Generating ideas that pay for themselves
My wife is rarely happier than when she is sitting at breakfast, working on a newspaper crossword. I used to feel excluded by this until, over weeks and months, she explained the constructs of a cryptic clue.
Now we do the crossword together and I notice we get the best results when we co-operate, discussing ideas and perspectives. Sometimes I suggest a race to find the first clue but the pressure of competition tends to stifle our thinking. Instead of experimenting with different propositions, the thinking seems to get stuck in a creative rut.
The same can happen when we link rewards to creativity, according to Teresa Amabile, a Harvard Business School psychologist, who researched the effects of rewarding creativity in a study involving more than a hundred children.
The experiment focused on two activities. The first was to tell a story from a book that is made up of pictures with no words. The second involved a Polaroid camera. All the children were keen to take pictures with the camera but one group were told they could play with the camera only if they promised to tell the story when they had finished. They had to sign a note to this effect.
A second group of children were simply told that there were two activities available to them. They were asked if they wanted to play with the camera, then asked to tell a story from the book. There was no suggestion that one activity was dependent on a willingness to do the other.
When the stories of the first group were compared with those of the second, the efforts of the second group were rated as far more creative than those of the first.
Ms Amabile concluded that the external control implied by the reward was sufficient to impair creativity.
A similar experiment was carried out, using various materials to solve a practical problem. One group was offered financial rewards for reaching a high-quality solution in a short time. But the group that was offered no financial reward produced the best result and did it most quickly.
Ms Amabile says the experiments expose a link between our intrinsic motivation and the quality of our work. If we love what we are doing, the creativity flows. But pile on some external pressure or link the activity to a reward and our creativity declines. I am not rewarded for completing a crossword but I find it rewarding in itself. It is the same satisfaction you get from a job well done.
This might appear to contradict what we know from the Skinner Box experiments carried out by Burrhus Skinner, the US psychologist, who illustrated the power of rewards by placing a rat in a box with a food dispenser and a button.
The Amabile and Skinner experiments are both discussed by Frans Johansson in a new book, The Medici Effect*. Mr Johnson, however, makes a distinction between linking rewards to clear goals such as the food in Skinner's box, and goals that are unclear or complex.
He also notes that not all rewards have a negative effect on instrinsic motivation. "Rewards that are provided as testament to competence or as part of a learning experience can prove very effective," he writes. "The means that an innovator should receive the fruits of his or her labour. In fact if such rewards are not given, this is almost sure to stifle motivation."
The reward in this case may be nothing more or less than "credit where credit is due". But, how often is the originator of an idea forgotten by those who use the idea? The history of innovation is littered with examples of inventors who see their ideas exploited by others.
Harry Beck, the draughtsman who devised the London Undergound map in 1933 was paid only five guineas for the original work. In fact, his map was rejected by the underground management at first because it was not geographically exact.
However, the map proved popular with the travelling public from its inception and has gone on to become a design icon.
But Mr Beck was unhappy that his work was never properly rewarded: the most visible recognition he received from his employers during his lifetime was a plaque at Finchley Central station in north London.
It could be argued that Mr Beck was doing the job that he, as an employee, was expected to do and that his managers gave him the time and space to be creative. This was Aki Maita's argument when she invented the Tamagotchi toy - the virtual pet that sold in its millions.
Ms Maita did not receive a share of the profits when she invented the toy. She argued that producing and selling the toy had not been her accomplishment alone, but that of a large team. Her role was that of the originator.
Even so, like Mr Beck, Ms Maita received widespread public recognition for her work.
Would either of these inventors have achieved their success had they been competing for some grand prize? We know that financial rewards can stimulate invention. The ￡20,000 longititude prize offered by the British Government in the 18th century for the first foolproof way of calculating longitude, proved a strong incentive for John Harrison, the clockmaker who devoted his life to the project.
But if the prize was the original stimulus, it was the project and the problem-solving that propelled Harrison's efforts. When you look at the clocks at the Greenwich Observatory, you see a monument to a life of perseverance. Harrison, like Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of St Paul's Cathedral, let his achievements speak for him.
