★★★TED Lesson / Dan Pink on the surprising science of motivation, Lesson2 (ダニエル・ピンク 「やる気に関する驚きの科学」)

2012年08月05日 ★★★, business, science, TED.

TED Dan Pink : on the surprising science of motivation


About This Talk

Career analyst Dan Pink examines the puzzle of motivation, starting with a fact that social scientists know but most managers don’t: Traditional rewards aren’t always as effective as we think. Listen for illuminating stories — and maybe, a way forward.

*There is a word list below the script. The list includes blue colored words which are in the script.

*This is the third lesson of the Jason Fried speech. Lesson1 is here.




MP3ファイル 音源であるmp3に直接リンクが貼られています。右クリックをしてファイルを保存してください。






Lesson2 Script (Video Time 05:09 ~ 08:31)

(10) I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human motivation, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators. And I’m telling you, it’s not even close. If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And what’s alarming here is that our business operating system –think of the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses, how we motivate people, how we apply our human resources — it’s built entirely around these extrinsic motivators, around carrots and sticks. That’s actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks. But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach doesn’t work, often doesn’t work, and often does harm. Let me show you what I mean.

(11) So Glucksberg did another experiment similar to this where he presented the problem in a slightly different way, like this up here. Okay? Attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn’t drip onto the table. Same deal. You: we’re timing for norms. You: we’re incentivizing. What happened this time? This time, the incentivized group kicked the other group’s butt. Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box, it’s pretty easy isn’t it?(Laughter)

(12) If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks, where there is a simple set of rules and a clear destination to go to. Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind; that’s why they work in so many cases. And so, for tasks like this, a narrow focus, where you just see the goal right there, zoom straight ahead to it, they work really well. But for the real candle problem, you don’t want to be looking like this. The solution is not over here. The solution is on the periphery. You want to be looking around. That reward actually narrows our focus and restricts our possibility.

(13) Let me tell you why this is so important. In western Europe, in many parts of Asia, in North America, in Australia, white-collar workers are doing less of this kind of work, and more of this kind of work. That routine, rule-based, left-brain work — certain kinds of accounting, certain kinds of financial analysis, certain kinds of computer programming — has become fairly easy to outsource, fairly easy to automate. Software can do it faster. Low-cost providers around the world can do it cheaper. So what really matters are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.

(14) Think about your own work. Think about your own work. Are the problems that you face, or even the problems we’ve been talking about here, are those kinds of problems — do they have a clear set of rules, and a single solution? No. The rules are mystifying. The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not obvious. Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the candle problem. And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those if-then rewards, the things around which we’ve built so many of our businesses, don’t work.

To be continued to Lesson3.


Let’s talk about the article base on the questions below.

Viewpoints or discussion

  1. What kinds of situation does “reward and punishment” approach work? Can you site some specific situations?
  2. What kinds of work or tasks in your office that requires you to think outside the box?
  3. In your company, are there available jobs that can be outsourced? What are these jobs?



(10) dynamics /daɪˈnæmɪk/ noun, the way that two or more people behave with each other because of a particular situation

extrinsic /ɛkˈstrɪnzɪk/ adjective, not part of something : coming from the outside of something

intrinsic /ɪnˈtrɪnzɪk/ adjective, belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something

mismatch /ˈmɪsˌmætʃ/ verb, to put (people or things that are not suited to each other) together : to match (people or things) badly

alarming /əˈlɑːmɪŋ/ adj. causing worry and fear

assumption /əˈsʌmpʃən/ noun, something that is believed to be true or probably true but that is not known to be true : something that is assumed

protocol /ˈproʊtəˌkɑ:l/ noun, a system of rules that explain the correct conduct and procedures to be followed in formal situations

motivate /ˈmoʊtəˌveɪt/ verb, to give (someone) a reason for doing something

around carrots and sticks idiom, a promised reward

mechanistic  /mɛkəˈnɪstɪk/ adjective, relating to theories which explain phenomena in purely physical or deterministic terms

reward-and-punishment idiom, giving reward for something good that’s done, and punishment for something bad

