Stanford University researcher, Mark Lepper and his team conducted a significant research study in the early 1970s, concerned with the impact of extrinsic rewards on performance. Specifically, Lepper was interested in whether prizes influence behavior in young children.
A brand-new activity was introduced to the children at a nursery. The teachers issued the children with creamy white artistās drawing paper and brand-new marker pens; the children were given time to draw with these novel materials. They had never done drawings with marker pens before. Predictably, the children took to the activity with relish. But after exactly one hour, the materials were whisked away to the disappointment of the children.
Several days later, one of the researchers returned to the class and randomly divided the class into two groups to continue the new drawing activity. One group of children were taken to another room. They were given the opportunity to continue their drawings, just as they had done before. After an hour, the researcher thanked the children in this group and took away the art material and their drawings.
The second group of children were offered a prize for drawing their pictures. It was explained to this group that some special prizes would be given to the children who draw good pictures. The children took to their task, anticipating they might receive a prize for their picture. This control group was given the same amount of time (one hour) as the other group to compete their art work. At the end of the session, the researcher thanked the children as heād done with the other group. But this time, he handed out a prize to each child in the control group.
One week later the researchers returned to the classroom . The afternoon period consisted of āfree time;ā the children could choose what they wanted to do with their time. The special paper and marker pens were placed on the tables and easily accessible to the children. However, the children had other options too. They could go outside and run around in the playground. They could play with the toys in the classroom . Or they could return to the drawing activity. The researchers observed the time the children spent on their chosen activities. To what extent would the prizes given to the children in the control group affect their choices and behavior? The researchers assumed that the children in the control group, who had received prizes, would spend more time on the drawing activity.
But that didnāt happen!
The result was one the researchers didnāt foresee. Their findings challenged conventional wisdom about parenting and education. The children who received the extrinsic rewards for their art work chose to spend less time drawing than those who werenāt rewarded. Conversely, the children who didnāt receive a prize chose to spend more of their discretionary time on the drawing activity. The children who were rewarded seemed reluctant to continue with the activity without the promise of a further reward. The initial reward paradoxically reduced the childrenās motivation rather than increase it.
But what was even more surprising is this: The art work of all the children was evaluated by a group of independent judges with no knowledge of the experiment. The result was that the pictures drawn by the children who were rewarded were evaluated as less competent than the pictures drawn by the unrewarded group.
So, in summary, the children who received an extrinsic reward spent less time drawing when given a choice, and when they were rewarded, they put in less effort too. 1
The birth of āscientific managementā was the beginning of the systemic dehumanization of the workplace. Frederick Taylor was widely regarded as the architect of scientific management. Taylor introduced his method in the early part of the last century in factories, such as the Ford Motor Company. His mission was to improve business economy, and scientific management proved a success in systemizing efficiency. The early twentieth century workplace was transformed into a sequence of processes, systems, and procedures. Systems replaced people. Freedom of expression of how people carried out their job was taken away for the first time in industrial history. Peopleās individual choices, preferences, and approaches to getting their job done were subordinated to ātime and motionā studies. These findings determined the āone best wayā of doing all manual work in the factory.
With Taylorās systemization of work and the division of responsibility between the role of manager and employee, the start of specialization took hold of the factory floor.
The Birth of Specialization
Scientific management redesigned the work environment ; it alienated workers from management. One of its core principles was, and sadly still is to a large extent, that management does the thinking and workers do the work. Specialization also estranged the worker from the work itself. Breaking work down into small, monotonous, and simple component partsāalthough undoubtedly easier to controlāwas the genesis for job specification. It made work predictable, dull, and repetitive. After an early success, high absenteeism, and other negative consequences, started to gain a foothold. Job specialization is still a feature 100 years later. But specialization challenges the modern concept of agility. Agility and adaptability are more relevant now than precision and specialization.
Marketing products and services across different locations and cultures requires responsiveness and nimbleness, for example. Being adaptable and malleable canāt readily be documented in a generic job specification.
Specialization is pervasive in the world of work. Systemic specialization began on the assembly line. Each worker was expected to perform a few simple tasks in a recurring fashion. Job specialization eventually found its way into service industries too. The big success story in the service sector, for instance, is the McDonalds Corporation. The McDonaldās franchise operation is modern scientific management personified. McDonalds was the first fast-food restaurant chain to successfully apply divisions of specialization; one person takes the orders, while someone else makes the burgers, another person applies the condiments, and yet another wraps them. With this level of efficiency, the customer generally receives a product and service with reliable quality.
So how is the universal specialization of work dehumanizing?
Predicable and repetitive work practices inevitably dull the human spirit. Engaging people in this kind of work is challenging. Inducements were introduced to engage employees. But itās contestable whether extrinsic rewards work, as the research at the beginning of the chapter suggests.
The person who wants to be creative and innovative is likely to be frustrated and disappointed with this approach. When confronted with an endless procession of standardized processes and procedures to follow, the enterprising employee will most probably disengage. Questioning the status quo isnāt valued to the same extent as following the status quo. Questioning the status quo can be career diminishing, not career enhancing.
Further, specialization implies that the specialist knows best. Specialists stick to established practices. Proposing a new method in a procedure-driven environment infers the old system is somehow inferior or substandard. The current system may need a makeover. But standard practice is often vigorously defended....