In a famous scene from the film "Jerry Maguire," NFL wide receiver Rod Tidwell repeatedly screams, "Show me the money!" as his agent listens on the other end of the telephone. Intuition might tell us that showing the money motivates, and that increasing an employee's salary should correspondingly boost his or her motivation. It does—under certain conditions. The evolving field of behavioral economics is challenging the assumption that more money inevitably leads to increased effort.
In a recent field study that he conducted along with Harvard colleagues Duncan Gilchrist and Michael Luca, Harvard Business School Professor Deepak Malhotra set out to answer a basic question: "Do employees work harder when they are paid more?" As Malhotra, the Eli Goldston Professor of Business Administration, said in an interview, "Previous research has shown that paying people more than they expect may elicit reciprocity in the form of greater effort or productivity." Malhotra and his research team, however, found that paying more only led to greater productivity when the additional pay was presented as a gift, with no strings attached.
In the field study with 266 workers, three groups were hired to do a one-time, four-hour data entry task via the Internet labor market oDesk.com, which allows for online recruitment of freelancers from around the world.
"Keep in mind," Malhotra said, that "all of these people previously made less than $3 per hour where they live." Employees in one group did not know of the existence of the other groups. One group was given a lower starting pay rate ($3 per hour) and another a higher one ($4 per hour). Evaluating the work effort and performance of the low-pay versus the high-pay group, Malhotra said that "employees who were promised $4 worked no harder than those who were promised $3." Higher pay didn't lead to statistically better performance.
“Think carefully not just about what to pay employees, but also how to pay them”
"When someone is paid $4," said Malhotra of the findings, "even though it is more than they are used to making or expecting, there may be no reason for them to interpret this as a gift or concession from the employer. More likely, they just assume that their expectations were wrong, and $4 is 'the going rate' for this type of work." So paying more elicited about the same employee effort as the lesser rate.
The third group brought the most provocative results. Its members were initially offered $3 per hour, but then received a surprise $1 increase to match the higher-pay group. The pay increase was not related to performance. It was offered immediately after employees had agreed to work for $3 because, they were told, "we have a bigger budget than expected." So the additional dollar was perceived as a gift, Malhotra said.
"Those who were promised $3 but then later were given an additional $1 worked significantly harder than the other two groups," he said. "We attribute this to the salience of the gift: It was obvious to them that we didn't have to give this additional compensation, but that we had chosen to." The gift "signaled that we had done something nice for them which they may want to reciprocate." And they did reciprocate, with higher productivity.
Indeed, the "gift" group of workers performed with "roughly 20 percent higher productivity than both" the other groups, the study said. And for some employees who had more experience, the boost in productivity was much higher. Moreover, the gift group maintained better focus throughout the work, and performed especially well late into the assigned task.
What do these findings, which Malhotra described as "$3 + $1 is more than $4," mean for real-world companies? He suggested that companies should "think carefully not just about what to pay employees, but also how to pay them. The same amount of compensation can be structured in ways that will be more or less appreciated and reciprocated."
Malhotra also believes that companies need to consider what other factors motivate employees. "There is a lot of work that shows non-monetary incentives (e.g., recognition, respect, autonomy, etc.) can be powerful motivators of behaviors in the workplace," he said. "The key is to understand you are dealing with human beings who work hard not simply because of financial incentives, but because of a whole host of other factors."
We see more research saying the same things, yet large enterprises - possibly the biggest influencers - leading by example - still incentivise in ways that don't deliver results.
There are key distinctions between research findings, education and embodiment. What are we doing about that?
The general trend is that incentives beyond the standard package generally motivates individuals to perform better since a temporary (carrot) target realigns their thoughts and motivates them to perform better. The trick for the employer remains in making it attractive for the targeted group.
My observations over 5 decades is that there is a certain critical range, which varies according to job type, culture, current economic conditions and the age and years of experience of the emplyee, within which employees expect to be paid. If you pay below this range, productivity declines. Such employees may be motivated to additional productivity if monetary incentives are also available. If you pay above this range, productivity does not necessarily increase. These employees may be additionally motivated by certain non-monetary incentives, but only if the employee places a personal value on what is offered, (eg single persons, with no partner and no children, may not place a much value on parental leave).
Regardless of what is offered by the employer, there comes a point where no additional incentive will produce a long-term increase in productivity. Additional incentives may produce a short-tem improvement, but producivity will soon return to normal levels. For this reason, such short-term incentives are best targeted to one or two times during the year when higher producivity is especially required.
Put it this way: If an American CEO receives a huge bonus in a given year thanks to stock options maturing, what would the impact be if he or she took 20% of that extra pay and distributed it as "thank you" bonuses to every employee for doing the work that got the CEO the bonus? The amount per employee would be small, but the gesture would have a big impact on engagement, and productivity, for the next quarter.
It would be more informative to see some studies with salaried professionals whose pay (with a few more zeroes--to make it interesting as they say) truly is not linked directly to either work effort or outcomes.
Short answer? Money is a short term incentive and works well as an attractor to someone considering a move to a new company. Longer time motivation is borne of motivation through interesting work and a clear understanding of how the work fits and contributes to the broader goals of the business.
As long as the initial wage is not perceived to be unfair, any increase in wage that can be perceived as a gift i.e. not deserved, will be reciprocated either in increased productivity or compliance etc. Past research and findings have told us that but the issues are really quite complicated .
What is important is the "context " or environment & whether it is neutral, positive or negative. If the context is negative all "gifts' may be viewed with suspicion & the reciprocating response may well be equally negative. E.G. if when the $1 is given, some people will say that they were probably underpaid in the first place.
More specific research to account for various contextual conditions is needed to pin-point the actual "motivating" factors involved.