The relationship between financial reward and creativity appear complex. But it is clear that great work is stimulated by something other than money.
Mr Johansson urges people to seek out what he calls the "intersections" between one interest or one way of working or thinking and another. This kind of search, he accepts, can involve taking risks. People may need to pack in their full time job if they are to put themselves in the best position to innovate.
Does this mean that there is nothing in his book for employers whose workplaces rely for their smooth operation on processes, systems and rules, backed by regular rewards and bonuses?
On the contrary, there is a good deal that managers can draw from this collection of ideas. Perhaps the most valuable lesson for the workplace - something implied rather than stated by the author - is the need for employees to be allowed some discretion over their work. Whenever I have accounted great customer service it has nearly always involved someone adopting discretionary behaviour. Disappointments are usually accompanied by the explanation: "I would like to do this but the rules prevent me."
Every job needs structure and every organisation needs rules. But we cannot expect great work when the rules are perceived as handcuffs. The Medici Effect, Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts and Cultures, by Frans Johansson, is published by Harvard Business School Press, price $24.95 .xref richarddonkin.com
创造力与奖赏挂钩后
我太太喜欢边吃早餐，边做报纸上的填字游戏，很少有比这更让她高兴的事了。过去，我一直有受到排斥的感觉，直到她花了几个星期、甚至几个月向我解释谜面提示的原理，我才转变过来。
现在我们两人一起玩填字游戏，而且我发现，当我们进行合作、有商有量时，就会有最好的成绩。有时我提议比一比，看谁先找到第一条线索，但竞争压力往往会抑制我们的思维。此时非但不能试验不同的设想，而且思维因墨守成规而使创意受限。
据哈佛商学院心理学家特雷莎?阿玛拜尔(Teresa Amabile)称，当我们把奖赏与创造力挂钩时，就可能发生同样的事情。阿玛拜尔对100多位儿童进行了一项研究，考察为创造力提供奖赏会有什么影响。
该实验着重观察两项活动。第一项是让孩子看一本只有图画没有文字的书，然后讲个故事。第二项活动要用一台宝丽来照相机，所有孩子都想用这台照相机拍照，但其中的一个小组被告知，只有当他们答应玩好相机后讲故事，他们才能玩相机。他们必须为此签一份保证书。
另一小组的孩子则只被告知有两件事可做。首先询问孩子是否想玩照相机，之后再说要讲书上的故事，其间并无任何表示说，一项活动需要取决于他们是否愿意做另一项活动。
当把两个小组所讲的故事进行比较时，第二小组讲故事的创意要大大超过第一小组。
