Last year, we wrote a series of blogs outlining some of the
research concerning the usefulness of 
"carrot and stick" motivation techniques.  The findings of the research were very
clear:  Providing extrinsic rewards
cannot be blindly relied upon to help motivate individuals to perform better.

It's not that rewards should never be used.  In some cases (and for some people),
incentives do have a positive impact on both individual and team
performance.  But, don't be lulled into
thinking this motivation technique is some kind of magic bullet.  It's not. 
Offering an incentive can sometimes produce negative results.

In the case of our previous series, researchers demonstrated
that trying to incentivize tasks that involve creativity was particularly
ineffective. New research has now demonstrated offering incentives to top
performers in your organization may also prove counterproductive in the long
run.

The new research was recently summarized by Max Nisen at
Business Insider, 

"Prizes and rewards are designed to produce
more effort, to give people something to strive towards. But what happens once
they actually get it? According to a new study by Harvard's George Borjas and
Notre Dame's Kirk Doran of recipients of the Fields Medal, the most prestigious
prize in mathematics, winning big actually kills productivity.

Mathematicians who win it publish far less in the
years afterwards than similarly brilliant "contenders"

It goes to show that major awards and recognition
can have unintended consequences. 

The drop off is pretty massive, as this chart
shows:

This is explained, in part, by the classic
economic "wealth effect." The impact of the Fields medal is
significant. It's more prestigious than any other prize, and though the
financial reward is a meager $15,000, the career and research opportunities
available to a winner expand massively. 

Because they've achieved so much
"wealth" in terms of prestige, job security, and opportunity, winners
are more likely to choose leisure activities over work, just as someone who
suddenly comes into significant monetary rewards might.

Not only do they produce fewer papers, but the
ones they do write are relatively less important. And winners take fewer
mentees, as well.

The authors did find one surprising positive effect.
Though they publish less, winners also take more risks in the future. They've
already reached the pinnacle of their field, so they feel free to pursue
moonshots, new areas of mathematics that they think are fascinating or vital.

The risk is quite large. The winners know they're
capable of doing extraordinary work in a particular area. Moving outside of it
makes future results far less certain. Their particular gifts or talent might
not translate well, and they're going to have to learn new skills and an
entirely new body of research in the new area, which is all very time
consuming.

The researchers term movement outside the core
field, "cognitive mobility," and its increase explains about half of
the drop off in productivity for medal winners.

The prize frees them up in an extremely
significant way. In the years leading up to the medal year, the likelihood of a
mathematician straying from their comfort zone is very rare, at just 5%. For
prize-winners, the rate quintuples to 25%."

This research obviously covers a very specific
and unique population, but it has implications for high performers in any area.
Whether it's promising a promotion, a raise, or an award, leaders have to think
about the aftermath as well as the competition itself.

It's important to reward achievement, but it may
also have the unintended side effect of creating complacency. At the same time, there's something to be said
for giving top performers the opportunity and safety net required to do really
innovative work, even if it's less certain and takes longer.

When this research is paired with Daniel
Pink's observations highlighted in our previous series, it should be worth at least a prolonged head scratch. As I said previously,  

"These days, carrots and sticks will often do more harm than good. The time
has come to tap into the deeply human need to direct our own lives and
create new things and to do better by ourselves and our world."

Exactly.  

Join the WorkPuzzle Discussion at the Tidemark Online Community (TMOC)

Engage in the WorkPuzzle discussion by joining the TMOC private social network.  Commenting on a public blog like WorkPuzzle can be a little intimidating, so why not join the discussion inside the privacy of the TMOC discussion group?  

By joining TMOC, you'll get to see who else is in the group and your comments will only be seen by those whom you trust.   Joining TMOC is quick, easy, and free (no kidding…this takes less than 2 minutes).   To get started, click here.

Already of a member of TMOC?  If so, join the WorkPuzzle Dialog Group by clicking on the WorkPuzzle Group icon on the left side of your TMOC homepage.  Questions?   Email the WorkPuzzle editor (workpuzzle@hiringcenter.net) and we'll walk through the process.

Editor's Note: This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn. Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, a Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.