Measuring and rewarding what people do at work? It’s a rat trap, baby, and you’ve been caught

Life imitates art. Scientists have discovered that lab mice may be conducting their own experiments on us. A paper published in the journal Current Biology speculates that mice seem to be testing their testers. They do this by deviating from simple behaviours such as responding to rewards to work out what might happen. “These mice have a richer internal life than we probably give them credit for,” explained Kishore Kuchibhotla, senior study author and an assistant professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University. “They are not just stimulus response machines. They may have things like strategies.”

To geeks of a certain age this might sound very familiar. That is because it is very like what happened with the mice who built the Earth in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Almost word for word like it, in fact.

The failure to attribute complex agency to the beings we observe and act upon is a common failure. Take what is perhaps the most famous series of experiments in behavioural science, that of Stanley Milgram. In 1961 that a team led by Milgram asked a number of people to administer what they believed to be increasingly high levels of electric shocks to a person in another room – in fact an actor – while listening to their responses and pleading.

The willingness of many to deliver what they thought were potentially fatal levels of electricity just because they were told to by an authority figure has cast a shadow on our understanding of people in the decades since. But the results failed to take into account the idea that people knew or suspected it was an experiment on them, not the person in the other room.

According to an analysis of a previously suppressed follow-up questionnaire carried out by Milgram, it turns out that the people with the propensity to deliver the biggest shocks were aware that it wasn’t real. Those who were reticent were those least likely to be aware they were the real subjects of the study. So the outcomes of the most famous experiment of its type are perhaps not what most people believe, even if it may be too late to challenge the laundered notions it created.

Who watches the watchmen?

One of the inferences we can draw from this, apart from the way that an experimenter’s biases and presuppositions can distort their own research, is that people behave differently when they know they are being watched.

This is not just important to help us assess the outcomes of studies and research, but also because the act of observation can never be passive. Even in the era of isolation and homeworking, firms maintain the impulse to monitor people in real time, rather than work with and manage them in other ways. Firms have been almost as keen to acquire management software as they have collaborative tools.

This is something we will have to bear in mind as we enter a new era of observing people in the workplace and elsewhere. Our attitudes to perpetual embedded surveillance are doubtless shaped by our relationship with technology, so the pushback against the increasingly pervasive measurement of what we do at work is likely to remain moderate.

What we shouldn’t do is suppose that the people being measured are behaving in exactly the same way they would without scrutiny.

In the 1960s, a scientist named John B. Calhoun conducted a ground-breaking experiment on rats. He built a seemingly perfect environment for them, with unlimited food and water. The only catch? Limited space.

Instead of a thriving rat utopia, Calhoun’s experiment turned into a social nightmare

The results were shocking. Instead of a thriving rat utopia, Calhoun’s experiment turned into a social nightmare. The population boomed, leading to overcrowding and a breakdown in social order. Mothers neglected their young, aggression skyrocketed, and some rats even resorted to cannibalism. Calhoun’s “rat city” became a chilling example of “pathological togetherness.”

Calhoun’s research gained widespread attention, with his findings used to warn about the dangers of overpopulation in human societies.  The concept of a “behavioural sink” resonated with concerns about overcrowded cities and social problems.

This scientific experiment even influenced a famous novel, J.G. Ballard’s “High-Rise.” The novel explores the breakdown of society within a luxurious high-rise apartment building, mirroring the social collapse observed in Calhoun’s rat city.

While the experiment focused on rodents, it raised important questions about human behaviour.  Calhoun’s work serves as a reminder of the challenges of living together and the importance of understanding how social interactions are impacted by space limitations.

The rewards problem

With gruesome outcomes like this, it’s no wonder the field of social psychology can get a bad rap for simply confirming what common sense already tells us. However, there are times when its findings are genuinely surprising and challenge deeply-held beliefs. A prime example is the discovery that rewards, often used as a tool for motivation, can actually decrease interest in the very task being rewarded.

Psychologists distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation involves engaging in an activity for its own sake, whereas extrinsic motivation is driven by external rewards. Research indicates that intrinsic motivation is crucial for high-quality achievement, and paradoxically, it can be undermined by extrinsic rewards. Interestingly, offering rewards can sometimes lead to worse performance.

No controlled studies have shown long-term improvements in work quality through rewards

There is some evidence that children rewarded for helping others become less concerned with their wellbeing, and students lose enthusiasm for learning when motivated by grades. Despite the widespread use of incentive programs in corporations, no controlled studies have shown long-term improvements in work quality through rewards or pay-for-performance plans.

The evidence seems to suggest that, while offering a larger reward might seem effective, it often damages intrinsic motivation. Distractions alone don’t have the same negative impact as rewards, indicating a specific influence on motivation. Additionally, contingent rewards (based on performance) may be worse than fixed rewards (given regardless of outcome) in undermining intrinsic motivation.

Studies involving creative tasks like puzzles appear to suggest that offering rewards can lead to lower levels of creativity and engagement. This might lead us to believe that rewards may be acceptable for mundane tasks but detrimental for more interesting ones. But rewards can backfire even for boring tasks, especially in the long term.

For instance, a study found that rewards for early task completion didn’t help and could even increase procrastination for those who found the task unappealing. Another study in India offered rewards for school attendance. While attendance initially improved, it dropped significantly once the rewards stopped. Interestingly, even children not initially affected by the rewards saw a further decrease in attendance after the program ended.

Similarly, a large-scale study in California followed students rewarded for high attendance. These students showed no improvement in attendance compared to a control group, and in some cases, attendance decreased later on.

The attendance studies, while ultimately predictable based on prior research, challenged popular assumptions about human behaviour. The California study revealed an additional twist: offering unexpected rewards after the fact turned out to be even more damaging than pre-announced rewards. This contradicts earlier research suggesting that unexpected rewards, while unhelpful, weren’t necessarily harmful. The key difference is that unexpected rewards in real-world scenarios create an expectation for future rewards, potentially leading to resentment or manipulation when they aren’t received.

It’s far simpler and less threatening to authority figures to offer rewards for showing up, rather than addressing the root causes of low attendance

The upshot of this is that firms should not expect people to respond to rewards and punishments as if they were dogs or lab mice. And even trained and conditioned animals don’t always respond in expected ways and both humans and animals may be performing their own experiments on those experimenting on them.

The research seems to suggest that rewards only change behaviour temporarily, failing to create lasting commitment or values. Often, they have the opposite effect. True motivation requires a different approach. Working with people to help them improve their skills, learn effectively, and develop positive values takes significant effort, thought, and courage.  Rewarding behaviour is a much easier option, which might explain their persistent popularity despite evidence of their longer term diminishing returns.

In the case of attendance, it’s far simpler and less threatening to authority figures to offer rewards for showing up, rather than addressing the root causes of low attendance by reforming schools and workplaces to make them inherently more engaging. We should look to move beyond simplistic approaches to motivation and explore more effective strategies that foster intrinsic motivation and long-term commitment.

This article appears in issue 21 of IN Magazine