Why do rewards punish?
Kohn rejects the behaviorist premise that when a reward or reinforcement follows a behavior, that the behavior is likely to be repeated - or at least that it is likely to be repeated in the long-term. Kohn writes that while manipulating students with incentives such as stickers, stars, certificates, awards, trophies and grades may seem to work in the short-term, it is a strategy that fails and does lasting harm in the long-term. Kohn's studies are similar to those of Daniel Pink, and show that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with rewards and other incentives - in fact the more we use artificial incentives to motivate students, the more they lose interest in what they are doing.
Kohn refers to the failure of the carrot-and-stick approach for teachers as well as with students. In the case of teachers he challenges the theory behind performance-based pay: "promise educators pay raises for success or threaten their job security for failure ... and it is assumed that educational excellence will follow." Many studies of performance-based pay in the USA have shown the opposite, and in fact these schemes have subsequently been abandoned. In the case of teachers, it seems, "rewarding" them has failed and has even "punished" them because of the criteria involved. Kohn questions:
Kohn writes that rewards are basically mechanisms of control, and that the experience of being controlled gets in the way of working or learning effectively and has a negative impact on relationships. Rewards and punishments only work in asymmetrical relationships and they act in ways that tip the balance even more. Kohn observes the negative effects of rewards in peer to peer relationships as well as how they work against team spirit. We know that excellence comes from "well-functioning teams in which resources are shared, skills and knowledge are exchanged, and each participant is encouraged to do his or her best." Awards and rewards interfere with collaboration and can lead to jealousies, feelings of unfair or unequal treatment and accusations of cronyism or favoritism. Awards and rewards therefore don't develop or maintain the positive relationships that lead to optimal learning or performance. In competitive cultures, everyone else is a rival and an obstacle to your own success.
Why do rewards ignore reasons?
Alfie Kohn argues that although rewards can increase the probability that we will do something, rewards also change the way we do it and our reasons for doing it, therefore they change the attitude we have towards what we are doing. He also points to many studies that show that rewards do not lead to lasting change - which is presumably what we are trying to encourage by rewarding students.
Why do rewards discourage risk-taking?
Research has shown that people are less likely to ask for help when they need it in a "carrot and stick" type of climate where the people in charge are seen as those who have to be pleased or those who have to be feared. Because of this performance inevitably suffers as people are reluctant to take risks or be open to exploring different possibilities if there is the possibility of failure or gaining the displeasure of those in charge.
Why do rewards lesson interest?
When we reward students and teachers by giving them awards, including money, we are assuming that they would not choose to act this way on their own, that they would not choose responsible action, that the love of learning is not enough, that they don't already desire to do good work. Kohn argues that rewards and punishments are just two sides of the same coin - and that coin is all about one person controlling or manipulating another. He writes that rewards are simply "control through seduction rather than by force" and that they are similar to punishments in that they are "used to pressure people to do things that they would not freely do". He goes further by stating:
Kohn rejects the behaviorist premise that when a reward or reinforcement follows a behavior, that the behavior is likely to be repeated - or at least that it is likely to be repeated in the long-term. Kohn writes that while manipulating students with incentives such as stickers, stars, certificates, awards, trophies and grades may seem to work in the short-term, it is a strategy that fails and does lasting harm in the long-term. Kohn's studies are similar to those of Daniel Pink, and show that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with rewards and other incentives - in fact the more we use artificial incentives to motivate students, the more they lose interest in what they are doing.
Kohn refers to the failure of the carrot-and-stick approach for teachers as well as with students. In the case of teachers he challenges the theory behind performance-based pay: "promise educators pay raises for success or threaten their job security for failure ... and it is assumed that educational excellence will follow." Many studies of performance-based pay in the USA have shown the opposite, and in fact these schemes have subsequently been abandoned. In the case of teachers, it seems, "rewarding" them has failed and has even "punished" them because of the criteria involved. Kohn questions:
Do we reward on the basis of how much effort is expended? What if the result of hard work is failure? Does it make more sense, then, to reward on the basis of success? But "do well" by whose standard? And who is responsible for the success? Excellence is often the product of cooperation and even individual achievement typically is built on the work of other people's earlier efforts. So who "deserves" the reward when lots of people had a hand in the performance? (Chapter 2)Rewards punish because both rewards and punishments use motivation as a way of manipulating behavior. Kohn writes that there is no real difference between someone who says "Do this and you'll get that" and someone who says "Do this or here's what will happen to you." Kohn goes on to develop his theory about why rewards, in the end, create the same feelings as punishments:
If reward recipients feel controlled, it is likely that the experience will assume a punitive quality over the long run, even though obtaining the reward itself is usually pleasurable. (Chapter 4)Why do rewards rupture relationships?
