Tavish's Questions on Inducements (Discussion for November 11) - 22 views

• 
  #1 Tavish Dunn on 10 Nov 11

   

  1. In Dan Pink, the use of money as a reward for desired results or behavior is presented as harmful to motivation, but it is shown as beneficial in promoting change in Payoff Out of Poverty. When are inducements beneficial for promoting behavioral changes? What do you think makes inducements effective in those situations?
  
  2. In Jay Z vs The Game, Jay Z's career and influence continue stay strong while he ignores attacks from other rappers despite having the power to prevent them from being heard and force others to follow his views and leadership. Is it beneficial for Jay Z to not retaliate against less prominent rappers? How do you think people generally react when people in authority try to force their views onto others?
  
  Thanks everyone. See you Friday.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">1. In Dan Pink, the use of money as a reward for desired results or behavior is presented as harmful to motivation, but it is shown as beneficial in promoting change in Payoff Out of Poverty. When are inducements beneficial for promoting behavioral changes? What do you think makes inducements effective in those situations? <br /> <br /> 2. In Jay Z vs The Game, Jay Z's career and influence continue stay strong while he ignores attacks from other rappers despite having the power to prevent them from being heard and force others to follow his views and leadership. Is it beneficial for Jay Z to not retaliate against less prominent rappers? How do you think people generally react when people in authority try to force their views onto others? <br /> <br /> Thanks everyone. See you Friday.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #3 Nancy Camarillo on 11 Nov 11

   

  I think it is beneficial for Jay Z no to retaliate against less prominent rappers because it gives him already evident power and influence more validity. When someone who has power is challenged by someone who doesn't have power, you allow those with less power to voice their opinion without you yourself getting involved because you know you have the upper hand. Retaliating would show others that a) that there is a fear this person and or group will have an impact on your power or b) that what these individuals with less power have to state is in somewhat accurate. The idea that you only attack when you feel there is a actual threat. This would ultimately affecting the desired outcomes you have for whatever issue, in JayZ's case it would be the desire for others to see his talent as better than others

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I think it is beneficial for Jay Z no to retaliate against less prominent rappers because it gives him already evident power and influence more validity. When someone who has power is challenged by someone who doesn't have power, you allow those with less power to voice their opinion without you yourself getting involved because you know you have the upper hand. Retaliating would show others that a) that there is a fear this person and or group will have an impact on your power or b) that what these individuals with less power have to state is in somewhat accurate. The idea that you only attack when you feel there is a actual threat. This would ultimately affecting the desired outcomes you have for whatever issue, in JayZ's case it would be the desire for others to see his talent as better than others</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #4 Bethany Petersen on 11 Nov 11

   

  Regarding the Jay Z article, I think that his move to ignore the attacks against him was a very good decision. Generally, if people are repressed by the people in authority, they gain even more strength to fight back. By ignoring the insignificant insults, he demonstrates that he truly is better than the other rappers, because they are too unimportant for him to worry about. Had he made the decision to lash back at his opponents, they would only find more reason to continue the fight. This principle comes into play often politically, as this is often the best route for a political body to take when dealing with opposition. Forcing people to obey your will only makes them fight back harder, and through it it is impossible to create a just and free society.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Regarding the Jay Z article, I think that his move to ignore the attacks against him was a very good decision. Generally, if people are repressed by the people in authority, they gain even more strength to fight back. By ignoring the insignificant insults, he demonstrates that he truly is better than the other rappers, because they are too unimportant for him to worry about. Had he made the decision to lash back at his opponents, they would only find more reason to continue the fight. This principle comes into play often politically, as this is often the best route for a political body to take when dealing with opposition. Forcing people to obey your will only makes them fight back harder, and through it it is impossible to create a just and free society.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #5 cj_woldanski on 11 Nov 11

   

  I think that money as a reward is personally a good thing. People should get rewarded if they do well in their job. It makes no sense how money as a reword should hurt motivation. You would think that if someone said who ever works the hardest and makes the most sales this quarter will get a 5,000 dollar bonus, then everyone would work hard to try to get that money. It seems to me then most of the time it would hurt motivation would be when someone does not win the bonus then they are just envious and sore losers.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I think that money as a reward is personally a good thing. People should get rewarded if they do well in their job. It makes no sense how money as a reword should hurt motivation. You would think that if someone said who ever works the hardest and makes the most sales this quarter will get a 5,000 dollar bonus, then everyone would work hard to try to get that money. It seems to me then most of the time it would hurt motivation would be when someone does not win the bonus then they are just envious and sore losers.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #6 Taylor Rofinot on 11 Nov 11

