After we created Stack Overflow, some people were convinced we had built a marginally better mousetrap for asking and answering questions. The inevitable speculation began: can we use your engine to build a Q&A site about {topic}? Our answer was Stack Exchange. Pay us $129 a month (and up), and you too can create a hosted Q&A community on our engine -- for whatever topic you like!
Well, I have a confession to make: my heart was never in Stack Exchange. It was a parallel effort in a parallel universe only tangentially related to my own. There's a whole host of reasons why, but if I had to summarize it in a sentence, I'd say that money is poisonous to communities. That $129/month doesn't sound like much -- and it isn't -- but the commercial nature of the enterprise permeated and distorted everything from the get-go.
(fortunately, the model is changing with Stack Exchange 2.0, but that's a topic for another blog post.)
Yes, Stack Overflow Internet Services Incorporated©®™ is technically a business, even a venture capital backed business now -- but I didn't co-found it because I wanted to make money. I co-founded it because I wanted to build something cool that made the internet better. Yes, selfishly for myself, of course, but also in conjunction with all of my fellow programmers, because I know none of us is as dumb as all of us.
Nobody is participating in Stack Overflow to make money. We're participating in Stack Overflow because …
I don't care how much you pay me, you'll never be able to recreate the incredibly satisfying feeling I get when demonstrating mastery within my community of peers. That's what we do on Stack Overflow: have fun, while making the internet one infinitesimally tiny bit better every day.
So is it any wonder that some claim Stack Overflow is more satisfying than their real jobs? Not to me.
If this all seems like a bunch of communist hippie bullcrap to you, I understand. It's hard to explain. But there is quite a bit of science documenting these strange motivations. Let's start with Dan Pink's 2009 TED talk.
Dan's talk centers on the candle problem. Given the following three items …
… how can you attach the candle to the wall?
It's not a very interesting problem on its own -- that is, until you try to incentivize teams to solve it:
Now I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem by a scientist from Princeton named Sam Glucksberg. Here's what he did.To the first group, he said, "I'm going to time you to establish norms, averages for how long it typically takes someone to solve this sort of problem."
To the second group, he said, "If you're in the top 25 percent of the fastest times you get five dollars. If you're the fastest of everyone we're testing here today you get 20 dollars." (This was many years ago. Adjusted for inflation, it's a decent sum of money for a few minutes of work.)
Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem?
Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer. Three and a half minutes longer. Now this makes no sense, right? I mean, I'm an American. I believe in free markets. That's not how it's supposed to work. If you want people to perform better, you reward them. Give them bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. That's how business works. But that's not happening here. You've got a monetary incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity -- and it does just the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.
It turns out that traditional carrot-and-stick incentives are only useful for repetitive, mechanical tasks. The minute you have to do anything even slightly complex that requires even a little problem solving without a clear solution or rules -- those incentives not only don't work, they make things worse!
Pink eventually wrote a book about this, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.
There's no need to read the book; this clever ten minute whiteboard animation will walk you through the main points. If you view only one video today, view this one.
The concept of intrinsic motivation may not be a new one, but I find that very few companies are brave enough to actually implement them.
I've tried mightily to live up to the ideals that Stack Overflow was founded on when building out my team. I don't care when you come to work or what your schedule is. I don't care where in the world you live (provided you have a great internet connection). I don't care how you do the work. I'm not going to micromanage you and assign you a queue of task items. There's no need.
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.
– Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Because I know you yearn for the vast and endless sea, just like we do.
| [advertisement] JIRA 4 - Simplify bug tracking for everyone involved. Get started from $10 for 10 users » |
Great post Jeff, Keep up the good work :)
Rob Golding on June 1, 2010 4:45 AMIt is always interesting to see why it is that humans do what they do. I read about the MIT experiments in Predictably Irrational: http://amzn.to/bNl9Io by Dan Ariely. Great book!
Molex333 on June 1, 2010 4:46 AMThat video is spot on and completely in line with my experience. I have worked with some extremely well paid tech staff and I have never seen such a bunch of useless, lazy F&cks (including to some degree myself).
I have since moved on, started my own company, make next to nothing and absolutely love it.
Jeroen
www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawloYgA9DKv7QyWkPkFLGDp1ARhCDl8ZgUQ on June 1, 2010 5:14 AMGreat and informative post. It's very weird to see that business ignores such scientific data.
ikke on June 1, 2010 5:14 AMWell, the money must not be crap, but I have also seen what gets people going is a vision and a mission! Not the kind that so many corporates seem to think will enthuse their staff, with a lot of big talk and useless positive speech while disregarding the real issues on the ground, but something that is actually 'owned' by the team, and they can contribute to. Improving the world, in whatever way, is a great motivator! Show me a developer that doesn't care whether their software is ever used, or making the world a little bit better, as long as they get paid for it, and I'll show you regrets looking back in 20 or 30 years time.
Jacques Bosch on June 1, 2010 5:53 AMI don't mind "communist hippie bullcrap," in fact I enjoy it. I just hate to see it used to mask a blatantly profit-motivated enterprise whose business model harvests the voluntary efforts of others.
Donmcarthur on June 1, 2010 6:34 AMA strong candidate for article most forwarded to one's boss.
Tim VanFosson on June 1, 2010 6:35 AM"That $129/month doesn't sound like much -- and it isn't"
I really wanted to use Stack Exchange but couldn't afford it... Maybe to enterprise $129/month isn't much, but to the small guy it is.
Scobal on June 1, 2010 6:39 AMBased solely on the description of the experiment, I'm inclined to disagree with the conclusions. This experiment creates a situation where:
1. Time is the sole differentiating factor (no points for sticking the candle on the wall 'really well',
2. No opportunity to develop a skill (let me go learn about the nature of candle wax...).
3. The difference between first and second place is pretty extreme.
In such a situation, yeah people are going to get a little frantic, and yeah it's going to negatively affect their performance.
How does this experiment say anything about real life, where people are motivated to increase their skills over time? Where people and organizations can choose each other based on a variety of factors -- including monetary compensation?
By the way, my SO rep is currently above 2700, which, while not remarkable, does demonstrate that I enjoy problem solving enough to do it for a pat on the back. While I'm willing to solve the problems I want to solve for free, I'll only solve the problems someone else wants to solve for money. And if the other guy is willing to compensate me better, all things being equal, I'm going to go solve that guy's problems.
www.danielgpratt.com on June 1, 2010 7:12 AMThe example he gives is completely unrelated to the real world. Asking a group of people to complete tasks they are not professionals at completing is very different from asking a skilled person to complete a task he is a professional at completing. If this idea of incentivizing is so good try to get a house painter to paint your house for the reward of a job well done.