于是阿玛拜尔女士得出结论：奖赏所隐含的外部控制足以削弱创造力。
当时还进行了一项类似的实验：要求采用不同的材料来解决一个实际问题。一个小组被告知，如果在短时间内找到高质量的解决方案，他们将获得金钱奖励。但是未被告知会有经济奖励的小组却得出了最佳结果，而且完成得最快。
阿玛拜尔女士表示，这些实验揭示了我们的内在动机和工作质量之间的关系。如果我们喜欢自己做的事情，创造力就会涌现。但如果施加一些外部压力，或将活动与奖赏挂钩，那么我们的创造力就会降低。虽然我完成填字游戏没有奖赏，但我发现完成游戏本身就是一种奖赏。这和你出色完成工作所获得的满足感是一样的。
看来，这也许和我们从“斯金纳箱子”(Skinner Box)实验中了解的情况有矛盾。该实验是由美国心理学家伯勒斯?斯金纳(Burrhus Skinner)进行的。他把一只老鼠放进箱子里，当中有一个食物供应装置以及一个按钮，以证明奖赏的威力。
弗兰斯?约翰逊(Frans Johansson)在他的新书《梅迪奇效应》(The Medici Effect)*中，对阿玛拜尔和斯金纳的实验都进行了讨论。但约翰逊先生指出，把奖赏和清晰的目标（如斯金纳箱子中的食物）挂钩，与把奖赏和含糊、复杂的目标挂钩是有区别的。
他还指出，并非所有奖赏都会对内在动机起负面作用。“若把奖赏作为对能力的证明，或作为学习体验中的一部分来提供，那会证明是非常有效的，”约翰逊写道，“这意味着创新者应当获得其劳动成果。事实上，如果不提供这样的奖赏，那几乎可以肯定会抑制动机。”
这里所说的奖赏可以只是指“应奖则奖”。但是，最先提出创意的人被后来采用这项创意的人遗忘，这种事情是否经常发生呢？在创新的历史长河中，发明家眼看自己的创意被他人利用的例子不胜枚举。
制图员哈里?贝克(Harry Beck)于1933年设计了伦敦地铁图，但这个创举只得到五几尼的酬劳。事实上，他的地铁图最初曾遭到地铁公司管理层的否定，理由是它在地理位置上并不精确。
然而，该地图刚问世就广受乘客们的欢迎，后来更成为设计杰作一直受到推崇。
但贝克先生并不高兴，因为他的工作从未得到合理的奖赏：在他有生之年，他从雇主那里得到最显著的赞誉，就是挂在伦敦北部Finchley Central地铁站的一块标牌。
你当然可以这么争辩说：当时贝克先生做了雇员应做的工作，而公司管理人员给了他时间和空间来从事创意活动。事实上，当真板亚(Aki Maita)发明Tamagotchi电子宠物时就抱着这个观点。这种虚拟宠物已卖出了数以百万个。
真板亚女士没有因发明这种玩具而分到任何盈利。她强调说，生产和销售这种玩具不是她一个人的功劳，而是一个大团队的功劳。她所扮演的角色是原创者。
尽管如此，真板亚女士和贝克先生一样，其工作得到了公众的广泛赞誉。
假如这两位发明家是为了角逐某个大奖，他们是否会取得上述成功呢？我们知道，经济奖励能刺激发明。英国政府在18世纪设立了2万英镑的经度奖，颁给经度简易计算法的发明者，该奖项证明对钟表匠约翰?哈里森(John Harrison)是个强大的激励，他穷其一生钻研这个项目。
但是，如果说奖项是最初的动力，那么推动哈里森不断努力的就是项目本身和解决问题的过程。当你在格林威治天文台观赏这些钟表时，你实际上看到了代表哈里森毕生不懈努力的丰碑。他和圣保罗大教堂(St Paul’s Cathedral)的建筑师克里斯托弗?雷恩爵士(Sir Christopher Wren)一样，以成就为自己代言。
经济奖励与创造力之间的关系看来颇为复杂。但有一点却很清楚：伟大的工作是由金钱之外的东西激励而成。
约翰逊先生极力主张，必须在一种兴趣、工作或思维方式与另一种兴趣、工作或思维方式之间，找到他所称的“交汇点”。他承认，这种探寻可能要承担一些风险。如果人们打算让自己处在最佳创新状态下，就可能需要放弃全职工作。
这是否意味着，他的书对雇主没什么用呢？雇主们的工作场所一般依靠流程、制度和规则，并通过稳定的报酬和奖金为支撑，实现平稳运作。
恰恰相反，管理人员能从书中的点子获益不少。至于工作场所最有价值的启示也许是：雇主应允许雇员在一定程度上自由支配自己的工作。作者在书中虽未明说，但却暗示了这一点。当我分析那些出色的客户服务时，几乎总与行驶自由支配权有关。而令人失望的情形通常会有这样的解释：“我想要这么做，但规则不允许。”
每件工作都需要有结构；每个组织都需要有规则。但当规则被人视为手铐时，我们不能指望会有出色的工作。
《梅迪奇效应――对思想、概念与文化交汇点的突破性启示》(The Medici Effect, Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts and Cultures)，作者：法兰斯?约翰逊，哈佛商学院出版社出版，售价24.95美元。
