Discussion: View Thread

Expand all | Collapse all

Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

  • 1.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-07-2006 20:45
    Dear Colleagues:

    Since my retirement I have become interested in the American
    political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try
    to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on politically.

    Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state
    lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and
    General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1 million.

    The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of
    people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to
    understand the issues at stake in the election.

    This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the
    lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation,
    voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.

    So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents
    correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
    OR
    will intrinsic motivation be undermined?

    OR
    what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic
    motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?

    I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on
    my LTE/Op-ED website
    URL:
    http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.html

    Thank you for your interest!

    Martin G. Evans
    Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

    URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans

    Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/MANAGEMENT/
    WEB Editor, Academy of Management Journal: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
    of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who
    have too little.
    Franklin D. Roosevelt


  • 2.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-07-2006 22:28
    This is a farce. People will go vote just to get a chance on the lottery
    without one thought about politics. What are they thinking?

    Steve



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
    [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Evans
    Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:45 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Dear Colleagues:

    Since my retirement I have become interested in the American
    political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try
    to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on
    politically.

    Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state
    lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and
    General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1
    million.

    The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of
    people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to
    understand the issues at stake in the election.

    This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the
    lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation,
    voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.

    So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents
    correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
    OR
    will intrinsic motivation be undermined?

    OR
    what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic
    motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?

    I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on
    my LTE/Op-ED website
    URL:
    http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.h
    tml

    Thank you for your interest!

    Martin G. Evans
    Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

    URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans

    Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/MANAGEMENT/
    WEB Editor, Academy of Management Journal: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
    of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who
    have too little.
    Franklin D. Roosevelt


  • 3.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-07-2006 23:20
    Unintended consequences: This could encourage people to figure out ways
    to vote more than once!

    Grace
    **********************
    Dr. Grace B. McLaughlin
    Organizations & Management
    The Paul Merage School of Business
    University of California, Irvine
    Irvine, CA 92697-3125
    949-824-4945

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
    [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Stanard
    Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:28 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation
    Theory

    This is a farce. People will go vote just to get a chance on the lottery
    without one thought about politics. What are they thinking?

    Steve



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
    [mailto:] On Behalf Of Martin Evans
    Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:45 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject:

    Dear Colleagues: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation
    Theory

    Since my retirement I have become interested in the American
    political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try
    to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on
    politically.

    Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state
    lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and
    General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1
    million.

    The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of
    people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to
    understand the issues at stake in the election.

    This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the
    lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation,
    voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.

    So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents
    correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
    OR
    will intrinsic motivation be undermined?

    OR
    what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic
    motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?

    I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on
    my LTE/Op-ED website
    URL:
    http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.h
    tml

    Thank you for your interest!

    Martin G. Evans
    Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

    URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans

    Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/MANAGEMENT/
    WEB Editor, Academy of Management Journal: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
    of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who
    have too little.
    Franklin D. Roosevelt


  • 4.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-08-2006 00:25
    This idea is gross, stupid, absurd, brainless, foolish, puerile, irresponsible, incompetent, moronic, asinine, ridiculous, silly, and insane.
     
     
     
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 6:45 PM
    Subject: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Dear Colleagues:

    Since my retirement I have become interested in the American
    political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try
    to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on politically.

    Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state
    lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and
    General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1 million.

    The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of
    people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to
    understand the issues at stake in the election.

    This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the
    lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation,
    voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.

    So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents
    correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
    OR
    will intrinsic motivation be undermined?

    OR
    what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic
    motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?

    I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on
    my LTE/Op-ED website
    URL:
    http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.html

    Thank you for your interest!

    Martin G. Evans
    Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

    URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans

    Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/MANAGEMENT/
    WEB Editor, Academy of Management Journal: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
    of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who
    have too little.
    Franklin D. Roosevelt 


  • 5.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-08-2006 03:51
    To me it will be a sad day if people will have to be "bribed" to vote.
    Stimulating voting in this manner raises several ethical questions to
    me. Will such a vote mean anything? Will the person even know or care
    who he or she is voting for? Can such a vote count the same as someone
    who was intrinsically motivated to vote, voting to make a differnce? I
    believe even a low voting turnout is much better than a "synthetic" high
    turnout. In terms of motivation theory, I expect that such a step can be
    a demotivator to vote to those people that would have been intrinsically
    motivated to vote. In other words, it can lead to people that takes
    voting sincerely not to vote anymore.