In addition some of the q and a sites that are run for major corporations that need difficult questions answered have rewards over $10,000. I have a strong feeling these questions would never be answered for a pat on the back.
Do you think netflix reward for improving their recommendation engine was fruitless?
I will agree that your post sounds like "a bunch of communist hippie bullcrap"
Chrislindgren on June 1, 2010 7:29 AMIntrinsic motivation is hardly a new idea; it's an embedded feature of human nature. Fascinating topic - one that was researched in the early mists of time by the rishis of ancient India. It's simple: what people want is to experience greater happiness and escape sorrow. We've been given five instruments through which we can find happiness: body, feeling, will, mind, soul. Happiness comes by using these tools "expansively" - in ways that expand our awareness. Suffering comes when we use them contractively. As a distance runner, the most contractive thing I can do is overtrain. OT'd runners are crabby and incapable of much empathy. Expansive training is harmonious, controlled, incremental; it produces joy. Same goes for sharing, whether it's code or smiles. I've done 50-mile races as fundraisers for a small private school. Those races were tinged with an aura of joy. Interesting stuff. I wrote a book about expansive sports - the whole dang thing is online: Fitness Intuition.
George Beinhorn on June 1, 2010 7:43 AMI love StackOverflow but this does not compute: investing tens of housands and now millions in a startup does not (somehow) create distorting financial incentives for the StackOverflow team, but your customers paying $129 for a StackExchange does create such a disincentive, for them. How does that work?
Also, "I'm not in it for the money" is the biggest lie in Silicon Valley. While you guys have admirable business practices and plans to give back, why not admit money is part if your motivation? Didn't some of your team work for free or at discounted rates? You're honestly saying they -- or Joel -- don't want a big payday? There's nothing wrong with being in it (at least partly) for the money.
Ryantate on June 1, 2010 8:02 AMMoney can't buy happiness but it can sure make you comfortably miserable, right?
The problem with using money as The primary motivator is that the supply is variable. What happens when you don't have enough? Organizations usually revert to "You are fired if..." negative territory and we all know those work environments.
Money & Things as a life goal seems hollow. My guess is that most people would are working hard to get Money & Things will say, "It's a means to an end." To what end? How much is enough? Show me people who can answer those questions and I will show you people who grok this post.
Dusty Pearce on June 1, 2010 8:21 AM"I'm not in it for the money" Yeeeeeah Right!!
Not in it for the money? Release everything under GPL or better yet under BSD
I wish they would have given more concrete figures. If you are talking about highly skilled, highly paid types - then maybe the difference between 100k and 110k isn't a strong motivator.
The white-board video said to pay them 'enough' that they don't have to worry about money. I certainly don't make 'enough' to afford the life-style I'd like to have. And I don't mean super-rich with a yacht or anything. But enough to have a decent house in a nicer part of town and afford 2-3 kids.
Rob Paulson on June 1, 2010 9:40 AMYeah, that is nice. People need freedom. But if you want to create a good company, you need also something orderly. You can't build an ocean liner by giving all the workers free hands. There needs to be designing, planning, schedules, etc... You can still treat people like people, not only as resources, but plans have to be made. The same goes to everything in the world. If people are given free hands, they will or at least might consume the nature before they notice that hey, someone has to take some responsibilities here.
Silvercode on June 1, 2010 9:42 AMFor every developer whose intentions are for the best, there's least one person standing behind him with dollar signs in their eyes and their hand out. Until we have the physical needs of every human on this planet taken care of we'll still focus more on killing each other than bettering ourselves or society.
Rich on June 1, 2010 9:42 AMYou're doing a great job! Thanks for the 'vast and endless sea' reminder....
Zafariqbal on June 1, 2010 9:56 AMI don't think that giving people the ability to make decisions for themselves translates into anarchy. Planning, designing, sticking to schedules, etc are all things that people will address themselves when motivated.
I worked on a farm when I was in high school, and we had the ability to pretty much organize ourselves on our team however we wanted. There was 3-4 of us, all 14-17 years old and a farmer with a tractor pulling a baler and wagon of hay. Our job was to get it off the wagon and stacked appropriately in the barn before the next wagon came. How we did it was our problem.
The key is people in many offices beat around the bush and don't say what they need to say. On the farm, if someone wasn't pulling their weight, they shaped up or shipped out. In many offices, people are able to leech off of everyone for months before anything is done. In offices where everyone is focused on the mission, that just doesn't happen.
Brian Duffy on June 1, 2010 10:02 AM@Brian Duffy "Planning, designing, sticking to schedules, etc are all things that people will address themselves when motivated." That is called organising things. In an organization that usually means dividing tasks into jobs, so someone might end up being a designer, someone a sales person, someone project manager, someone programmer, and so on. Those people propably end up into jobs that they have education for and are interested in. You really don't just hire a bunch of random people and let them do what they want, if you want something at least moderately specific to happen.
Silvercode on June 1, 2010 10:38 AMNietzsche's The Gay Science (1882), (trans. W. Kaufmann), s. 42
Work and boredom - Looking for work in order to be paid:
in civilized countries today almost all men are at one in doing that. For all of them work is a means and not an end in itself. Hence they are not very refined in their choice of work, if only it pays well. But there are, if only rarely, men who would rather perish than work without any pleasure in their work. They are choosy, hard to satisfy, and do not care for ample rewards, if the work itself is not the reward of rewards. Artists and con-templative men of all kinds belong to this rare breed, but so do even those men of leisure who spend their lives hunting, traveling, or in love affairs and adventures. All of these desire work and misery if only it is associated with pleasure, and the hardest, most difficult work if necessary. Otherwise, their idleness is resolute, even if it spells impoverishment, dishonor, and danger to life and limb. They do not fear boredom as much as work without pleasure; they actually require a lot of boredom if their work is to succeed. For thinkers and all sensitive spirits, boredom is that disagreeable "windless calm" of the soul that precedes a happy voyage and cheerful winds. They have to bear it and must wait for its effect on them. Precisely this is what lesser natures cannot achieve by any means. To ward off boredom at any cost is vulgar, no less than work without pleasure. Perhaps Asians are distinguished above Europeans by a capacity for longer, deeper calm; even their opiates have a slow effect and require patience, as opposed to the disgusting suddenness of the European poison, alcohol.
Many years has passed, nothing changes :) Still very interesting opinion.
Leszek Tarkowski on June 1, 2010 12:42 PMI think if there was an 'economical' hosted pricing plan with no contract (you pay month to month) of $25 per month, you'd get more hits. I had wanted to start a Stack Exchange site but $129 is too steep.
Brian Wilkins on June 1, 2010 12:53 PMI'd like to suggest a place that has worked under this model for a very long time: the university. It's one of several reasons why universities have thrived and survived for something like seven or eight hundred years (depending on your definition), across multiple cultures and across seismic shifts in economies, political systems, and social norms. Professors pretty much meet the criteria: they get paid "enough" (not that some don't complain!); they have autonomy, purpose and mastery; and they serve a greater good.
As for whether or not they could build an ocean liner, the point of the presentation was that building an ocean liner is comparatively trivial because it is a known task with known parameters. Just because the task is complex doesn't mean it's conceptually difficult. Dan's point is that we need to be concerned about the kinds of thinking that requires *new* thinking. The rest of it is being automated or outsourced.
Programming is writing. It's not a special kind of writing, it is just general writing, you know, for other people to read. You can pay someone to write something you want them to say, but not to just write for the sake of it, unless you have an ulterior motive. Wouldn't it be possible to say what you want programmers to write, and thus convert them into some form of journalist? Up to a certain point, yes. In fact, we always had these sort of 9-to-5 program writers. What is the problem then? The problem is that their productivity is ridiculous, even pitiful, when compared to the work hackers do, voluntarily. And they write terrible code (anyone wanted another paradox?), so basically it's counterproductive to have them around like that.
What's the point? People will work better (even ethically speaking), for less money (above a threshold that is completely affordable), if they can make sense of their work. Of course, ideology is not gonna take us anywhere. Patience will: the power of not getting in the way of a positive trend is huge.
Aslemos2009 on June 1, 2010 5:41 PMThis is by far the most interesting posts I've read on this blog for the last 2 years. Some have been so-so, some have been good, but this one is great. Thanks Jeff, outstanding work!
Lars Andren on June 1, 2010 6:00 PMAs everyone says great post!
It made me want to work with you.
Indeed.
I've always been pretty happy with the pay of most places.
It's normally the work environment that normally makes the system unproductive.
In the end though, you can't get rid of politics.
To an extent, it is kind of the idea behind true professions.
It is a kind of structured intrinsic incentive.
While not all doctors are great caring people. You can be pretty sure that a doctor in charge of a particular unit is at least very very good.
There is an aspiration to keep getting better.
Now of course professions have their downsides with respect to society (slow innovation, job protection above other matters...), so I'm not saying it is the solution.
As to outsourcing mundane work? Well, let's just say you need to know something to actually start innovating. If you outsource all the low-level work, you're not going to grow the next generation of technical leaders. You also drive top talent away from a field when you outsource. Would a top person enter a field in the technical area if their only hope of a decent life is to make the next innovation? Probably not. Whereas if they are decent 'regular' mundane jobs available, they might be more willing to take the risk in the field itself knowing if they fail... there's always some mundane job.
Yamin Bismilla on June 1, 2010 6:07 PMPeople with money say the craziest things. I guess they assume everyone else has money.
I don't do this for the money, I don't care what you paid me I just love me some programming followed by $129 a month for hosting a Q/A site is nothing.
All of Jeff's business partners can now take more of the pie, Jeff is interested in money. Best news they've probably heard all day.
I don't care if Jeff wants money or not. I don't care about how much money are they earning with the adds within StackOverflow, ServerFault or SuperUser. For me, It just works! I don't feel like wasting my time, or like working for Jeff or Joel or anyone within the company. I earn knowledge, for free. When I ask for something, just a couple of minutes after, I get a set of responses and peers that not only has the knowledge, but the desire to help me. That is worthless.
I feel an insane need to stay connected to the site, answering, asking, reading, learning. Much more than from MSDN Forums (for example), where you earn rewards like MVP awards and so on. The badges just gave me that, the award. And the "thanks" gave me the motivation.
Thanks for the Job at all the Q&A sites, they are simply amazing.
Randolf (R-F) on June 1, 2010 7:45 PMIll reserve judgement till Stack Exchange 2.0. I wonder though, were your feelings cause or effect?
Said differently, had Stack Exchange been wildly successful landing each of you bajillion dollars, would you feel the same?
Alan Balasundaram on June 1, 2010 8:00 PM@Randolf (R-F) It should have been "priceless" :-)
Anyway, otherwise, I completely agree.
Jeff, thanks for StackOverflow and family. All of them rock.
Nivas R on June 1, 2010 9:44 PMInspired video... I love the idea, I just wish that more people would implement this kind of thing, the premise is simple... if people like what they are doing they will do it well, with attention to detail (passion?) and it won't matter about the money... isn't this what companies have been trying to do since the word go?
Jay Taylor on June 1, 2010 10:28 PM@Scobal: OK, now think of the alternative - which is building and hosting something like it yourself.
Your own time isn't entirely free.
That was an amazing animation by the way.
Rob Janssen on June 1, 2010 11:51 PMYou raise a lot of interesting points, I agree with most of them. In my experience of managing people (across many disciplines), I've found that people go to work for two very basic reasons:
* Personal esteem
* Monetary compensation
The order of which depends entirely on the person and their circumstances at the time. The experiments don't take the latter into consideration. Could it be that someone in a desperate financial situation would actually perform exponentially worse than someone who was stable if both were offered a significant reward to complete the same task? Possibly.
The point that I agree with is taking money completely out of the equation. Its a stress that all of us could do very well without. If I had the capital, I'd happily start a company that existed solely to break even while paying its employees significantly higher than industry standard wages, me of course being one of them.
Think about it, we give developers nice quiet offices, catered lunches, free books, free gadgets, three monitors, ergo chairs .. hell, we'd give them kittens to purr in their lap if we thought it would help them concentrate. Yet, we miss the fact that our star ninja developer is lagging behind because s/he can't figure out a way to afford something that their family really needs. We effectively miss and fail to eliminate the biggest distraction of all.
Walk into that developer's office and say "Don't worry, the company will help you handle that" and the person may crap the next best collision proof hashing algorithm.
You are or will be in it for the money at some point. For some people, this dos not kick in until you find your own resources inadequate to handle something. That doesn't mean you go from one and become the other, it just means things happen and sometimes money is going to be more important to you than it was the day before.
I could have just said the value we place on rewards is far from static, but what fun would that have been?
Tinkertim on June 2, 2010 12:56 AMIf I was the founder of a successful startup I could see myself proclaiming "It's not about the money!".
