

「自己効力」と「外在的動機付け」の違いは何ですか？

自己効力は、物事を行う欲求が内発的であることを指し、物事が重要で、興味深く、または何か大きなものにサービスしているからです。一方、外在的動機付けは、報酬や報酬のような外部的刺激に基づく動機付けを指します。

アトラシアン社はどのようにして従業員の自己効力を促進していますか？

アトラシアン社は、従業員に定期的に自己効力を持たせることができる「FedExの日」を設け、24時間以内に自分の仕事以外で何かを作ってほしいと言っています。

Googleの20%の時間とは何ですか？

Googleの20%の時間は、エンジニアに自分の仕事以外のプロジェクトに20%の時間を費やすことができる制度であり、多くの新商品がこの時間中に生まれています。

「結果のみの仕事環境」(ROE)とはどのような働き方ですか？

ROEは従業員が自分の仕事完了だけが求められ、出社時間やスケジュール、会議参加が任意の働き方を指しており、生産性や満足度が向上し、脱落率が低下することが多いです。

話者はなぜビジネスにおける報酬と罰則のアプローチを非難していますか？

報酬と罰則のアプローチは、20世紀のタスクには適しているが、21世紀のタスクには適していないと話者は主張しています。これは、そのアプローチが創造性と新しいアイデアの生成を阻害するためです。

話者はビジネスをどのように変革すべきか提唱していますか？

話者は自己効力を重視し、自己効力のための3つの要素である自己決定、熟達、そして目的をビジネスに取り入れることで変革すべきだと提唱しています。

Wikipediaが勝利した理由は何だと話者は述べていますか？

話者は、自己効力が外在的動機付けに比べて優れており、Wikipediaが勝利した理由は参加者が自己効力でプロジェクトに貢献したからだと述べています。

Outlines

00:00

🎓 法律学校での経験と蠟燭問題の紹介

スピーカーは、20年以上前に法律学校に通い、そこで成績が良くなく、その後法律を実践したことがないことを告白します。しかし、彼は法律学校で学んだスキルを活かし、ビジネス運営の見直しについて議論したいと述べています。次に、心理学者カル・ダンッカーによって1945年に作成された蠟燭問題という実験を紹介し、この問題を解決するための創造性思考の重要性を説明します。

05:02

🏆 インセンティブの効果とその限界

スピーカーは、サム・グルックスブルグによって行われた蠟燭問題に関する実験を通じて、インセンティブが創造性思考に与える影響について話します。実験では、報酬が与えられたグループが、報酬なしのグループよりも遅く問題を解決することが示されました。これは、インセンティブが思考を狭め、創造性を阻害する可能性があることを示しています。

10:03

🧠 人間の動機付けの科学とビジネスの実践の乖離

スピーカーは、外在的な動機付けと内在的な動機付けの間のギャップについて議論し、ビジネスが前者に頼りすぎていることを指摘します。彼は、科学が示すとおり、創造性の高いタスクには、内在的な動機付けの方が効果的であると述べ、ビジネスのオペレーティングシステムの見直しが必要なと主張します。

15:04

🌐 自己決定、達成、目的：新しいビジネスの基礎

スピーカーは、自己決定、達成、目的という3つの要素が、21世紀のビジネスにとって新しいオペレーティングシステムになるべきだと主張します。これらの要素は、従業員の創造性とエンゲージメントを高めるために重要であり、ビジネスの成功につながると説明しています。

🚀 自己決定の重要性と実践例

スピーカーは、自己決定がビジネスにおいてどのように重要であるかを説明し、AtlassianやGoogleなどの企業が従業員に自己決定を与える方法を紹介します。これらの企業の実践例は、自己決定が生産性や満足度を高める効果があることを示しています。

🏆 結果のみの仕事環境（ROE）の成功

スピーカーは、結果のみの仕事環境（ROE）という概念を紹介し、この環境下では従業員がスケジュールや場所に縛られず、成果のみが要求されることを説明します。このアプローチが成功し、従業員の生産性と満足度を高め、脱落率を下げている例を挙げています。

