Transcript

We take a look at this article from The Wall Street Journal. There it is, just from about six weeks ago, the state of the American workplace is meh, and what it showed is some data saying that 52% of all full time workers are not involved in enthusiastic or committed to their work. And that's the good news, because another 18% are actively disengaged. All right, so let's add that up. That means 70% of people in the American workforce are not engaged what is going on here. I think I have a sense of what's going on here, and I think it's a problem of technology. I think it's a technological problem. And let me tell you what I mean by that. To order to understand this, we have to take get a backdrop here, and that backdrop is 50 years of social science studying motivation. For the last half century, social scientists all over the world have taken a very hard headed, analytical, empirical look at what motivates people on the job, and we don't have time to talk about it in all of its nuance. So what I want to do is give you 50 years of give you one takeaway. Give you 50 years of this research, and I want to summarize it in 12 words. That's pretty efficient. All right, 50 years of social science in 12 words. So here we go. This is going to be the backdrop to understand the technological problem we havethat underlies the state of the workplace being meh. Isthat? How you say it? Meh, meh, meh. What is it? Meh, let's all say it. Ooh, it's an ugly word.

All right, so there's a so let's talk about what we know about scientists know about motivation. There's a certain kind of motivator that we use in organizations. We use a lot of motivators, but this is our mainstay motivator. I call it an if then motivator. If you do this, then you get that. If you do this, then you get that. An if then motivator, a controlling contingent motivator. If you do this, then you get that. Here's what 50 years of social science tells us. I'm going to summarize it in 12 words, if then motivators are great for simple and short term tasks. They work really well. They're really effective. They're great for simple and short term tasks, butthey're not so great for complex and long term tasks. Do that again, great for simple and short term, not so great for complex and long term. That's 50 years of social science in 12 words, let's, let's unpack that just a little bit.Why are if then rewards great for simple and short term tasks? Who is an instinct.