    Mias

    Prof. Mias de Klerk
    University of the Free State
    PO Box 10075
    Secunda, 2302
    South Africa
    Tel: +27-(0)17- 610 3990
    Fax: +27-(0)17- 610 4982
    Cell: +27-(0)82 901 5480
    mias.deklerk@sasol.com

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
    [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Evans
    Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:45 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Dear Colleagues:

    Since my retirement I have become interested in the American
    political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try
    to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on
    politically.

    Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state
    lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and
    General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1
    million.

    The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of
    people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to
    understand the issues at stake in the election.

    This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the
    lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation,
    voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.

    So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents
    correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
    OR
    will intrinsic motivation be undermined?

    OR
    what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic
    motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?

    I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on
    my LTE/Op-ED website
    URL:
    http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.h
    tml

    Thank you for your interest!

    Martin G. Evans
    Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

    URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans

    Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/MANAGEMENT/
    WEB Editor, Academy of Management Journal: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
    of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who
    have too little.
    Franklin D. Roosevelt


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOTICE: Please note that this eMail, and the contents thereof,
    is subject to the standard Sasol eMail legal notice which may be found at:
    http://www.sasol.com/legalnotices

    If you cannot access the legal notice through the URL attached and you wish
    to receive a copy thereof please send an eMail to
    legalnotice@sasol.com


  • 6.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-08-2006 05:36
    To modify slightly Steve's perspective, I think that not all "people" as he refers to them, will vote only to get a free chance at the lottery, but I believe that many if not most new voters at the margin will vote precisely for that reason. I also feel that they will fail to recognize or acknowledge any responsibility to understand issues and candidates sufficiently to develop and vote well formed convictions. I agree completely with Steve's ending question.
     
    Ron
     
    Dr. Ronald G. Fountain
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 10:28 PM
    Subject: Re: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    This is a farce. People will go vote just to get a chance on the lottery
    without one thought about politics. What are they thinking?

    Steve



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
    [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Evans
    Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:45 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Dear Colleagues:

    Since my retirement I have become interested in the American
    political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try
    to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on
    politically.

    Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state
    lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and
    General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1
    million.

    The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of
    people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to
    understand the issues at stake in the election.

    This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the
    lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation,
    voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.

    So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents
    correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
    OR
    will intrinsic motivation be undermined?

    OR
    what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic
    motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?

    I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on
    my LTE/Op-ED website
    URL:
    http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.h
    tml

    Thank you for your interest!

    Martin G. Evans
    Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

    URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans

    Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphinefr/MANAGEMENT/
    WEB Editor, Academy of Management Journal: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
    of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who
    have too little.
    Franklin D. Roosevelt 


  • 7.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-08-2006 06:58
    Martin:

    The following might be relevant to your issue.

    Kerr, Steven. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. [Book;
    Edited Book] Vecchio, Robert P (Ed). (1997). Leadership: Understanding the
    dynamics of power and influence in organizations. (pp. 246-256). xiii, 577
    pp. Notre Dame, IN, US: University of Notre Dame Press.



    Paul E. Spector
    Department of Psychology
    University of South Florida
    Tampa, FL 33620
    (813) 974-0357 Voice
    (813) 974-4617 Fax
    spector@shell.cas.usf.edu
    website http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~spector

    On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Martin Evans wrote:

    > Dear Colleagues:
    >
    > Since my retirement I have become interested in the American
    > political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try
    > to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on politically.
    >
    > Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state
    > lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and
    > General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1 million.
    >
    > The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of
    > people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to
    > understand the issues at stake in the election.
    >
    > This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the
    > lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation,
    > voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.
    >
    > So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents
    > correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
    > OR
    > will intrinsic motivation be undermined?
    >
    > OR
    > what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic
    > motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?
    >
    > I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on
    > my LTE/Op-ED website
    > URL:
    > http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.html
    >
    > Thank you for your interest!
    >
    > Martin G. Evans
    > Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.
    >
    > URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans
    >
    > Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/MANAGEMENT/
    > WEB Editor, Academy of Management Journal: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/
    >
    > The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
    > of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who
    > have too little.
    > Franklin D. Roosevelt
    >


  • 8.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-08-2006 08:25

    On the other hand, from a self-perception theory standpoint, perhaps the very action of going to the polls, even if for the wrong reasons, might spur people to think about the issues more than they would have otherwise.  After alll, the extrinsic motivator doesn´t tell them who to vote for, and if the issue were framed such that the money were interpreted as a "valuing" rather than "controlling" stimulus, it might increase intrinsic interest in the election.

