THE FOUR INTRINSIC REWARDS THAT DRIVE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Motivational dynamics have changed dramatically to reflect new work requirements and changed worker expectations. One of the biggest changes has been the rise in importance of psychic, or intrinsic rewards, and the decline of material or extrinsic rewards. This author draws upon recent research to explain the popularity of intrinsic rewards and how these rewards can be used to build a high-engagement culture. I have been researching workplace motivation for about 30 years and I’m amazed at how much has changed recently. Most of the motivational models used today were developed in earlier eras, when work and workers were different. Extrinsic and intrinsic rewards Extrinsic rewards—usually financial—are the tangible rewards given employees by managers, such as pay raises, bonuses, and benefits. Extrinsic rewards played a dominant role in earlier eras, when work was generally more routine and bureaucratic, and when complying with rules and procedures was paramount. Sense of meaningfulness.
Intrinsic Motivation Doesn't Exist, Researcher Says COLUMBUS , Ohio – While some psychologists still argue that people perform better when they do something because they want to – rather than for some kind of reward, such as money -- Steven Reiss suggests we shouldn't even make that distinction. Reiss, a professor of psychology at Ohio State University , argues that a diverse range of human motivations can't be forced into these categories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Psychologists say intrinsic motivations are those that arise from within – doing something because you want to – while extrinsic motivations mean people are seeking a reward, such as money, a good grade in class, or a trophy at a sporting event. “They are taking many diverse human needs and motivations, putting them into just two categories, and then saying one type of motivation is better than another,” said Reiss, who outlines his argument in the current issue of the journal Behavior Analyst. “But there is no real evidence that intrinsic motivation even exists.”
'Queerying' gender: Heteronormativity in early childhood education (free full-text available) The AJEC Committee invites readers' thoughts on the matters raised in this article, as well as elsewhere within the journal. Letters to the editor, enquiries, comments, submissions and contributions can be sent to publishing@earlychildhood.org.au. Kerry H. Robinson University of Western Sydney This paper explores heteronormativity and argues for the ‘queerying' of gender in early childhood education. The author argues, utilising Butler's theory of performativity and heterosexual matrix, that the construction of gender in young children's lives requires an analysis of the normalising practices in which gendered identities are simultaneously heterosexualised. Introduction Over the past decade or so, research has increasingly documented the process of gender construction in early childhood. What is heteronormativity? What is meant by heteronormativity? The intimate relationship between gender and sexuality: Butler's performativity and ‘heterosexual matrix'
New study says friends the key to childrens' happiness The Queensland University of Technology has found that between the ages of nine and 14, a good friend is the key to a child's happiness. Source: Supplied FRIENDS are the key to kids' happiness, trumping families and toys as a source of joy, new research reveals. Girls are more cheerful than boys - but happiness starts to dive from the age of nine, when children become as miserable as the elderly and sick. Unhappiness among tweenagers has become so acute that schools are resorting to classroom psychotherapy to help students look on the bright side. Students are being taught "gratitude, hope and serenity", in American-inspired programs used by some of the nation's top private schools - including Geelong and Sydneys Knox grammar schools - and spreading within the public system. Behavioural economists Tony Beatton and Paul Frijters, from the Queensland University of Technology, have found that extroverted and conscientious children are the happiest.
Win-Win / Win-Lose / Lose-Lose Situations The Basics Win-win, win-lose, and lose-lose are game theory terms that refer to the possible outcomes of a game or dispute involving two sides, and more importantly, how each side perceives their outcome relative to their standing before the game. For example, a "win" results when the outcome of a negotiation is better than expected, a "loss" when the outcome is worse than expected. Two people may receive the same outcome in measurable terms, say $10, but for one side that may be a loss, while for the other it is a win. In other words, expectations determine one's perception of any given result. Win-win outcomes occur when each side of a dispute feels they have won. Win-lose situations result when only one side perceives the outcome as positive. Lose-lose means that all parties end up being worse off. In other situations, though, lose-lose outcomes occur when win-win outcomes might have been possible. Use the following to cite this article: Spangler, Brad.