🌟 内在的な動機付けの勝利とビジネスへの呼びかけ

スピーカーは、内在的な動機付けが外在的なインセンティブに比べて優れていることを強調し、科学が私たちの心に訴えかけることを知っていることを思い出させます。ビジネスが20世紀の古い動機付けのアイデアを捨て、21世紀の新しいアプローチを取り入れるべきだと呼びかけ、ビジネスを強化し、世界を変える可能性があると結びます。

Keywords

💡自白

自白とは、自分の過ちや秘密を公にすることです。ビデオでは、話者が20年以上前に法科大学院に行ってそこで成績が悪く、その後法を実践することなく、そのことを恥ずかしがりながらも告白する場面があります。この自白は、ビデオのテーマに関連して、過去の失敗から学び、新たなアプローチを模索する意欲を示しています。

💡キャンドル問題

キャンドル問題は、心理学者カル・ダンッカーによって1945年に作成された実験であり、行動科学における多様な実験で使用されています。ビデオでは、この問題を通じて、創造性や問題解決能力を制限する「機能的固定観念」という概念に触れています。この問題は、創造的な思考を促すために使用され、ビデオの中心的なテーマの一つです。

💡インセンティブ

インセンティブとは、人々に特定の行動を促す報酬や賞金です。ビデオでは、インセンティブが創造性や問題解決能力を阻害する傾向があると示されます。特に、サム・グラックスブルクの実験を通じて、インセンティブが高めるはずのパフォーマンスを低下させる場合があることが強調されています。

💡自己効力

自己効力は、人間の内面から生じる動機であり、ビデオではそれが創造性や高いパフォーマンスを引き出す鍵であると主張されています。自己効力は、タスクに関与する喜び、重要性、または興味から生じる内発的な欲求です。ビデオでは、自己効力が20世紀の報酬と制裁に代わる21世紀のビジネスの新しいアプローチとして提唱されています。

💡自己決定性

自己決定性は、人々が自分の人生を決定する自由を有することを指し、ビデオではそれが自己効力の核心的概念であると示されます。自己決定性は、タスクや時間、チーム、方法の選択肢を提供することで、従業員のエンゲージメントとパフォーマンスを高めると主張されています。

💡熟達

熟達は、ある分野でスキルを向上させる欲望を指し、ビデオではそれが自己効力を高める重要な要素であるとされています。熟達は、人々が自分の能力を改善し、重要で意味のあるタスクに取り組むことを望む内発的な欲求を表しています。

💡目的

目的は、自分の活動がより大きなものにサービスすることを願う欲求を指し、ビデオではそれが自己効力を高める3つの要素の1つとして挙げられます。目的は、人々が自分が行うことの意味や目標を認識し、それに向かって取り組む内発的な動機を提供します。

💡管理

管理は、組織内での従業員の監督や制御を意味し、ビデオでは従来の管理手法が従順を促進する一方で、自己効力や創造性には適していないと批判されています。ビデオでは、より多くの自己決定性を持つ自己方向型のアプローチが提唱されています。

💡結果のみの仕事環境

結果のみの仕事環境（ROE）は、従業員がスケジュールや場所に縛られず、成果のみに焦点を当てた働き方です。ビデオでは、ROEが生産性、エンゲージメント、満足度を高め、脱落率を下げることができると示されています。

💡エンサイクロペディア

ビデオでは、エンサイクロペディアの2つのモデル、すなわちMicrosoftのEncartaとウィキペディアを比較しています。Encartaは報酬に基づいた専門家によるモデルであり、ウィキペディアは自己効力に基づくボランティアモデルです。この比較は、自己効力が報酬や制裁に勝る例として用いられています。

Highlights

The speaker confesses to attending law school and not doing well, setting the stage for a discussion on rethinking business operations.

Introduction of the 'candle problem' experiment by Karl Duncker, illustrating the concept of 'functional fixedness'.

Sam Glucksberg's experiment showing that incentives can hinder creativity and problem-solving in complex tasks.

The paradox that higher incentives can lead to worse performance in tasks requiring cognitive skills.

The robustness and frequent replication of the finding that extrinsic motivators can be detrimental.

The speaker's examination of the science of human motivation, focusing on the dynamics of extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivators.

The current business operating system's reliance on extrinsic motivators, which is mismatched with modern task requirements.

Glucksberg's second experiment showing that rewards can be effective for simple, rule-based tasks but not for complex ones.

The shift in white-collar work from routine tasks to more creative and conceptual abilities.

The failure of traditional if-then rewards in solving modern 'candle problems'.

Economic studies showing that higher incentives can lead to worse performance in tasks requiring creativity.

The mismatch between scientific findings and current business practices regarding motivation and performance.

The proposal of a new operating system for businesses based on autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

Examples of companies like Atlassian and Google implementing radical notions of self-direction and autonomy.

The Results Only Work Environment (ROWE) as an example of extreme autonomy in the workplace.

The success of Wikipedia as an example of intrinsic motivation defeating extrinsic motivators in a real-world scenario.

The call to repair the mismatch between scientific knowledge and business practices for high performance.

Transcripts

I need to make a confession at the

outset here little over 20 years ago I

did something that I regret something

that I'm not particularly proud of

something that in many ways I wish no

one would ever know but that here I feel

kind of obliged to reveal late-1980s

in a moment of youthful indiscretion I

went to law school now in America laws a

professional degree you get your

university degree then you go on to law

school and when I got the law school I

didn't do very well to put it mildly I

didn't do very well I in fact graduated

in the part of my law school class that

made the top 90% possible

thank you I never practice law a day in

my life I pretty much wasn't allowed to

but today against my better judgment

against the advice of my own wife I want

to try to dust off some of those legal

skills what's left of those legal skills

I don't want to tell you a story I want

to make a case I want to make a

hardheaded evidence-based dear I say

lawyerly case for rethinking how we run

our businesses so ladies and gentlemen

of the jury take a look at this this is

called a candle problem some of you

might have seen this before it's created

in 1945 by a psychologist named Karl

Duncker Karl Duncker it's created this

experiment that's used in a whole

variety of experiments in behavioral

science and here's how it works

suppose I'm the experimenter I bring you

into a room I give you a candle some

thumbtacks in some matches and I say to

you your job is to attach the candle to

the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto

the table now what would you do many

people begin trying to thumbtack the

candle to the wall doesn't work somebody

some people and I saw somebody kind of

make the motion over here some people

have a great idea where they light the

match melt the side of the candle try to

adhere it to the wall it's an awesome

idea doesn't work and eventually after

five or ten minutes most people figure

out the solution which you can see here

the key is to overcome what's called

functional fixedness you look at that

box and you see it only as a receptacle

for the tacks

but it can also have this other function

as a platform for the candle candle

problem now I want to tell you about an

experiment using the candle problem done

by a scientist named Sam glücksburg

who's now at Princeton University in the

US this shows the power of incentives

here's what he did he gathered his

participants and he said I'm gonna time

you how quickly you can solve this

problem two

one group he said I'm gonna time you to

establish norms averages for how long it

typically takes someone to solve this

sort of problem to the second group he

offered rewards he said if you're in the

top 25% of the fastest times you get $5

if you're the fastest of everyone we're

testing here today you get $20 okay no

this is several years ago adjusted for

inflation it's a decent sum of money for

a few minutes of work okay it's a nice

motivator question how much faster did

this group solve the problem answer it

took them on average three and a half

minutes longer three and a half minutes

long now this makes no sense right I

mean I'm I'm an American I believe in

free markets that's not how it's

supposed to work right if you want

people to perform better you reward them

right bonuses Commission's their own

reality show incentivize them that's how

business works but that's not happening

here you've got an incentive designed to

sharpen thinking and and accelerate

creativity and it does just the opposite

it dulls thinking and blocks creativity

and what's interesting about this

experiment is that it's not an

aberration this has been replicated over

and over and over again for nearly 40

years

these contingent motivators if you do

this then you get that work in some

circumstances but for a lot of tasks

they actually either don't work or often

they do harm this is one of the most

robust findings in social science and

also one of the most ignored I spent the

last couple of years looking at the

science of human motivation particularly

the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and

intrinsic motivators and I'm telling you

it's not even close if you look at the

science there is a mismatch between what

science knows and what business does and

what's alarming here is that our

business operating system think of the

set of assumptions and protocols beneath

our businesses how we motivate people

how we apply our human resources

it's built entirely around these

extrinsic motivators around carrots and

sticks that's actually fine for many

kinds of 20th century tasks but for 21st

century tasks that mechanistic reward

and Punishment approach doesn't work

