Posts Tagged ‘Motivators’

The Future Project: Breathing Creativity, Passion & Dreams into High School Youth!

Friday, December 14th, 2012

Initially inspired by The Future Project and its mission.

The Future project is a gargantuan effort to uproot maladies of our High Schools – most of them took birth during the last century of industrial revolution. An era dictated by punishing failures, questioning unconventional thinking and so on – that ultimately hamstrung many young minds to pursue their dreams and realize their passions.

“Most people are not really free. They are confined by the niche in the world that they carve out for themselves. They limit themselves to fewer possibilities by the narrowness of their vision.”

V. S. Naipaul

I believe the narrowness of our vision and lack of curiosity has been etched into our thinking due to our current education systems. As children we don’t limit our thinking to a particular niche. Its the so called “education” and societal forces snub our creativity and appetite for risk taking.

While most of the 20th century schooling & education system worked for that era, it might not work for the future generations for various reasons.

Here are some of the reasons why we need to think differently – fundamentally a revolutionary way – for the 21st century

Current Thinking Grew out of Age of Scarcity

19th & 20th centuries lived through the phase of finite resources, depression and focused on creating efficiencies to tap and acquire those finite resources.

workhardinschooltogetagoodgrade

To that end, majority of the schools & institutions worked with a blueprint to teach basic facts and knowledge to become efficient with the finite resources. For example, kids read their Textbooks, do well in their class, get good grades, graduate and that becomes a validation of their capabilities; then they go on to get a job based on that “qualification”.

When you manage for scarcity, you only need to think “out of box” to create efficiencies to tap into the scarce resources. You don’t need a revolutionary way of thinking.

Few innovators & thought leaders have created industrial complexes (thank you Seth Godin) around concepts & ideas that took birth in 19th century. These industrial complexes needed many widget makers to serve the markets and needs of the industries. Schools & Universities got funded to serve the job market for these industrial complexes.

Majority of masses didn’t need to be dreamers, thought leaders, innovators & high achievers to prosper and thrive. They just need to get through high school in early 20th century and in later part of the century, graduate from college to get a job and buy a house – the basic american dream.

thinkers_cartoon

In 20th century most of the revolutionary innovations such as railroads, airplanes, and industrial complexes have powered the opportunities. To that end, schools, educational institutions and organizations have structured to ride off of those innovations to create sustainable growth in the society via the “widget makers” otherwise known as college graduates, they churn out year after year.

Today with more and more graduates, 20th century industrial complexes don’t have enough jobs to serve growing job seekers. Of course automation also impacted demand side of mass work force.

With this kind of “good enough for a job” thinking, most of the schooling experience has become mundane, rote and insipid.

algebratest

Not only that, over the years, schools and education systems have forgotten the real purpose of education & learning – more importantly ignored to convey that to their students.

math_cartoons25

Innovation Cycles of 20th Century have been already tapped in: Need Next Generation Engines that power the 21st Century.

The concept of tossing your graduation hat on the day of graduation ceremony symbolically meant that you are qualified for a job; 21st century is not about that.

In 21st century Wikipedia should replace Textbooks; Time spent towards teaching basic concepts, knowledge & facts should be replaced by powering creativity, passion & experimentation. Khan Academy and its clones can handle most of basic sciences, knowledge and facts.

If 20th century was about learning the facts & gaining knowledge, 21st century is about making something out of that knowledge. 20th century was able learning the history and 21st century should be about making your own history.

Jobs Economy is past! Creation Economy is the future

What’s unique about the 21st century is about nonexistent jobs economy and it took massive financial meltdown (2007 to 2011) caused by skullduggery of few greedy bankers to surface the inevitability. Many smart and well-qualified graduates realized that in a hurry. In cities such as NYC and SFO, this inability to find jobs let to the first wave of “mass” creation thinkers. Established entrepreneurs, high net worth individuals and thought leaders joined hands to create accelerators and incubators to feed off the supply created by job less economy.

For those young graduates who are already in search for jobs the choice was clear – either keep sending resumes via LinkedIn & Monster or go meet other smart people and create something on their own. Fortunately cost of experimentation has also gone down to help fuel this trend – at least in the technology and consumer Internet space.

When you educate a kid for a job that is currently available in the society today, that job no longer exists by the time kid graduates.

Maker & DIY projects are no longer left to handful of tinkers who are naturally passionate about such projects. Maker & creation revolution is already showing its signs of growth amongst those graduates who are not able to find the jobs. Tech, Health Care IT and Fin Tech incubators and accelerators are powering these jobs less graduates.

But, what about High Schools kids? Someone needs to sow the seeds of creativity; someone needs to ignite their passions; someone needs to rekindle their young minds.

Schools do a good job teaching basic sciences and skills – a basic hygiene – for living in a society. While these basic skills and knowledge is necessary, it is no longer sufficient if these young minds want to go become a future Rockefeller, Martin Luther King, Dalai Lama, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Mahatma Gandhi. Also, 20th century survived with one of each, but 21st century needs many Rockefellers, many Martin Luther Kings, many Dalai Lamas and many Newtons.

Where is the ray of hope for our high school students?

The Future Project (TFP) might be the answer!

Its not easy …..but the revolution has to start somewhere by someone to make a dent and I see that ray of hope in this mission and few others. Efforts from CitizenSchools.Org & Teach for America and the like along with TFP will add fuel to this revolution.

Startups: Evaluate Gamification Lest You Piss Off Your Users!

Thursday, August 16th, 2012

Gamification methodologies such as “Leaderboard”, “Reputation”, “Badges”, “Rewards” and “Points” are very commonly implemented by startups just to encourage certain user behavior,virality, & increase activity – but not all users respond to these techniques homogeneously.

Gamify at your own peril!

Most of the time, these so called incentives deliver undue results to startups; they are like slow poison – kill user growth; you won’t even know the cause of your user’s dissatisfaction and disengagement;

Many wrong incentives happen to right users.

Let your product and its features become inherent rewards and badges for its users.
Let your user community organize around who gets benefited by the ecosystem and who gets sidelined rather than you implementing fake badges and fluffy leader boards. 
For example, on Quora, many reputed and highly successful entrepreneurs and thought leaders volunteer their time and effort in enriching the content for millions of its users.
None of the “who is who” who are active on Quora take such a keen interest and effort in contributing to the community just to get Quora Credits. They don’t do it for tangible or intangible rewards. They are motivated by aspects of social norms and in creating communal good that helps everyone. With any kind of rewards or incentives – especially tangible – these same individuals will not show similar commitment and passion in using Quora. Most of the influencers who are active on Quora don’t seem to be on Mahalo even with tangible rewards like tipping for your answers (sometimes up to $100).
If that is case with tangible rewards, do you think they would actually get motivated by leaderboards, points and credits?
Lets take Twitter as another example. Look at the behavior patters of highest influencers, thought leaders and game changers. If you study those Twitter accounts, few things are very consistent -
  • These individuals have huge twitter followers. They don’t have followers because they are actively using Twitter. They have followers because of what they have done outside/before Twitter ever came into being. For example Beyoncé Knowles has over 5 millions followers but she has only tweeted once so far. J.K. Rowling Twitter has over 1 million followers but she has sent less than 20 tweets.
  • These game changers are not motivated by # of followers they can gain in Twitter. In fact some of them don’t even know that they have a huge following on Twitter.
  • People who follow them – follow them for that one rare opportunity to hear what they are going to say. Millions of followers follow these “no tweet game changers” because of what they have done outside the Twitter sphere.
In the interest of higher user activity and in the name of gamification if Twitter forced its users to take an active role in their platform – by making all its users to “tweet”, Twitter would lose 50% of its user base, especially most of the “no tweet game changers”.
Twitter allows its community of users to inherently reward and gain value from other users while still not forcing any particular behavior on them.
User behavior accountability is very important for all startups and exposing/displaying some of that data with the community has many benefits to the startup as well as to the community.
Exposed user behavior data should actual benefit the community rather than spam, distract and pollute the environment.
Examples of such pollution including publishing user activity to everyone in your community and share with all social networks without explicit permission from your users.
On the other hand, there is a role for sharing some of the user behavior and profile data. For example Twitter exposes other user’s # of Followers, # of Tweets and other valuable information. Similarly Quora exposes # of Followers, # of Questions and # of Answers. Such data is useful for following reasons -
  • Ability for active users to get/gain more visibility.
  • Ability for other users to gain from people who are contributing to the ecosystem.
Neither Quora nor Twitter expose/display user data that humiliates or insults any particular user in front of the community. Not only that they never package or repurpose such data to show in a different form like leader board or badges.
Finally they never deprive their users of certain functionality because of such untoward activity. Remember this – when you limit product functionality based on user behavior, realize that many genuine/valuable users might get pulled in this group and that might piss off genuine users who could have otherwise become long term users.
In summary before you define your rewards, reputation points, leaderboards, badges, and or leverage user behavioral data, think of the following -
  • Do Not force yours to “act” certain way to increase virality of your user base or promote your brand or increase activity in your platform. I am not saying a rule less community. Criteria for rules should not be to promote your brand(aka virality) and increase fake activity in your platform.
  • When exposing your user activity to other users, in the interest of virality, please keep in mind of your user’s privacy. Most common of these is activity feeds and time lines which are common place in most of the consumer apps/platforms.
  • Most of the virtual denizens do not need policing – most of the communities figure out a way to reward right behavior without the platform provider needing to police by fake incentives/rewards/leader board. Baring criminal and grossly unsavory situations, most of the time, this rule of thumb applies. Let your community deal with it.
  • Not all your users will respond to incentives with same interest. Your incentives, tangible or intangible will dictate the type of users you will attract in the long run.
  • Once again, your product, product benefits, its features, the value created by your users to other users should be the core incentives and motivators.
  • Never ever tie your “product feature” access to user behavior data. I would use this as a general rule excluding exceptions/fringe cases/unique circumstances.