Conflict Resolution Skills: Turning Conflicts into Opportunities Understanding conflict in relationships Conflict arises from differences, both large and small. It occurs whenever people disagree over their values, motivations, perceptions, ideas, or desires. Conflicts arise from differing needs Everyone needs to feel understood, nurtured, and supported, but the ways in which these needs are met vary widely. Think about the conflicting need for safety and continuity versus the need to explore and take risks. The needs of both parties play important roles in the long-term success of most relationships, and each deserves respect and consideration. Conflict 101 A conflict is more than just a disagreement. Conflict may feel more threatening to you than it really is Do you fear conflict or avoid it at all costs? If you view conflict as dangerous, it tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Successful conflict resolution depends on your ability to regulate stress and your emotions The ability to successfully resolve conflict depends on your ability to: Close
Avoidance Lose-Lose From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Avoidance may refer to: Conciliation Conciliation is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process whereby the parties to a dispute use a conciliator, who meets with the parties separately in an attempt to resolve their differences. They do this by lowering tensions, improving communications, interpreting issues, providing technical assistance, exploring potential solutions and bringing about a negotiated settlement. Conciliation differs from arbitration in that the conciliation process, in and of itself, has no legal standing, and the conciliator usually has no authority to seek evidence or call witnesses, usually writes no decision, and makes no award. Conciliation differs from mediation in that the main goal is to conciliate, most of the time by seeking concessions. In conciliation the parties seldom, if ever, actually face each other across the table in the presence of the conciliator. Effectiveness[edit] Historical conciliation[edit] Historical conciliation is not an excavation of objective facts. Japan[edit]
Competition Win-Lose Competition in sports. A selection of images showing some of the sporting events that are classed as athletics competitions. Consequences[edit] Competition can have both beneficial and detrimental effects. Many evolutionary biologists view inter-species and intra-species competition as the driving force of adaptation, and ultimately of evolution. Biology and ecology[edit] Economics and business[edit] Merriam-Webster defines competition in business as "the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms".[4] It was described by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) and later economists as allocating productive resources to their most highly-valued uses.[5] and encouraging efficiency. Experts have also questioned the constructiveness of competition in profitability. Three levels of economic competition have been classified: Competition does not necessarily have to be between companies. Interstate[edit]
Cooperation Among humans[edit] Language allows humans to cooperate on a very large scale. Certain studies have suggested that fairness affects human cooperation; individuals are willing to punish at their own cost (altruistic punishment) if they believe that they are being treated unfairly.[2][3] Sanfey, et al. conducted an experiment where 19 individuals were scanned using MRI while playing an Ultimatum Game in the role of the responder.[3] They received offers from other human partners and from a computer partner. Responders refused unfair offers from human partners at a significantly higher rate than those from a computer partner. The experiment also suggested that altruistic punishment is associated with negative emotions that are generated in unfair situations by the anterior insula of the brain.[3] Among other animals[edit] Cooperation exists in non-human animals. Some researchers assert that cooperation is more complex than this. Kin selection[edit] Cooperative systems[edit] See also[edit]
Win-win game A win-win game is a game which is designed in a way that all participants can profit from it in one way or the other. In conflict resolution, a win-win strategy is a conflict resolution process that aims to accommodate all disputants.[1][2][3] Types[edit] In colloquial speech, a win-win situation often refers to situation where one benefits, not necessarily through someone else's loss.In the context of group-dynamic games, win-win games are also called "cooperative games", "new games" or "games without losers".Mathematical game theory also refers to win-win games as non-zero-sum games (although they may include situations where either or both players lose as well).The TKI Thomas/Kilmann Conflict Profile provides a model that reveals preferences under stress and pressure. Collaboration style focuses on win-win outcomes. Group dynamics[edit] See also[edit] References[edit]
Confrontation analysis Confrontation analysis (also known as dilemma analysis) is an operational analysis technique used to structure, understand and think through multi-party interactions such as negotiations. It is the underpinning mathematical basis of drama theory. It is derived from game theory but considers that instead of resolving the game, the players often redefine the game when interacting. Emotions triggered from the potential interaction play a large part in this redefinition. So whereas game theory looks on an interaction as a single decision matrix and resolves that, confrontation analysis looks on the interaction as a sequence of linked interactions, where the decision matrix changes under the influence of precisely defined emotional dilemmas.[1] Derivation and use[edit] Much of the theoretical background to General Rupert Smith's book The Utility of Force drew its inspiration from the theory of confrontation analysis. Method[edit] Each side had a position as to what they wanted to happen: