【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
TLDR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
🎓 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。
🏆 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。
🧠 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。
🌐 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。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡自白
💡キャンドル問題
💡インセンティブ
💡自己効力
💡自己決定性
💡熟達
💡目的
💡管理
💡結果のみの仕事環境
💡エンサイクロペディア
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]
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)