How do Rewards & Costs Butt Heads With Altruism and Who Wins?

Friday, August 3rd, 2012

This post is not just for Social Entreprises but also for people who value relationships and those who want to put a value for relationships.

In the book Sway, authors talk about two parts of our brain that respond to altruism & material rewards and how both these parts can never work in sync and the part of the brain that gets excited about material rewards (Nucleus Accumbens)will trump the altruistic part (Posterior Superior Temporal Sulcus) IF these two forces ever butt each other.

English: Reward system Français : Structures c...

English: Reward system Français : Structures cérébrales constituant le système de récompense. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is a very important concept to grapple with for most of the social entrepreneurs and social entreprises. In fact every social entreprise should clearly understand these forces before they instrument their product features, incentives & rewards.

Here is the most interesting thing – these conclusions are also consistent with non social entreprises and other conventional “do gooder” type; I have conducted my own experiments to validate that many of the following -

For example,

  • Sometimes, no reward is better than some reward – In general not putting a price or reward for someone’s good actions and intensions is better than putting some price/reward in place. This has impacted my own ability to contribute at the best of my abilities in some of the personal projects I was involved in the past few years. This becomes a big issue when the reward you are given is much lesser than what your time and attention is worth. Of course, we tend to rationalize (that darn Nucleus Accumbens) as soon as someone puts a price on your deeds. It is very important for individuals to clearly understand the inherent motivations behind “do gooders”. Those inherent motivations dictate their reactions to the rewards.
  • When you reward, don’t expect – In general, when you reward someone for their good deeds especially when they are doing that without any contingencies or expectations, you should not have any expectations from them especially after you reward them. Most of the time, as soon as someone rewards for your actions, they also start to set expectations on your ability to do future good deeds. This becomes a viscous cycle.
  • Rewards and incentives are a tricky beast - Most people focus on “how much” they can reward for someone’s good deeds and to a lesser extent on “what”; I feel “how” the reward is defined, delivered, acknowledged and so forth is as important as how much and what the reward is. Inherently each of us are motivated by many aspects in life when we help others. You cannot define all of us with a few broad strokes. More about this in the next bullet.
  • Good deeds/intensions come in all kinds of instruments- Some take “time” and other’s write a check and others donate what they don’t need. Some do physical labor, and some help on strategy and others be there for you in need. Some make the very important introduction, while others “like” or “retweet” your message. While not all of these are same, one cannot ignore the value of each of these actions. So, when your social entreprise is only accounting for a “check” then you are leaving lot of opportunity untapped.
  • People who give in all kinds of instruments are as myriad as what motivates them to do – Just the way people contribute for “social good” in various instruments, people’s individual expectations (if they have any) also vary. So, taking into account all those aspects in your models is very critical. For example, someone who is motivated by being the “charitable” leader board responds to “gamification” compared to someone else who want to be anonymous.   
  • First give before you expect – I spend umpteen hours with many early stage startups to coach, share, learn and collaborate – without anything on paper. I strongly believe we give before we expect or take. That is how we create “value” for people around us. The more value we create for people around us, the more valuable we become. I see many Social Entreprises experimenting with interesting “charity” models – where you give something for charity for getting something back in return. Some times what you get in return for your charitable contribution is its just bragging rights and some times its lot more tangible. Different people respond to these models differently. So, it is critical social entreprises take into account all those nuances into account before they structure their charitable models.

This blog post is motivated by – the book Sway by Brafman brothers, Robyn Scott from OneLeap, Ali Ansari Professor & ex-Chairman of Engineers Without Borders, interactions with various angel investors from The Unreasonable Institute, and my own experimentations with various early stage startups and entrepreneurs.

Wisdom of Crowds & Stock Market – Motivator Analysis!

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011
The Wisdom of Crowds

Image via Wikipedia

When Space Shuttle Challenger burst into flames quarter century back, it took 21 minutes for the stock market to dump shares of all the suppliers to the shuttle and Morton Thiokol stock took the biggest hit by the end of the day. All the investors – amateur and pros have dumped Morton Thiokol stock within that trading day but it took months for the investigators to conclude the same. Crowd knew it before the experts could figure out – way ahead.