I don't agree with the message that you shouldn't be motivated by money or if you are, you're doing something wrong. I want to do what I love and make lots of money. It's not really about having a spreadsheet of my finances I can smugly show all my friends. Money is a vehicle for those things that Dan Pink talks about. Money gives you autonomy. Mastery and purpose naturally follow.
By the way StackExchange is awesome. I love it.
Ryan on June 2, 2010 1:01 AMWhile I think that this article is *very* thought provoking and has a great deal of truth to it, I find it quite disturbing when I look at myself and try to figure out what motivates ME.
I have almost *always* looked for the monetary compensation, yet as I look back on my career, it is easy to see that while it positions where I had both autonomy & mastery, I was happiest.
Perhaps as with everything else in life, learning how to balance everything is the real key.
Great article, great site. Keep up the good work.
Rana on June 2, 2010 5:48 AM@Yamin Basmilla I am very inspired by your last point! I paraphrase it as "The highly skilled professionals in an intrinsically motivated economy, must have come up from a mundane, unskilled, extrinsically motivated economy, or else how would they have been motivated to become skilled in the first place, and to develop a taste for challenge?"
Money is just one of many metrics people use to compare each-other so they can continue to maintain the primate social hierarchy that rules their lives.
I tried to explain this to my Father/Boss and I confirmed that it can sound like communist hippie bullcrap. But after much debate I fail to see his point of view. I am looking for legitimate opposition in these comments, and not finding much more than "come on you must admit you love money." which to my ears just sounds like "use our currency, because we has moar of it than you."
Consider little big planet, which has a reputation based economy sort of like Stack Overflow. players create levels which are rated by other players in the public sphere, ratings then control publicity of the creations. However the players have created several other types of currency, (like elephant stickers) and attached value to them, presumably as a means of sidestepping the entrenched power hierarchy. I predict that many intrinsic motivators are alternative currencies that became valuable for similar reasons. I would also predict that anyone who values an alternative currency would deny it's alternativeness because doing so is subservient to the original purpose of becoming more powerful (a newcomer must take all measures to make a currency which they are rich in more ubiquitous)
Nathan Nifong on June 2, 2010 7:52 AMHere's a question about StackExchange: What about localized communities? For example, I'd like to see something StackOverflow-like (but more generic about computers in general) in my own language (Latvian), but getting the required amount of votes will be practically impossible. The target audience is relatively small and many of them don't know English language, let alone SO/SF/SU/SE.
Vilx- on June 2, 2010 8:04 AMI'm confused. I thought Stack Overflow was your full time job?
Do you also have a day job? Is SO a hobby for you?
I'm not sure of the point of this post, but it sounds like the bottom line is that the market is telling that $129/month is too much for a Stack site, and you ought lower the price.
Jim Howard on June 2, 2010 8:15 AMThe research shows money is required to motivate people for repetitive, uncreative work. So that gives you an idea what most kind of jobs consider themselves.
Todd Hoff on June 2, 2010 8:23 AMWhat does the Stack Exchange owner paying $129 a month have anything to do with people participating in a site?
I've heard you and Joel make this argument before on the podcasts and it still makes no sense.
If Stackoverflow rewarded people with money instead of reputation, and knowledge then yes, your argument holds water. Right now it seems like you're forcing your ideals into your argument.
JackM on June 2, 2010 8:49 AM^^Nathan brings up a good point and makes me think of one more factor that this view doesn't appear to take into account: playfulness. We're inherently attracted to play in some form or another and will often go out of our way to engage in something for free as long as it's fun. Amateur sports, fantasy football leagues, XBox achievements, custom maps/levels/characters/content, etc. all take work, time and passion for little or no monetary gain because they're fun. If you took some of Mr. Pink's examples and instead of money, made it a game to see who could come up with the most creative solution, the results might be different.
Rich on June 2, 2010 8:49 AMWhy don't I just ask the obvious question about "intrinsic motivation".
a) general version
How is it possible, given that you are correct, that professionals beat amateurs ? In anything, from landing on the moon, to sports, to car manufacturing, to book writing, to software writing.
b) specific versions
Why are there better games (and for that matter, better drivers) for windows ? ( s/windows/xbox360/ or any other console)
Why isn't bread available for free (since an amateur baker beats a professional, and the same goes for farmers)
Why is are there better IDEs for windows than linux ? And why are none of the "passable" IDEs created 99% by paid people ?
...
You get the point. Studies can claim how the world is free and all happy all they want, but one look around tells anyone with half a brain differently.
Christophe Devriese on June 2, 2010 9:17 AMStill, it is important that people are not given too much freedom in wrong situations. I mean, responsibility like management or leading is easily avoided by "giving the team free hands". There is nothing wrong with management nor leadership either, if done properly. And management is needed at all levels and aspects of a company, not just managing of the lowest production level.
Creativeness can emerge if you are not constrainted. But lack of all constraints isn't good either. Constraints guide new developers, and old developers too.
One good example is that documentation is many times under appreciated. There is more like an attitude that documenting is waste of time or undoable in reasonable time or just for noobs. If software developers are writers, they should be able to write the documents too. Then the documents would save time later in many kinds of situation.
Silvercode on June 2, 2010 9:19 AMThanks a lot. You just motivated my employer to pay me 25% less, but make my job more "fun." This month, I'll try paying my mortgage with "fun."
I agree that there is a point at which more money is no longer the top motivator. But test that theory against a situation where you KNOW your efforts are making someone a boatload, and you don't get to see any of it. That is much demotivating, friend.
As with all things, it's a balancing act. There's only so much more "fun" and "interesting" you can shovel at me before I want more money so I can do other fun and interesting things besides programming.
Jeff on June 2, 2010 10:02 AMVery interesting article, but to me it seems like there are other factors.
At every job I have ever worked, there are people who either have or don't have what we call "work ethic". These employees in identical circumstances do tremendously different quality and quantity of work. How does science explain this?
Also, can this be related to the classroom? What creates the desire to do well in school? Does that "A" or "100" really signify better work or better effort and motivate students, or is it just a meaningless letter and number?
Michael McLellan on June 2, 2010 11:02 AMA teacher might give some assignment based on what the teacher is interested in. Then students do the assignment and the teacher gets answers that he finds interesting. Some students might consider that more like using the students as work force, which is not so motivating. This happens especially on every kinds of work trainings, where you might have to work for free as a trainee. If the student has same interests in the field as the teacher or trainer, then there is no problems and the student enjoys high grades.