    I too think it is sad to bribe people into the public sphere.  Personally, I would rather promote democracy through public discussion projects rather than voting, as lack of informed public discourse seems to me the root of the problem.  But, then again, I think Martin´s question is a good one, not to be dismissed so lightly,

    Gazi Islam

    From:  Steve Stanard <s.stanard@COMCAST.NET>
    Reply-To:  sjstanard@stanard.com
    To:  OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject:  Re: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory
    Date:  Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:28:09 -0500
    >This is a farce. People will go vote just to get a chance on the lottery
    >without one thought about politics. What are they thinking?
    >
    >Steve
    >
    >
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
    >[mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Evans
    >Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:45 PM
    >To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >Subject: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory
    >
    >Dear Colleagues:
    >
    >Since my retirement I have become interested in the American
    >political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try
    >to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on
    >politically.
    >
    >Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state
    >lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and
    >General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1
    >million.
    >
    >The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of
    >people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to
    >understand the issues at stake in the election.
    >
    >This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the
    >lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation,
    >voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.
    >
    >So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents
    >correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
    >OR
    >will intrinsic motivation be undermined?
    >
    >OR
    >what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic
    >motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?
    >
    >I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on
    >my LTE/Op-ED website
    >URL:
    >http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.h
    >tml
    >
    >Thank you for your interest!
    >
    >Martin G. Evans
    >Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.
    >
    >URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans
    >
    >Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/MANAGEMENT/
    >WEB Editor, Academy of Management Journal: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/
    >
    >The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
    >of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who
    >have too little.
    >Franklin D. Roosevelt


  • 9.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-08-2006 08:54

    Now, what you are saying is that you disagree with this?

     

    Steve

     

     

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of James Bishop
    Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:25 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

     

    This idea is gross, stupid, absurd, brainless, foolish, puerile, irresponsible, incompetent, moronic, asinine, ridiculous, silly, and insane.

     

     

     

     

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Martin Evans

    Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 6:45 PM

    Subject: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

     

    Dear Colleagues:

    Since my retirement I have become interested in the American
    political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try
    to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on politically.

    Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state
    lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and
    General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1 million.

    The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of
    people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to
    understand the issues at stake in the election.

    This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the
    lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation,
    voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.

    So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents
    correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
    OR
    will intrinsic motivation be undermined?

    OR
    what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic
    motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?

    I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on
    my LTE/Op-ED website
    URL:
    http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.html

    Thank you for your interest!

    Martin G. Evans
    Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

    URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans

    Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/MANAGEMENT/
    WEB Editor, Academy of Management Journal: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
    of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who
    have too little.
    Franklin D. Roosevelt 



  • 10.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-08-2006 11:57
    From a research perspective I believe that the undermining of intrinsic motivation by extrinsic rewards has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction. I don't believe that in this case there would be any effect on those who are already voting of adding the proposed lottery, with the possible exception of those who morally object to the concept of gambling (you may find that there are actually many folks in Arizona that have that opinion).

    I would more question the underlying logic of the whole idea. It seems to me that the voting rate is a reflection of the amount of engagement by a population in political thought and involvement. What you want in a population is highly engaged citizens who are knowledgeable about issues and care about the process. The voting rate is one measure of that engagement.

    Increasing the voting rate by way of a lottery may increase voting, but it will not likely result in better informed and engaged citizens. In my mind getting people who are not voting to vote by this method (assuming that it would work) would be detrimental to the political process.

    Voting is the way that people let their opinions be known to their representatives. Those who don't vote are also letting their opinion be know. That opinion is "I don't care enough about the issue to get off the couch and vote". By involving these people in the voting process without engaging them in the process of understanding and caring about the issues would not promote democracy in my opinion. This suggestion is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound.