   

  I feel that it is beneficial to Jay Z to not retaliate because like the article said it will give The Game time to self destruct by continually trying to spark a battle with people who have power such as Jay Z. Also by Jay Z not responding he is not allowing The Game to receive any more attention or fame that he would not otherwise have. When people of power try to force their opinions upon someone else they generally get mad if they do not agree and attempt to find some way to retaliate. If they agree with the opinion then they are happy to have someone enforcing these views.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I feel that it is beneficial to Jay Z to not retaliate because like the article said it will give The Game time to self destruct by continually trying to spark a battle with people who have power such as Jay Z. Also by Jay Z not responding he is not allowing The Game to receive any more attention or fame that he would not otherwise have. When people of power try to force their opinions upon someone else they generally get mad if they do not agree and attempt to find some way to retaliate. If they agree with the opinion then they are happy to have someone enforcing these views.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #7 Andrew Rothans on 11 Nov 11

   

  I think it is very beneficial for Jay Z not to retaliate because it shows he is the bigger and better person and he wont let anyone bring him down. When people are forced to do things by people in higher authority they are not always open and ready to conform to society. People do not enjoy being forced to do something against what they believe in.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I think it is very beneficial for Jay Z not to retaliate because it shows he is the bigger and better person and he wont let anyone bring him down. When people are forced to do things by people in higher authority they are not always open and ready to conform to society. People do not enjoy being forced to do something against what they believe in.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #8 shane paulson on 11 Nov 11

   

  I believe it absolutely a smart strategic move for Jay-Z to ignore these attacks from smaller competition. In this case, if he were to retaliate, it would only give smaller competition longer time in the spotlight, which would increase their chances at success. It would also show a sense of fear if he cared enough to respond.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I believe it absolutely a smart strategic move for Jay-Z to ignore these attacks from smaller competition. In this case, if he were to retaliate, it would only give smaller competition longer time in the spotlight, which would increase their chances at success. It would also show a sense of fear if he cared enough to respond.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #9 Sabryna Aylard on 12 Nov 11

   

  I feel inducements are beneficial when the people only participate in these behavioral changes just for the inducement. They need to have a interest or desire to want the behavioral change. For instance, the only reason the Payoff Out of Poverty worked was because the inducement just helped the people in poverty get started. The rest was of their desire to leave poverty. While in the TED video, the people just wanted the inducement to have it, not to gain new knowledge or have a passionate desire to solve the problem. So Inducements do not necessarily work because a person's heart is normally not willing to commit to a behavioral change and instead just do it for the payoff in the end.
  
  I believe that Jay-Z should not try to suppress the Game because if he uses his power to humiliate the Game, Jay-Z's population would decrease because they would feel sorry for the Game. Since the Occupy Wall street is going on right now, they would associate themselves more with the Game because Jay-Z is ruthlessly using his power for "bad". So if Jay-Z stays quiet, he will benefit because then people would feel that the Game is just jealous of Jay-Z and is being immature because he isn't as popular. So I feel the Jay-Z should just let the Game destroy himself.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I feel inducements are beneficial when the people only participate in these behavioral changes just for the inducement. They need to have a interest or desire to want the behavioral change. For instance, the only reason the Payoff Out of Poverty worked was because the inducement just helped the people in poverty get started. The rest was of their desire to leave poverty. While in the TED video, the people just wanted the inducement to have it, not to gain new knowledge or have a passionate desire to solve the problem. So Inducements do not necessarily work because a person's heart is normally not willing to commit to a behavioral change and instead just do it for the payoff in the end. <br /> <br /> I believe that Jay-Z should not try to suppress the Game because if he uses his power to humiliate the Game, Jay-Z's population would decrease because they would feel sorry for the Game. Since the Occupy Wall street is going on right now, they would associate themselves more with the Game because Jay-Z is ruthlessly using his power for "bad". So if Jay-Z stays quiet, he will benefit because then people would feel that the Game is just jealous of Jay-Z and is being immature because he isn't as popular. So I feel the Jay-Z should just let the Game destroy himself.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top