Usually ambitious students say very clearly what kinds of assignments they want, so that the assignments support their studies. Not so ambitious students might accept "worse" assignments too, as not everyone can get to do the same assignments anyway.
There are different kinds of people in jobs. Other people can be "used" more easily, because they cannot say no to tasks.
Then the other people know exactly what are their responsibilities and how they want to develop their careers. The career builders hop from company to company advancing in hierarchy and leave a company if it is going to go worse. The career builders usually negotiate highest salaries and really concentrate on looking good towards their bosses.
Career builders are also more strict, they don't like failing. They try to get into the best teams, get friends with the best and highest ranking people, and so on. Career builders are also socially intelligent, and they climb ladders into leading positions by applying or just by being promoted. Their motive is to play things well, and so they are doing what they want to do (build career), and they get paid good. The work is secondary, they might quit any day for a better and or better paid job.
Silvercode on June 2, 2010 12:55 PMWhile money is not a good motivator,
the lack of money is an excellent demotivator.
Jon_E on June 2, 2010 2:01 PMI can see why you can dare to say "not in this for the money". After all, in many countries including the USA money is not really a big issue for basic life quality and you can easily gather enough from other places, thus that's how SO could even be created.
But even if it's true, Jeff, don't say that.
You will probably never have a chance to experience how it is to live somewhere in which money is an issue in the daily life. In which you can easily become poor and strive for food, if you are careless enough and have no network. And it's easy enough to accomplish that as well.
Luckily we don't need to experience everything we learn to acknowledge them.
Once you can drop your other income sources to work exclusively to stack exchange, you will be in it for the money as well. And money doesn't "magically" come to who is well intended. That alone is far from enough. So don't say "all you mean is good to the world". Everyone wants that, but everyone needs money nowadays just to survive in society.
And even that caveman who says he uses no money to live is not actually capable of doing anything in society without someone spending money for him. And people will only do so in exchange to something.
Why? Because trading is moving. And life requires movement. It is needed for a society to live as well, and that is trading, with or without money. It so happens that in our current time money represents trading. Simple as that.
Maybe you could say you're not in this to become "filthy rich" or something, and I'm pretty positive that's what you meant. I even believe it's true, nobody in sane mind really wants money that bad. But you sure are in for the money because we all are living for the movement.
Caue Rego on June 2, 2010 3:31 PMI think Dan Pink's best point is actually, 'pay people enough so that they stop thinking about money and start thinking about the work'.
It's impossible to be intrinsically motivated to build the world's best frobgasting tidwiddler for someone else when you are worrying about how you are going to feed your children tonight, or where you are going to sleep.
It's only once our basic needs are being met on a sustainable basis that we can branch out and explore our interests and drives in other areas. As a species, we've taken around 196,000 years or so to get to a point where we don't have to constantly think about how to survive, and it's amazing how our culture has exploded in a veritable orgasm of complexity in the remaining 4,000 years.
We're all in it for the money up to a certain point, because like it or not, money is survival - beyond that point is where all the interesting questions start to appear, and where we still have a lot to learn, it seems.
Phaedrus30 on June 2, 2010 6:12 PMSo this is suppose to apply to developing software? Keep in mind that there are many aspects to developing software that do not involve high-level problem solving. This is why documentation, commenting code, timesheets and some types of tech-support and bug-tracking would benefit if there was a pay incentive and are often neglected.
How many people would put the energy and effort into SO if they didn't just throw out a suggestion for a solution, but had to code, test, debug, comment, document and track the time spent?
Oh, and that great new beautiful chunk of code you wrote just became part of a project that was put on hold for now.
Jeff Oresik on June 2, 2010 6:26 PMIts a great study to see how far someone will go to rationalize their choices and decisions.
Slavojzizek on June 3, 2010 7:39 AMI think some people here as well as maybe the author of the article are missing some of the points of these studies. First, some other studies about why people do paid or unpaid work show that there are significantly distinct categories of people, for which the motivating and demotivating effects of different kind of incentives can be different or even opposite.
It boils down to the fact that the group of people that are the most motivated by intrinsic motivators (desire to improve oneself, sense of commitment to a community, etc) is only a minority. For this group monetary incentive does not work. But it does work for the other groups of people. It means that companies that manage like Google or Atlassian can work, but other companies can work too. They just need to hire different types of persons.
Second point, it does not mean that money does not matter at all for these people. Just that paying them a variable amount of money depending on the quality of their work is ineffective. It's a bit different. They will want the most money possible, but once the amount is settled, it cannot change depending on their performance or it will lower it.
Last point, intrinsic motivation is by definition egoistic. You can't have someone work for you only with intrinsic motivation. It works the other way, they will find you only if they're interested. Therefore companies will always need extrinsic motivators to attract employees: money, good work environment, etc.
Victorien Villard on June 3, 2010 8:08 AMI saw the video the other day, and I've read similar research papers by scientists tasked with the goal of "dis-entangling performance from pay". A question to ask is, "Who sponsored these studies and why?" I speculate business leaders do because their goal is to increase profit margins, which return more money to investors and allow them to increase compensation for themselves. That isn't exactly Utopian, but I doubt Utopia seeking individuals sponsored such research.
It also might be interesting to launch another study to see what happens to those motivation levels when only a few people prosper well from the efforts of many after motivating them using social engineering methods described in prior research.
michael.prescott on June 3, 2010 11:41 AMStackOverflow is fantastic, and Jeff is a fantastic writer. Which is why it hurts to read this article, which comes across exactly like this: "Don't hate me because I'm rich, since I'm trying hard not to be."
There are a couple of things wrong with this.
1. It's OK to want money. Really. Just because some people will be envious, and there are others who want money to an unhealthy degree, does not mean money, or desiring money, is inherently bad. You can be a good person who is also well-off.
2. What's certainly not OK is to say you're doing something purely for intrinsic satisfaction, and at the same time charge $129 a month for it. Your attempts to take the focus off this fact by highlighting how much intrinsic enjoyment you also get from the process of coding I find a bit sickening. I feel condescended to.
If you are lucky enough to be in a position where you can afford to do something purely for the intrinsic satisfaction of it, that's wonderful. In that case, it's prudent to look around you, notice that not everyone is that lucky, and consider whether talking loudly about your position of luxury would be rude. So even if you were offering Stack Exchange for free, I would advise you to go easy on talking about how much you enjoy programming for its own sake.