Kohn writes that rewards are basically mechanisms of control, and that the experience of being controlled gets in the way of working or learning effectively and has a negative impact on relationships. Rewards and punishments only work in asymmetrical relationships and they act in ways that tip the balance even more. Kohn observes the negative effects of rewards in peer to peer relationships as well as how they work against team spirit. We know that excellence comes from "well-functioning teams in which resources are shared, skills and knowledge are exchanged, and each participant is encouraged to do his or her best." Awards and rewards interfere with collaboration and can lead to jealousies, feelings of unfair or unequal treatment and accusations of cronyism or favoritism. Awards and rewards therefore don't develop or maintain the positive relationships that lead to optimal learning or performance. In competitive cultures, everyone else is a rival and an obstacle to your own success.
As teachers we are trying to build positive and trusting relationships with our students, so that they feel they can approach us for help - the same is true of those in roles of team leaders and administrators. Looking at the larger picture of a school as a whole, good working relationships are characterized by trust, open communication and the willingness to ask for assistance. Team and curriculum leaders should be seen as people who will help you, not judge you. Kohn writes:
This is precisely what rewards and punishments kill. If your parent or teacher or manager is sitting in judgment of what you do, and if that judgement will determine whether good things or bad things happen to you, this cannot help but warp your relationship with that person. You will not be working collaboratively in order to learn or grow, you will be trying to get him or her to approve of what you are doing. (Chapter 4)
Why do rewards ignore reasons?
Alfie Kohn argues that although rewards can increase the probability that we will do something, rewards also change the way we do it and our reasons for doing it, therefore they change the attitude we have towards what we are doing. He also points to many studies that show that rewards do not lead to lasting change - which is presumably what we are trying to encourage by rewarding students.
If your objective is to get people to obey an order, to show up on time and do what they're told, then bribing or threatening them may be sensible strategies. But if your objective is to get long-term quality in the workplace, to help students become careful thinkers and self-directed learners, or to support children in developing good values, then rewards, like punishments, are absolutely useless. In fact we are beginning to see they are worse than useless - they are actually counterproductive. (Chapter 3)Later in the chapter, Kohn goes on to discuss how students who are extrinsically motivated use less sophisticated learning strategies and score lower on tests than children who are interested in learning for its own sake
Why do rewards discourage risk-taking?
Research has shown that people are less likely to ask for help when they need it in a "carrot and stick" type of climate where the people in charge are seen as those who have to be pleased or those who have to be feared. Because of this performance inevitably suffers as people are reluctant to take risks or be open to exploring different possibilities if there is the possibility of failure or gaining the displeasure of those in charge.
Why do rewards lesson interest?
When we reward students and teachers by giving them awards, including money, we are assuming that they would not choose to act this way on their own, that they would not choose responsible action, that the love of learning is not enough, that they don't already desire to do good work. Kohn argues that rewards and punishments are just two sides of the same coin - and that coin is all about one person controlling or manipulating another. He writes that rewards are simply "control through seduction rather than by force" and that they are similar to punishments in that they are "used to pressure people to do things that they would not freely do". He goes further by stating:
All rewards, by virtue of being rewards, are not attempts to influence or persuade or solve problems together, but simply to control. (Chapter 2)We want our students to be intrinsically motivated as this will lead to them doing well in school. Alfie Kohn has demonstrated the many ways that extrinsic motivators such as rewards undermine intrinsic motivation and therefore undermine creativity and success. Many psychological studies have reinforced Kohn's findings, but the real question is why? It seems that this is because they are interfering with our choices, with the way we control our own destinies, or what Daniel Pink has referred to as our autonomy. Kohn writes:
When something interferes with this sense of self-determination - when, for example, we are simply told what we have to do (and how and when to do it), various undesirable consequences follow ... If we have very little discretion about what we do all day at work or school, there is a good chance we will spend the time wishing the weekend would arrive. (Chapter 5)Kohn goes on to list a number of circumstances that erode intrinsic motivation. As well as rewards, this list includes being threatened or warned about what will happen if we don't do something well enough, being watched and being evaluated. Studies of children and adults have shown that they lose interest in tasks when they are carefully monitored, especially when the surveillance is to check our performance or to evaluate how good a job we are doing. This is more frequently called "accountability", but all that really happens is that intrinsic motivation, performance and creativity declines - even when the evaluation turns out positive. Kohn writes:
Anytime we are encouraged to focus on how well we are doing at something (as opposed to concentrating on the process of actually doing it), it is less likely that we will like the activity and keep doing it when given a choice. (Chapter 5)Other circumstances that have a detrimental effect on performance include being forced to work under deadlines, being ordered around and competing against other people:
When success is turned into winning .... the consequences include a drastic reduction in interest. That doesn't mean we necessarily stop engaging in the activity... but typically we do so with less interest in the task itself. (Chapter 5)Replacing intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation is also detrimental to our mental health as it affects "our sense of ourselves as basically competent and worthwhile, of being able to have an impact on the events that shape our lives."
No comments:
Post a Comment