The Surprising Science of Motivation

Learning is an iterative process. Reach's youth allows a high degree of malleability - when we recognize something needs to be changed, we change it. As organizations get larger and organizational norms become established, this becomes more challenging. For this reason, I feel a significant amount of pressure to get things right. While I know we will never stop learning, I want to use this first year to solidify our model as we move toward expansion.

When looking at the components of our program model, there is no aspect that gives me greater pause than the use of financial incentives. To be clear, I believe that our financial incentives have played a great role in recruiting tutors that will benefit from program participation; however, I question whether the bonus structure has had, or will have, an impact. At this point, we don't have the data to tell, but my current reading is forcing me to ask questions.

I'm currently reading Drive by Dan Pink. In his book (and this TED Talk), Pink tells us that there is little correlation between contemporary incentive structures and the scientific research regarding human motivation. If a task involves even some cognitive skill, then pay-for-performance incentives actually have been proven - again and again - to be harmful. Rather than provide financial incentives, it seems that we should be focusing on providing our tutors with three more intrinsic sources of motivation: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. While there is work to be done around the idea of mastery, I feel that much of our early success with tutors can be linked to the ways we already promote autonomy and purpose.

So, what does that mean about the financial incentives we're currently using? In my mind, paying our tutors is still an important part of our program model. They remain at school for additional hours and provide an important service. Additionally, many of our tutors would not normally volunteer for such a program - in part, because many have not previously experienced success at school. We need something to get them in the door.

I do, however, see potential for significant changes in our bonus structure. Nothing in the research outlined by Pink indicates that we will create academic improvement by providing financial incentives - in fact, research indicates that these incentives might actually hurt academic performance. While the research may confuse us, it is abundantly clear.

There are many decisions ahead of us. Will Reach continue to offer bonuses, or should we move to a simple stipend model? If we do offer bonuses of any kind, what behaviors should we incentivize? The answers have large financial implications, but more important, they will strongly impact the efficacy of our work.

Thanks, as always, for reading.

Mark