No doubt you do get a lot of satisfaction from working on Stack Exchange, and naturally you want to tell people about it. Here's my suggestion: Don't. Or at the very least, openly admit at the same time that it's a profitable venture and that you hope it will continue to be. Yes, I'm telling you to risk offending the envious so that you can be taken seriously by everyone else.
You're doing great work Jeff, take some pride in the success (including the financial success) you're experiencing. Don't flaunt it, but don't apologise for it either. And please don't try to pretend you're working for free.
@Jeff Atwood
Thanks for another interesting installment. While the focus of the article is on people building teams or hiring people, I as a programmer can relate to the basic idea, too. I perceive those times in my hitherto work life as the most productive, where I was able to feel like a part of the product, as opposed to feel like one cog wheel among many, disposable at any time.
@J_random_hacker:
I am not sure how you got to the "since I'm trying hard not to be" part of your impression. I cannot see anything in the article about Jeff avoiding to make money. It is rather about earning his money with something he loves to do. And about propagating that idea.
This part of your post, "Your attempts to take the focus off this fact by highlighting how much intrinsic enjoyment you also get from the process of coding I find a bit sickening", is turning the articles message on its head. The focus is on the enjoyment, but money is also made.
If you follow the link labeled "Stack Exchange 2.0" in the article, you can find this comment from Mr. Atwood: "That said, of course money is necessary to run a business and hire and pay people, but it’s not the *goal*."
casual_juergen on June 4, 2010 7:53 AM@casual_juergen: It's funny isn't it -- IMHO that comment of Jeff's at the "Stack Exchange 2.0" link that you mentioned is a low point in that otherwise frank, open and informative discussion. That comment, like Jeff's entire article above, attempts to minimise the importance of making money as one of Jeff's goals with SO, implying that either he's ashamed of making money (perhaps believing that it unfairly comes at the expense of others), or believes others will see it that way and react negatively (which could well be accurate, sadly).
Despite the fact that Jeff and Joel surely believe (as I do) that SO has genuine value to the programming community, and that they love doing this work, they are not doing it purely for love and no other reason, and to hear Jeff imply that they are, or that they only charge enough to cover costs, is disingenuous.
To me, to come out and tell the world in a blog post that you are not "in it for the money" is protesting too much. It's a misdirection aimed at either relieving a guilty conscience, or (my guess) placating the envious hordes.
Maybe Jeff and Joel really are underpaying themselves -- in effect donating much of their time to SO. That would be a noble thing to do. But in that case I don't want to hear about this noble act from them any more than I want to hear some guy brag about how much he gives to charity each year. Maybe it's just a cultural thing, but where I come from (New Zealand) a certain amount of modesty in these matters is the norm. But in truth I doubt this "Let's underpay ourselves" scenario is actually happening.
Anyway, those are just my feelings and opinions, and you're certainly welcome to disagree. Many people say they have found this article to be one of Jeff's more inspiring ones, which is something that amazes me, but there you go. As I said I think SO is fantastic, and Jeff is a very entertaining writer.
Experiments are a dime-a-dozen. Here is one: Get a bunch of groups of undergraduate students (try to choose within the same major because of the problem of self-selection into majors by value systems and personality traits). In both groups, each student will be given a short document containing spelling errors. Each spelling error found is worth, say, $2 (or maybe 2 points on the final but that is harder to get past Institutional Review Boards).
With some groups, announce that every person will earn the same amount equal to the $2 times the total number of spelling errors identified by the group divided by the number of people in the group.
With other groups, announce that everyone will be paid based on the number of spelling errors she finds and nothing else.
With other groups, announce that everyone will be paid a certain base amount (say, $4) plus ($2 - d) times per spelling error she finds.
With yet more groups, ask them to vote on the distribution rule. There are at least two treatments here: For example, you can ask the students to vote on the distribution rule before doing the work; if you do this, you can have treatments based on whether the results of the vote are announced. Or you can ask the students to vote on the distribution rule after doing the work.
Students must be paid in real money. You must not use any deception. (These are the rules that set Economics experiments apart from those Psychology experiments).
Try to guess what kind of relationship between "total output" and distribution rule.
Of course, there is intrinsic motivation. It may be tickled by a desire to make more money (so that one can afford better things for oneself or for others that one cares about -- a desire to make money does not preclude caring for others) or it may be tickled by other things the person values that cannot easily be bought with money.
I am reminded of my favorite line in the Aviator: "You do not care about money," Howard Hughes says to his fiancee's family, "because you have it."
Jeff (and Joel): I love SO. I have put a lot of time into answering questions on SO because I like it (see http://stackoverflow.com/users/100754/sinan-unur ). I have also mentioned on meta.stackoverflow.com that we are generate content so you and Joel can make money. I don't mind it. I get something out of SO which you cannot buy with money but yet is still valuable. Plus, I have been enjoying both of your blogs for almost a decade now.
Just stop pretending having money, wanting money etc are bad things. Enjoy yours.
Sinan Unur on June 6, 2010 4:59 AM@J_random_hacker:
"Anyway, those are just my feelings and opinions, and you're certainly welcome to disagree."
I apologize, if my post came across as sort of indoctrinating. That was not my intent. In hindsight, I should have added an "in my opinion" somewhere.
Cultural differences might indeed be an explanation for the fact, that we draw very different implications from Jeff's Statements.
casual_juergen on June 6, 2010 5:35 AMNobody actually wants to do all work completely for free. You would starve. The point is that people will do some work for free. They call them hobbies. :)
All of this has very little to do with economics. Except that like other hobbies (sports, chess, etc) if you position yourself well you can profit off of the fact that other people have this programming hobby.
Jeff Davis on June 7, 2010 9:24 AM@casual_juergen: No need to apologise! You didn't come across negatively at all. You just had a different take than I did. I'm not yet so bitter and twisted that I become offended when someone looks at the world in a more positive way than I do! :)
Great video and animation!
Creativity and Aptitude are two very unique ideas, and while money couldn't make you any more or less creative, it can certainly tempt you to work harder or faster on your aptitude.
If you observe the Q&A on StackOverflow, most answers require extensive knowledge or aptitude and very few require a "creative" solution. Do software developers really need to be creative? Unless you are an entrepreneur or a startup, I really fail to see the creative angle. Or maybe my idea of creativity is very limited!
@Leszek Tarkowski, I really like that para on Nietzsche. Human psychology hasn't changed, and probably never will :)
Preetiedul.wordpress.com on June 9, 2010 3:38 AM@Christophe Devriese
The reason why there are better IDEs on Windows than Linux is more of a cultural thing. On Linux, it's completely normal to use a text editor (Emacs > Vim ;) ) and compile by command line. If you walk up to most Linux programmers and ask them what IDE they use, they'll start laughing.