    Jeff Peterson
    University of Washington



    On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Martin Evans wrote:

    > Dear Colleagues:
    >
    > Since my retirement I have become interested in the American political process
    > -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try to apply my, rapidly
    > obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on politically.
    >
    > Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state lottery
    > type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and General elections
    > will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1 million.
    >
    > The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of people that
    > vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to understand the issues
    > at stake in the election.
    >
    > This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the lottery prize,
    > albeit with a small expected value) to a situation, voting, where there is a
    > already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.
    >
    > So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents correct
    > and people will develop a deeper understanding
    > OR
    > will intrinsic motivation be undermined?
    >
    > OR
    > what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic motivation of
    > voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?
    >
    > I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on my
    > LTE/Op-ED website
    > URL:
    > http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.html
    >
    > Thank you for your interest!
    >
    > Martin G. Evans
    > Professor Emeritus, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.
    >
    > URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans
    >
    > Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/MANAGEMENT/
    > WEB Editor, Academy of Management Journal: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/
    >
    > The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those
    > who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
    > Franklin D. Roosevelt


  • 11.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-08-2006 11:59

    I do not believe that this debate is so black and white.  Does anyone truly vote based on some democratic-altruism?  I think not.  Although we would say we vote based on our convictions we also vote to support candidates that will give us what we want.  While that is a theoretical model with more mediators than vote -> win, it is a similar model with voting on issues.  Vote->get candidate I like->get policy that I like or supports my lifestyle, beliefs, or my profession.  So, from an expectancy theory standpoint they are simply lowering the expectancy but raising the valence of the voting outcome.  So, maybe there will be a new type of self-serving voter, but they will not be alone in their self-serving motives.  We all have that motive to some degree.  Just some thoughts.  Which, wrong or right, might be more productive that 50 ways to say its stupid.

     

     

    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of s.stanard@COMCAST.NET
    Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 7:54 AM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU; s.stanard@COMCAST.NET; Bowler, Matt
    Subject: Re: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

     

    Now, what you are saying is that you disagree with this?

     

    Steve

     

     

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of James Bishop
    Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:25 PM
    To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

     

    This idea is gross, stupid, absurd, brainless, foolish, puerile, irresponsible, incompetent, moronic, asinine, ridiculous, silly, and insane.

     

     

     

     

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Martin Evans

    Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 6:45 PM

    Subject: Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

     

    Dear Colleagues:

    Since my retirement I have become interested in the American
    political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try
    to apply my, rapidly obsolescing <st1:place w:st="on">OB</st1:place> knowledge to things that go on politically.

    Shortly, the <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:state> ballot will include a proposal to set up a state
    lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and
    General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1 million.

    The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of
    people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to
    understand the issues at stake in the election.

    This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the
    lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation,
    voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.

    So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents
    correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
    OR
    will intrinsic motivation be undermined?

    OR
    what conditions can <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arizona</st1:place></st1:state> create to ensure that the intrinsic
    motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?

    I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on
    my LTE/Op-ED website
    URL:
    http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.html

    Thank you for your interest!

    Martin G. Evans
    Professor Emeritus, Rotman <st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Management</st1:placename>, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Toronto</st1:placename></st1:place>.

    URL: www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans

    Former Co-Editor, M@n@gement: http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/MANAGEMENT/
    WEB Editor, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Academy</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Management Journal</st1:placename></st1:place>: http://aom.pace.edu/amjnew/

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance
    of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who
    have too little.
    Franklin D. Roosevelt 



  • 12.  Query - Application of Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Theory

    Posted 08-08-2006 13:04
    The problem for many, I think, is instrumentality - they don't vote because they don't think it matters (e.g. "my one vote won't make a difference") - it does not lead to any positively valent outcome in their minds, and it takes time & hassles (negative valence).  Others don't know the candidates well enough or they don't believe there's a big difference between them.  These folks have no motivation & some would argue probably should not vote.  So, offering extrinsic rewards might affect those who play the lottery thinking their odds are better than they are, but for most, I suspect it will have little impact, and for others, it may get people voting who should probably stay home (my cynical view)....

     
    Dr. William B. Snavely
    Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies
    Richard T. Farmer School of Business
    Miami University
    Oxford, OH 45056
     
    Email: snavelwb@muohio.edu
    513-529-7258