often doesn't work and often does harm

let me show you what I mean

so Glucksberg did another experiment

similar to this where he presented the

problem in a slightly different way like

this up here okay attach the candle to

the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto

the table same deal you were timing for

norms you were incentivizing what

happened this time this time the

incentivize group kicked the other

groups but why because when the tacks

are out of the box it's pretty easy

isn't it if then rewards work really

well for those sorts of tasks where

there's a simple set of rules in a clear

destination to go to rewards by their

very nature narrow our focus concentrate

the mind that's why they work in so many

cases and so for tasks like this of

narrowed focus where you just see the

goal right there

zoom straight ahead to it they work

really well but for the real candle

problem you don't want to be looking

like this the solutions not over here

the solutions on the periphery you want

to be looking around that route that

reward actually narrows our focus and

restricts our possibility let me tell

you why this is so important in Western

Europe in many parts of Asia in North

America in Australia white-collar

workers are doing less of this kind of

work and more of this kind of work that

routine rule-based left-brain work

certain kinds of accounting certain

kinds of financial analysis certain

kinds of computer programming has become

fairly easy to outsource fairly easy to

automate software can do it faster

low-cost providers around the world can

do it cheaper so what really matters are

the more right-brain creative conceptual

kinds of

abilities think about your own work

think about your own work are the

problems that you face or even the

problems we've been talking about here

are those kinds of problems do they have

a clear set of rules and a single

solution no the rules are mystifying the

solution if it exists at all is

surprising and non-obvious everybody in

this room is dealing with their own

version of the candle problem and for

candle problems of any kind in any field

those if-then rewards the things around

which we've built so many of our

businesses don't work now I mean it

makes me crazy they could and this is

not here's the thing this is not a

feeling okay I'm a lawyer I don't

believe in feelings this is not a

philosophy I'm an American I don't

believe in philosophy this is a fact or

as we say in my hometown of Washington

DC a true fact let me

let me give you an example of what I

mean let me marshal the evidence here

because I'm not telling you a story I'm

making a case ladies and gentlemen of

the jury some evidence Danah really one

of the great economists of our time he

and three colleagues did a study will

have some MIT students they gave these

MIT students a bunch of games games that

involved creativity and motor skills in

concentration and they offered them four

for performance three levels of rewards

small reward medium reward large reward

okay you really will you get the large

award on down what happened as long as

the task involved only mechanical skill

bonuses worked as they would be expected

the higher the pay the better the

performance okay

but once the task called for even

rudimentary cognitive skill a larger

reward led to poorer performance then

they said okay let's see if there's any

cultural bias here let's go to Madurai

India and test this rewards standard of

living is lower in in Madurai a reward

that's modest by North American

standards is more meaningful their same

deal a bunch of games three levels of

rewards what happens people offered the

medium level of rewards did no better

than people offered the small rewards

but this time people offered the highest

rewards they did worst of all in eight

of the nine tasks we examined across

three experiments higher incentives led

to worse performance is this some kind

of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy

going on here no these are economists

from MIT from Carnegie Mellon from the

University of Chicago and you know who

sponsored this research the Federal

Reserve Bank of the United States

that's the American experience let's go

across the pond to the London School of

Economics LSE

London School of Economics alma mater of

eleven Nobel laureates in economics

training ground for great economic

thinkers like George

and friedrich hayek and Mick Jagger last

month

just last month economists at LSE looked

at 51 studies of pay for performance

plans inside of companies here's what

the economists there said we find that

financial incentives can result in a

negative impact on overall performance

there's a mismatch between what science

knows and what business does and what

worries me as we stand here in the

rubble of the economic collapse is that

too many organizations are making their

decisions there's there there are

policies about talent and people based

on assumptions that are outdated

unexamined and rooted more in folklore

than in science and if we really want to

get out of this economic mess and if we

really want high performance on those

definitional tasks of the 21st century

the solution is not to do more of the

wrong things to entice people with a

sweeter carrot or threaten them with a

sharper stick we needed a whole new

approach the good news about all this is

as the scientists who've been studying

motivation have given us this new

approach it's an approach built much

more around intrinsic motivation around

the desire to do things because they

matter because we'd like it because