On Windows, it's incredibly difficult to use the Terminal and the system isn't designed for developing software without an IDE. IDE's are a completely Windows culture thing. And the only passable IDE that I really know of is Visual Studio, which has a very large software development team working 8 hours a day for years to develop and maintain. Very few free software projects can dedicate that much time for a tool with little demand.
So the reason why there aren't any good IDEs on Linux is because there's a very small demand for them. Ask a hardcore Vim user about IDE's for Linux and they'll point you to Emacs.
And many developers spend 8 hours of their day working for their company. That leaves very little time for developing applications in their free time, especially if they have a family.
While working 8 hours during the day is tiring, that still doesn't stop me from wanting to reach farther in my free time to develop the software I want, using the tools that I love to use.
Great post, I'm going to show the video to my friends. This is really what has kept me going with the projects I'm working on.
Jonathan Sternberg on June 10, 2010 9:05 PMA comment on incentivation vs accomplishment of cognitive tasks. A significant thing that the studies don't measure, given what I've read on this blog about the studies, is whether the "subject" wants to play at all. If you're creatively talented you may well choose to take a job at a company that incentives creative solutions. You know that you've got a good chance at a bonus or some other variable form of compensation. Less talented people might not be so interested in a company that orients their compensation policy in such a manner. I don't know how you'd study this, especially given that in real life we're talking about your income, not a relatively minor, non life changing reward.
The videos do realize this when they say that a key to this entire thesis is that the "job" is already incentived in such a way as to take money off the table.
With regard to comparing Wikipedia to Encarta, Apache to IIS, Linux to Windows, this is somewhat misleading and is also reminscent of the lists of check boxes that you see in advertisements for software products or cars or other products. A specially designed list is presented that doesn't cover all of the aspects of the product, nor does is deal with huge overlap between items nor does it adequately describe the importance or meaning of the checkbox items.
I know we could get into a useless argument about free vs. commerical, not free. But consider a few counter examples. MS Office is considered superior to Open Office by many serious people. Linux is used in many servers typically for very well defined purposes. Windows is used in typical corporate servers for general business purposes where Linux would probably not work (I really don't know enough to make this assertion, but perhaps someone else does). Desktops are dominated by Windows and Mac OS. That's both at home and at work. Could be a conspiracy, could be that it's generally packaged with the hardware. But, people could change to Linux, for almost free, but most don't.
I listen to quite a few podcasts during my hour long commute. Most have adverstising. Blogs with helpful technical information are often (but not always) supported by advertising.
There will always be people who will want to do creative tasks, and will do them exceptionally well, even if they have to risk their lives in order to have the freedom to pursue those interests. Authors, of course, are a good example. This doesn't tell me that we ought to threaten peoples lives or freedom in order to get the best results.
I found the 2 videos interesting, and useful when taken in the context of the real world. They certainly present important information with regard to inovative ways of motivating creative people, ONCE YOU HAVE THEM ON STAFF.
Anyway, my initial thoughts.
Mitchell Kaplan on June 13, 2010 12:40 AMIt's not communist hippy bullcrap. Mr. Pink clearly states that before this works you have to take money out of the equation, which means paying people enough that money isn't a concern.
As much as I enjoy this topic, it's really just an extension of Maslow, it is difficult to be motivated by mastery, purpose, etc unless your lower needs are met. :)
Eric Wise on June 13, 2010 7:33 PMThe 'cartoon video' *wants* to think it has taken money completely out of the equation.
Q: But how do you *incentivize* people to endure the long, hard, and often expensive courses of study necessary to become a good coder, rocket scientist, doctor, or whatever?
A: With the promise of high wages.
quux on June 13, 2010 9:08 PMOr, quux, you could post an ad like this:
MEN WANTED: FOR HAZARDOUS JOURNEY. SMALL WAGES, BITTER COLD, LONG MONTHS OF COMPLETE DARKNESS, CONSTANT DANGER, SAFE RETURN DOUBTFUL. HONOUR AND RECOGNITION IN CASE OF SUCCESS. SIR ERNEST SHACKLETON
One time in a forum, there was a confused op. I gave him a link and some suggestions on how to solve his problem. He thanked me as soon as possible, and it was great. But there was more. A few days or a few weeks later, he gave something back to the community. Well, at least I'd like to think he was the one who did that. Not only did I get direct recognition from him, but now there was this indirect recognition (recognition * ?). It was great... No, it is great, and unlike promises of high wages, he gave me something that no one can take away.
I don't know where that op is now. I'm not sure if he even came back to read the forums. But I'd like to think he's on his adventure, trying to get better, and when he comes back, maybe he'll have some interesting things to share. Does that make sense to people? You have to nod, otherwise I can't tell. :-)
Of course if you take money out of the equation, then how exactly are you incentivising people by offering them money?
I think that this is an interesting problem, but perhaps difficult to statistically measure. I think in general, probably for readers of this blog, that the satisfaction and esthetic of creation, the freedom to pursue things of interest and the knowledge that we're contributing is a very strong incentive. We probably don't need a statistical study to persuade of this. In addition, this is probably true of most people. However most of us are fortunate in that what we enjoy is also a profitable enterprise as far as supplying our Maslow needs. Unfortunatley this is not true in general.
Mitchell Kaplan on June 14, 2010 4:50 AMI am really impressed the way you touch the 'human' aspect of this great combination of intellect and machines on the www thing.
Further the way you present you blog is so refreshing and cool. Makes me a fan of yours :)
Francis, thanks for your reply. Indeed many of us love an adventure. Many of us like paying back (or paying forward) the help and inspiration we have received. Of course many of us love getting some form of recognition for the hard things we have accomplished. And finally, many of us just personally love the feeling of accomplishment gotten from accomplishing hard things - whether anyone else knows and recognizes the accomplishment or not.
My response was in no way blind to any of these motives/incentives, so yes, I am nodding! But I can't help but think you glossed over the real question I asked.
Gaining the skills to be a good coder, rocket scientist, doctor or whatever, is no easy task. One starts on that path with only an inkling of the work that will be involved, and only a guess as to whether he will have any affinity for, or talent with, the skills he'll have to learn. And whether formal or informal, the course of study and practice will be long and difficult.
So the question remains: what motivates a person to begin on a years-long program of study and practice? Having started on it, what motivates this person to stick to that long slog through the study and practice needed to achieve mastery? Imagine your Shackleton ad had "FOUR YEARS OF SCHOOLING AT YOUR OWN COST REQUIRED BEFORE ADVENTUROUS JOURNEY BEGINS" as its final sentence.
