1. in your opinion, which is the more effective way to motivate the people of society? the incentive pay systems(rewards) method or the economic sanctions (penalty) method?
2. In the New York Times magazine article "A Payoff out of Poverty?", the Oportunidaes program was a huge success in Paso de Coyutla, Mexico. Despite the strict traditions that had been going on for decades, the program established there was greeted by the citizens with open arms and change happened rapidly. Oportunidades is now one of the most-studied social programs on the planet. If it is such an accomplishment why then is it not having the same effect on the poor in New York?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Brittany #1
i think that its good to have a balance. yes you want to offer incentives (rewards) but you also need to have a penalty on the other side of things. just because people have the opportunity to do good and be rewarded for it doesn't mean that every one will take advantage of the opportunity at hand. their needs to be space in the middle for people to stay neutral and a line at both ends. the negative and the positive
I think that both reward and punishment are necessary. In my opinion if you want someone to do something for you, then you use incentives. The incentives motivate the individual to perform at their peak. Punishment I think should be used to prevent things from happening. If someone is fearful of a consequence they are less likely to disobey rather than being rewarded for not misbehaving.
I can't help but go with what Mike and Chris have said. A balance of rewards and penalties must be found. Just as Stone talks of different methods of keeping kids in school. The New York schools gave Freshmen dictionaries and T-shirts. The Wisconsin schools penalized students by cutting welfare checks of mothers whose kids were truant. These two examples of rewards and penalties are sad in my opinion, there is not a good balance here. First of all a dictionary and a T-shirt are not going to motivate me to go to school. Second, cutting welfare checks of mothers whose kids are truant isn't going to help anyone. These two examples that were in the book showed a horrible balance of rewards and penalties which can both be very effective. All that these examples proved to me was that there must be a balance, and the rewards and penalties should be well thought out before put into effect. Nonetheless, effective inducements, all depending on how they are utilized.
1. I think you definitely need both incentives and sanctions to run an effective organization (country, etc.) because although they are both methods of getting people to behave a certain way, they address different issues. I don't think that simply not being rewarded for a "good" action is sufficient to deter people from committing a "bad" action, nor do I think that just avoiding punishment would be terribly effective in keeping people in line. People need positive action (positive in the sense that something happens, not necessarily that that something is good). However, if I had to pick one, I think that incentive pay would be more effective, if only because the organization (government) imposing them would be more likely to gain the goodwill of the people, thus (hopefully) keeping efficacy and stability high.
#1 In my humble opinion it really depends on the person. I know people who need that kind of micro-manager or coach that yells at them and points out all of their mistakes and others need positive reinforcement. I think in general granting incentives or rewards for hard work would be more efficient in the long run. Punishing people would be more effective in the short run. In regard to the example from the reading of growers, to go off of economics, the market requires that individuals that don't produce goods fail. However if you keep punishing those that don't behave in accordance with social norms soon you will go from 50 growers to 5 growers.
I think having incentives are a good motivation. they arent a negative at all. it makes people work harder and raises the competition. people chase for rewards and if they work hard enough and diligently enough then they can be rewarded. For example if a person working for a corporate buisness makes tons of sales and promotes the buisness very good they have EARNED the reward of a raise in their salary pay. Plus it feels much better working hard for something and being rewarded for your hard doings DONT CHAAA THINKK??
NEIL SAMPSON
I think its good to have both rewards and penalties. But, I think penalizing people gets the point across more than rewards. I remember learning in my psychology class that the test subjects learned from negative renforcement quicker. I think that just because its something bad happening to people they will take more action then if youre giving out awards for it.
Jordana Bradburn
I think its good to have a balance of both as well. For example.. If they said " If you vote in the election we will give you $100" people would most likely go and vote because they are getting rewarded for voting, but I think a lot more people would go and vote if they said "If you dont vote, you pay the government $100" rewards are great incentives but when you penalize people they are more likely to do what you ask of them.
-Tyler Ingley
Brittney#1
I think that in order to get the ultimate results you have to have both. People need that great reward in order to do something but at the same time in order to give them that encouragement you have to have that penalty also. One can't work with out the other.
I think that the incentives would work the best if it were possible to have people cooperate without forcing them. Because we can look at the 5 cent recycling refund and see that the government has implamented both a economic sanction with the 5 cents but also allows you to get it back with the 5 cent incentive. But even though everyone is being charged the 5 cents, not everyone chooses to redeem it. So this is where it is difficult to decide which would work if it cant be forced.
Why do we have to choose between the two. I think the most effective way is a combo of both. If someone does something well they need to be rewarded with positive feed back so they keep on doing good. If they screw up they need to be punished so they no it is not acceptable
In my opinion the most effective way to motivate people to do things would have to be both ways. For instance a job if a person does a great job the they will be rewarded and they will be happy. This will make them want to try harder to keep on getting these rewards. Also if people are not doing a good job they should not be rewarded for that and then they should be penalized for it.
it seems everyone is saying both, but the question asked which one would be better. i would say motivation. yeah both are required for the closest to perfect world, but if you can only choose one, then y not the more positive of the two. if it was only penalties that would be one sad and negative world to live in.
Post a Comment