Monkey Business

A colleague of mine forwarded me a fun video about how monkeys respond to unequal pay.  I just love it when people send me funny compensation news.

Kinda says it all, dunnit? 

We can learn a lot about rewards from our primate friends.  A few years ago I watched an excellent related TED talk by Neurobiologist and Primatologist Robert Sapolsky on The Uniqueness of Humans.  It turns out that the genetic difference between humans and primates is fairly negligible. 

Which may put paid to that old adage, ‘If you pay peanuts, you’ll get monkeys,’ because from a genetic point of view you kind of get monkeys anyway.

Mr. Sapolsky presented some interesting facts related to what primates and humans have in common with respect to behavior and motivation.  For example, behavioral scientists used to believe that people feel happy when they receive a reward but this is actually not true.  Most of the pleasure occurs in response to the anticipation of the reward. 

It's also worth noting that more pleasure is experienced - as measured by dopamine levels - if an element of risk is introduced.  In fact, the highest level of dopamine is found when a reward is received only 50% of the time, which represents maximum unpredictability.  If you change the frequency of the reward you also decrease the pleasure of anticipating the reward.

The takeaway here is that when coupled with other factors, the combination of anticipation and risk can greatly enhance motivation when it comes to rewards.  If the goal is to control behavior, clearly defined goals combined with predictable rewards may work best.  However, if the goal is to motivate, too much predictability may have the opposite effect.   Food for thought.

When it comes to designing rewards strategies, both studies seem to indicate that we can learn a few tricks about motivation from primates.  After all, both people and monkeys enjoy feeling anticipation and react negatively to perceived unfairness, which we just saw in action with the monkey and the cucumber.

The bottom line is that how companies define their strategies will depend on a variety of factors but the most successful companies will be those that understand people. 

Or do I mean monkeys?

Laura Schroeder is a global talent specialist at Workday, headquartered in Pleasanton, CA.  She has nearly fifteen years of experience envisioning, designing, developing, implementing and evangelizing global Human Capital Management (HCM) solutions and holds a certificate in Strategic Human Resources Practices from Cornell University.  Her articles and interviews on HCM topics have been published in the US, Europe and Asia.  She lives in Munich, Germany and enjoys cooking, reading, writing, kick boxing (well, kicking things) and spending time with friends and family. If you want to read more from Laura, check out her talent management blog Working Girl or follow her on Twitter @WorkGal.

Comments

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business. Lots of research has firmly establised the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly that certaintly undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, you also decrease the pleasure of anticipating the reward. All research on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) proves that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. And positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Arierly’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business. Lots of research has firmly establised the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly that certaintly undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, you also decrease the pleasure of anticipating the reward. All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) proves that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. And positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Arierly’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business. Lots of research has firmly establised the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly confirming that CERTAINTY undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, you also decrease the pleasure of anticipating the reward.

All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) prove that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. And positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Ariely’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

[Joe]

I saw Dan Pink RT this on Twitter and had to share with my comp friends as well.

Your takeaway feels a bit like a leap. How is that you connect dopamine to motivation?

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business. Lots of research has firmly establised the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly confirming that CERTAINTY undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, tests show that you also decrease the pleasure (measured both by dopamine levels and surveyed responses) of anticipating the reward.

All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) prove that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. And positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Ariely’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business, done many years ago. Lots of research has firmly established the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly confirming that CERTAINTY undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, tests show that you also decrease the pleasure (measured both by dopamine levels and surveyed responses) of anticipating the reward.

All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) prove that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. The video also illustrates how positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Ariely’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business, done many years ago. Lots of research has firmly established the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly confirming that CERTAINTY undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, tests show that you also decrease the pleasure (measured both by dopamine levels and surveyed responses) of anticipating the reward.

All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) prove that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. The video also illustrates how positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Ariely’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Look up "Dopamine and Motivation." Laura's citation is both correct and relevant, as is the old monkey biz video.

[Laura Schroeder]

@Joe: Great question. I don't - it's actually connected to the feeling of pleasure received. In other words, you get more pleasure (as measured by dopamine levels) from anticipating a reward than actually getting it.

[Laura Schroeder]

Comment from my cafe colleague Jim Brennan:

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business, done many years ago. Lots of research has firmly established the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly confirming that CERTAINTY undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, tests show that you also decrease the pleasure (measured both by dopamine levels and surveyed responses) of anticipating the reward.
All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) prove that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. The video also illustrates how positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Ariely’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

Thanks for commenting, @Jim!