Years of potentially expensive study and practice are an investment one makes, usually with some calculation as to how long the repayment will take. Dan Pink's entire scenario seems to take place within a group of people who have already made that investment and paid it off.
So, again I ask, what will motivate people to make the initial and hefty investment in study & skill building requisite to becoming one of those "highly skilled" people on whom Dan Pink's talk is centered?
quux on June 17, 2010 2:06 PMGreat post, top 10 all time I think.
Mike Birenbach on June 18, 2010 12:00 PMI apologize, quux. This form of communication is not easy for me.
Motivating others
There are many ways to motivate people other than money. Emotion is the key. In fact, people for a long time have come up with lists trying to identify the most basic motivators.
Here's one list:
Justice, Fortitude, Temperance, Prudence, Faith, Hope, Charity
Here's another:
Pride, Wrath, Envy, Lust, Gluttony, Avarice, Sloth
Money is such a great motivator because it is associated with many things in those lists. However, if you can associate things in those lists with something else, then you can use that as a motivator. Of course, you have to make sure that the things you choose are valued by the person you want to motivate.
Who's doing the motivating?
Good people, bad people, and everyone in between have used the method I've just described to motivate others. For me, the important thing is not taking money out of the equation or intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, but it's the relationship between the people involved. For example, let's say someone is trying to get money from you by appealing to your sense of charity. If it comes from a cult leader, it's creepy. But if it comes from a five year old chasing after an ice cream truck, then it's nice.
I don't know who you're trying to motivate, why, or what you want him or her to do, but I think it's more important to consider the relationships between people rather than the actual motivator itself. Does that person look at you as a hero, leader, parental figure, friend...? Or does that person look at you as a thief, cult leader, or worse, adverti...? Just kidding. :-) Once you understand the relationships between the people involved, their values and the perceived risks, you'll have a better chance of choosing the right motivator.
I'm sure there are a bunch of other factors that must be considered in order to successfully motivate others, but for now, this is my limited understanding of the topic.
Thanks a lot for the post. Especially the embedded video. I really love live drawing animations that are geared to prove a point (and the content in the video is definitely something I'm interested in).
Here's a pretty good one about talent/luck, http://www.openculture.com/2009/04/talent_10000_hours_luck.html.
Also, if you haven't heard of it yet, I highly suggest you read "The Parable of the Monkeys" found here, http://proliberty.com/observer//20080703.htm
Evan Plaice on June 24, 2010 2:22 PMI mentally flagged this video as genius the moment he said "you need to pay them enough to not worry about money". Having bounced between high and low income situations over the years, money does not dominate my life any more than a bowel movement. Bills get paid, I can enjoy just about anything in moderation, and I rarely feel like I'm broke or underpaid. Surprising since I was making about $35k a year, yet I could afford all my tech toys and still go out for burgers and pints at least once a week. I used to make three times as much, but I never saved a penny, I just found more things to spend it on (like blow :P)
If I had an extra $5000 it would all go to restaurants and booze. An extra $10000 might add a car, maybe a larger apartment. Beyond that I can't see how money could improve my life any further. I don't crave fictional numbers in a bank account, I crave happiness. Instead of more money, I'd rather have more time. Take a $60k job, scale it down to 3 days a week for $36k and I'm there.
For myself, as a coder, it's all about riding those waves of intellectual fluidity. If I'm stuck in a rut, the best cure is to get out of the office and go have a beer (just one - ok maybe two). Better yet: take the rest of the day off and go for a bike ride or a swim, or maybe scurry home and play Call of Duty until my eyes glaze over... Pushing my brain harder only leaves me mentally exhausted and depressed, which only serves to hurt my work output in both quality and quantity. If some client is shitting bricks and I have to pull an all-nighter, I'll do it, but you can write me off for the next day or two because I'll be a zombie. I'd rather be a kickass programmer for 10 hours than a shitty one for 40 hours, and if Joel Spolsky's theory about kickass programmers holds any truth, I'll get more done in those 10 hours than the next guy in his entire week. That's something you can bank on.
Billco on June 24, 2010 5:09 PMThey came to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. Compensation for performance works when there is a strong correlation between performance and compensation.
The reason it does NOT work is because IT/high Paid professions have work who's performance can not adequately be measured OR the parties who hand out the rewards are blatently compensating failures.
Pascalxus on June 25, 2010 3:12 PMHi Jeff
Let me start out by saying I really do enjoy reading codinghorror, and I have been a keen follower for a while.
This particular entry is very interesting, but if you look at the holistic nature of human beings and the environments in which they exist, various factors go into motivating individuals.
If an individual has grown up in an economically unstable background, finds a job that helps them just break even every month, that individual would be more motivated by income, i.e. the more they earn the more motivated they would be.
But this is transient because as that individual is able to bed down various materialistic needs, he/she will be looking to fore fill other needs.
Please have a look at “Maslow's hierarchy of needs”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs, look at the diagram critically; the aspect of motivation your blog refers to is the upper most section
“Self-actualization” and once an individual is at this level, he/she will only then “….yearn for the vast and endless sea, just like we do.”
Would interesting to know your opinions on this.
Pratheek on July 2, 2010 2:49 AMastrologie Hello, I am new counselor and I wanted to congratulate you on this site very well done!
lora on August 10, 2010 4:32 AMWeb marrakech What a job! Very nice!
lora on August 10, 2010 4:33 AMserveur vocal Your article is really a nice reward for our work. Thank you so much!
lora on August 10, 2010 4:34 AMhoroscope Congratulations for the content of your blog, which incidentally is very interesting to see, go, bravo.
lora on August 10, 2010 4:36 AMnumerologie Thank you for the effort you have made in creating this blog, share information better so this is one of the values of democracy ... if I can do anything to help this site .. I am delighted .
lora on August 10, 2010 4:37 AMSplunk gave us a presentation to some interested groups here at Lawrence Berkeley Lab a few weeks ago, and I noticed that http://answers.splunk.com/ is a SE hosted site, which is a great choice for them. The cost is nothing for them, and I wouldn't mind if the creators of Stack Exchange made a living from their product-- that's my dream (Although I'm not sure if it would be good in real life).
stefanlasiewski on August 13, 2010 11:52 AMThis is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
| Content (c) 2009 Jeff Atwood. Logo image used with permission of the author. (c) 1993 Steven C. McConnell. All Rights Reserved. |
Posted by: |