SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Small signals of appreciation have a decisive influence on the output and quality of the work of employees. A field experiment of KIT (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) economist Petra Nieken and two colleagues revealed that a combination of performance-oriented piece wage and motivating words increases the performance by 20% and reduces the error rate by 40%.
"Our results are relevant to entrepreneurial practice," Nieken emphasizes. She holds the Chair for Human Resources Management of KIT's Institute of Management. How can staff members be motivated? Theory lists two instruments: Financial incentives, such as bonuses or piece wages, and the capability of executives to motivate their staff members. The question whether and how these two instruments complement, strengthen or weaken each other, however, is not clearly answered by theory. That is why this question was in the focus of the study performed at Bonn University.
(Score: 2) by jimbrooking on Thursday October 22 2015, @07:14PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 23 2015, @01:54AM
My personal experience with this concept (aside from believing it to be true and generally using it as a yard stick for how badly or well things are going for me) has actually lead to my explaining who the good doctor was and what he did. To some executives. It didn't end up improving the situation, unfortunately, but did reveal to me that the management never heard about any of any of this because everyone is motivated by money. I wonder what they teach in fancy business schools these days, or even in high school psychology? Granted, you have to take and remember the class to have any lasting benefit from it.
As an aside, i suggest everyone pick up a 101 psychology book. It will teach you things that no how to be a better whatever book can do; it'll teach you to understand people to some extent which you just don't understand otherwise prior to gaining insight. (And really, you should, because with all the data harvesting, MIT already has their software for sale to figure you out already, as promoted in the other post. You won't even the score but at least you'll improve your odds)
And that new knowledge and the acting upon it may enable you to focus on your own improvements again. You might have a better understanding overall of how other people work, even if it doesn't tell you everything... most people can be lumped into a bucket of some kind (yes I am complicated but you already have me in a bucket so don't knock the terminology I am making up) and that default bucket won't be the crazy bucket after you finish an intro psychology book--instead you may be able to tolerate those crazies even more, and that makes it easier to get ahead yourself when they are less able to drag you down due to misunderstandings.
None of that helps with Maslow's theories directly, but it can help improve the work environment to a degree that focus can change to getting back to self-actualization now that other-actualization-comprehension is at a more stable level of enlightenment. It sure beats having no clue why people are the way they are!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @03:47AM
Small correction - not everyone is motivated by money, but everyone is motivated by not starving, and not starving in the US requires having money. Its a means, not the ends.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 23 2015, @09:19PM
Right -- my comment regarding their money beliefs was of their interpretation of from what motivation comes from.
And for them, it is the extrinsic motivation of money. Also, they did not know what extrinsic or intrinsic meant.
In any event, even in our star trek future, there will be people that see what others have and demand more for themselves even if they are not merited to have it. That's human nature. I would want to let them try to gain what it is they want, but some people will always be hammers no matter how much they think they get screwed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @10:35AM
Lots of people will starve for their children/loved ones or even sacrifice their own lives.
Maslow had some ideas that might be interesting to clueless people but the fact is the hierarchy is inaccurate or even counterproductive to understanding people and their motivations and why they do the things they do.
People have their goals/objectives - short term and long term. These goals can and do change. Most of people are not fully aware of all of their goals. Most people will try to set up routines and habits - since it reduces the amount of thinking about goals etc. So you go to work, you go for lunch, you do what Da Boss says, you mimic what others are doing, etc. You don't spend time asking why - you might have asked why and set those goals earlier, or you just follow what others are doing or telling you to do.
The world is too complicated for most people to understand fully about why they do certain things - so one of the goals is mimicking and following of traditions and unwritten rules (e.g. what motivates most people to stand facing the elevator door rather than have your back to the wall so you can see what others are doing - and so protect yourself if needed?).
Maslow's hierarchy is inadequate to explain why so many people work late and skip meals even though they are hungry. Do you really think that people are calculating and believing that they would starve in the long term otherwise? Maybe it's true for some cases but in most cases they are doing it because they want to avoid unpleasant stuff that's more immediate. Or because they "believe in the cause". Or they just want to get the job done and get some sense of completion. You know how many OCD people just need to complete stuff, many of us have similar urges but not to a pathological degree). Why do you think so many games have the psychological tricks they have now?