they're interesting because they're part

of something important into my mind that

new operating system for our businesses

revolves around three elements autonomy

mastery and purpose autonomy the urge to

direct our own lives

mastery the desire to get better and

better at something that matters and

purpose the yearning to do what we do in

the service of something larger than

ourselves these are the building blocks

of an entirely new operating system for

our businesses I want to talk to today

only about autonomy and twenty-first

cent in 20th century we came up with

this idea of management management did

not emanate from nature gate management

isn't in it's like it's not a tree it's

a television set okay somebody invented

it and it doesn't mean it's going to

work forever management is great

traditional notions of management are

great if you want compliance but if you

want engagement

self-direction works better let me give

you some examples of some kind of

radical notions of self-direction

and what this means you see see you

don't see a lot of it but you see the

first stirrings of something really

interesting going on because what it

means is it means paying people

adequately and fairly absolutely getting

the issue of money off the table and

then giving people lots of autonomy let

me give you some examples how many of

you have heard of the company

Atlassian it looks like less than half

Atlassian is an Australian software

company and they do something incredibly

cool a few times a year they tell their

engineers go for the next 24 hours and

work on anything you want as long as

it's not part of your regular job work

on anything you want so the engineers

use this time to come up with a cool

patch of code come up with an elegant

hack then they present all of these

stuff that they've developed to their

teammates to the rest of the company in

this wild and woolly All Hands meeting

at the end of the day and then being

Australians everybody has a beer they

call them FedEx days why because you

have to deliver something overnight it's

pretty it's not bad it's a huge

trademark violation but it's pretty

clever that one day of intense autonomy

has produced a whole array of software

fixes that might never have existed and

it's worked so well that Atlassian has

taken it to the next level with 20% time

done famously at Google where engineers

can work spend 20% of their time working

on anything they want they have autonomy

over their time their tasks their team

their technique ok radical amounts of

autonomy and at Google as most of as

many of you know about half of the new

products in a typical year are birthed

during that 20% time things like Gmail

Orkut Google News let me give you an

even more radical example of it

something called the results only work

environment the ROE created by two

American consultants in place at about a

dozen companies around North America in

a row people don't have schedules they

show up when they want they don't have

to be in the office at a certain time or

any time they just have to get their

work done

how they do it when they do it where

they do it is totally up to them

meetings in these kinds of environments

are optional

what happens almost across the board

productivity goes up worker engagement

goes up worker satisfaction goes up

turnover goes down autonomy mastery and

purpose these are the building blocks of

a new way of doing things now some of

you might look at this and say hmm that

sounds nice but it's utopian and I say

nuke I have proof in the mid-1990s

Microsoft started as a Miss likely pedia

called Encarta they had deployed all the

right incentives all the right

incentives they paid professionals to

write and edit thousands of articles

well compensated managers oversaw the

whole thing to make sure it came in on

budget and on time few years later

another encyclopedia got started

different model right do it for fun no

one gets paid a cent or a euro or a yen

do it because you'd like to do it now if

you had just ten years ago if you had

gone to an economist anywhere and said

hey I got these two different models for

creating encyclopedia if they went

head-to-head who would win ten years ago

you could not have found a single sober

economist anywhere on planet earth who

would have predicted a wikipedia model

this is the titanic battle between these

two approaches this is the ali-frazier

of motivation right this is the Thrilla

in Manilla all right intrinsic

motivators versus extrinsic motivators

autonomy mastery and purpose versus

carrots and sticks and who wins

intrinsic motivation autonomy mastery

and purpose in a knockout let me wrap up

there's a mismatch between what science

knows and what business does and here's

what science knows won those 20th

century rewards those motivators we

think are the natural part of business

do work but only in a surprisingly

narrow band of circumstances to those

if-then rewards often destroy creativity

three the secret to high performance

isn't rewards and punishments but that

unseen intrinsic drive the drive to do

things for

own sick the drive to do things because

they matter and here's the best part

here's the best part we already know

this the science confirms what we know

in our hearts so if we repair this

mismatch between what science knows and

what business does if we bring our

motivation notions of motivation into

the 21st century if we get past this

lazy dangerous ideology of carrots and

sticks we can strengthen our businesses

we can solve a lot of those candle

problems and maybe maybe maybe we can

change the world I rest my case

[Applause]