(11) kick sb’s butt ,informal not polite, to punish or defeat someone

(12) destination /ˌdɛstəˈneɪʃən/ noun, a place to which a person is going or something is being sent

periphery /pəˈrɪfəri/ noun, the outside edge of an area : the area that surrounds a place or thing

(13) white-collar idiom, of or relating to workers whose work usually does not involve manual labor and who are often expected to dress with a degree of formality

fairly /ˈfeəli / adv. (before adjectives and adverbs) to some extent but not very:

outsource /ˈaʊtˌsoɚs/ verb, to send away (some of a company’s work) to be done by people outside the company

automate /ˈɑ:təˌmeɪt/ verb, to run or operate (something, such as a factory or system) by using machines, computers, etc., instead of people to do the work

(14) mystify /ˈmɪstəˌfaɪ/ verb, to confuse (someone) completely



(10) 私はこの数年というもの 動機付けの科学に注目してきました 特に外的動機付けと内的動機付けの ダイナミクスについてです 大きな違いがあります これを見ると 科学が解明したことと ビジネスで行われていることに食い違いがあるのがわかります ビジネス運営のシステム つまりビジネスの背後にある前提や手順においては どう人を動機付け どう人を割り当てるかという問題は もっぱら外的動機付け アメとムチにたよっています 20世紀的な作業の多くでは これは実際うまくいきますしかし21世紀的な作業には 機械的なご褒美と罰というアプローチは 機能せず うまくいかないか 害になるのです どういうことか説明しましょう

(11)グラックスバーグはこれと似た別な実験もしました このように若干違った形で 問題を提示したのです 机に蝋がたれないようにロウソクを壁に付けてください 条件は同じ あなたたちは平均時間を計ります あなたたちにはインセンティブを与えます どうなったのでしょう? 今回は― インセンティブを与えられたグループの方が断然勝ちました なぜでしょう? 箱に画鋲が入っていなかったら 問題はバカみたいに簡単になるからです (「サルでもわかる」ロウソクの問題) (笑)

(12) If Then式の報酬は このような作業にはとても効果があります 単純なルールと 明確な答えがある場合です 報酬というのは 視野を狭め 心を集中させるものです 報酬が機能する場合が多いのはそのためです だからこのような 狭い視野で 目の前にあるゴールを まっすぐ見ていればよい場合には うまく機能するのです しかし本当のロウソクの問題では そのような見方をしているわけにはいきません 答えが目の前に転がってはいないからです 周りを見回す必要があります 報酬は視野を狭め 私たちの可能性を限定してしまうのです

(13) これがどうしてそんなに重要なことなのでしょうか 西ヨーロッパ アジアの多く 北アメリカ オーストラリアなどでは ホワイトカラーの仕事には このような種類の仕事は少なく このような種類の仕事が増えています ルーチン的 ルール適用型 左脳的な仕事 ある種の会計 ある種の財務分析 ある種のプログラミングは 簡単にアウトソースできます 簡単に自動化できます ソフトウェアのほうが早くできます 世界中に低価格のサービス提供者がいます だから重要になるのは もっと右脳的で クリエイティブな 考える能力です

(14) ご自分の仕事を考えてみてください あなた方が直面している問題は あるいは私たちが― この場で議論しているような問題は こちらの種類でしょうか? 明確なルールと 1つの答えがあるような? そうではないでしょう ルールはあいまいで 答えは そもそも存在するとしての話ですが 驚くようなものであり けっして自明ではありません ここにいる誰もが その人のバージョンの ロウソクの問題を扱っています そしてロウソクの問題は どんな種類であれ どんな分野であれ If Then式の報酬は― 企業の多くはそうしていますが― 機能しないのです


Twitter公式アカウント @LR_STARS

Facebookページ ラングリッチ (Langrich)  公式ページ

Tags: , ,