Enter Wisdom of Crowds!

Wisdom of Crowd is one of the most counter intuitive concepts out there. I revisited this problem when Leigh Drogen (@LDrogen) pitched me his super awesome startup - Estimize – to disrupt sell side research for publicly traded firms.

Just because Morton Thiokol stock took a hit doesn’t mean that all the individuals who avoided to buy its shares are smart or well informed. Chances are many of the traders might have “followed the leader” or in some cases the trend. After all that is the wisdom of the crowd!

We start to question the wisdom of crowd when we pay close attention to each of the individuals in a crowd. The argument goes like – if majority of participants in a sample are not smart enough to make the right decision, even with few smart well informed individuals the average outcome of the crowd decision can be skewed by the “not so smart” lot. This argument assumes that average members of the group do not get influenced by their surrounding in making their decisions such as why is everyone selling this stock, why is there is a trading halt on the stock, etc. Such arguments are based on the individual merits and do not take into account individual decision making acumen regardless of their domain knowledge or Intellectual Quotient (IQ).

For example, members in a crowd making decisions based on their friends, other experts, trend/sentiment, could actually tilt the average towards the right decision. So, one could generate more accurate results if members of the sample know what the previous members have chosen and their reasoning behind their decision.
What’s more important?  The individual member’s IQ/domain knowledge or their individual motivations?

I would argue that their motivations are as important as individual’s domain expertise/IQ in a crowd assessment.

Of course the above argument assumes that individuals in a group always make rational decisions and all the true individual motivations are apparent to the rest of the group members. That is a very big assumption but in a very controlled experiment or system, one could turn such assumptions (at least some) into reality.

For example, if we take a sample of traders in stock market – their individual motivations to estimate future stock price is based on following -

(note am only talking about motivations)

  • Do they already have a position in that particular stock?
  • Is that long or short position?
  • If neither, what is their incentive to make an accurate assessment?
  • What information do they have and how they can benefit from that information versus other members in the group, and so forth.

* If motivations are aligned, group’s decisions have lowest variance. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it would lead to most accurate decisions.

Each of the group members have their own individual motivations. Aligning the group’s motivations would get you results that are much closer – and with right motivations, average estimate could be accurate or close to accuracy. For example, traders in Morton Thiokol stock all had the similar motivations – to make money and avoid loss. Traders who own the stock want to reduce their losses and the traders who don’t own the stock want to put their money to work somewhere else. Of course some of the traders got into the stock assuming it is a bargain and hoped to make a quick buck the very next day.

* If individual motivations are apparent to the rest of the group members, rest of the group might make rational decisions.

If individual motivations are apparent to other members of the group, individuals can make the most rational decision – but depending on the individual motivations, someone of the members might not make their true drivers apparent with the rest of the group. Such behavior is the pulse of Stock market – since a trader needs another trader to sell off the losing stock and sellers need to conceal their true motivators to buyers of the stock.

For example if traders who are already in Morton Thiokol stock are trying to reduce their losses by selling, other traders who might be aware of such motivations decide not be on the other side of such trade.

Individual motivations dictate their individual actions which will ultimately impact the crowd sentiment about the assessment.

What are the types of motivations within the members of a group?

At a broad level there are group motivations as well as individual/more dispersed motivations.

Individual Motivators -

Within individual motivations, there are at least five types -

  • Vanity (intangible benefits) -

    An individual could be motivated by vanity of being accurate and correct in crowd experiments. Such intangible motivations could be provided by the system in which such experiments are conducted such as leaderboards, badges, points and so forth. Even if the system doesn’t provide intangible benefits, building a consistent and successful pedigree would also result in future intangible perks and that could become a motivator for some of the individuals.

  • Tangible Benefits -

    Group experiments and crowd sourcing when tied with tangible benefits could become major motivators for individuals. For example, in case of Jellybean Jar, if the instructor promises to give the entire Jellybean jar to the individual or individuals with most accurate estimate, the quality of estimates will be much higher. Of course, it would help to know the demographic of the individuals to assess the impact of such motivators – for example – the older you are, the less you are interested in winning a Jellybean jar; you might not care for it if you are diabetic or don’t have children; etc – in short – knowing what such tangible motivators mean to the individuals within the group might help rest of the group members in making informed decisions.

  • Could careless -

    As I was saying in the previous point, motivators should mean sometime to the members of the group to have act on them. For example if the motivators are not attractive enough, the members in the group might not respond to them. So it is as important to know what motivates individuals but also the impact of motivators on individuals to understand the crowd and its decisions.

  • Pain versus Profit -

    Not all motivators are equal. For example, if a system offers rewards for most accurate estimates the impact of such motivators is far different than when a system punishes the individuals for inaccurate estimates. Also, individuals respond differently in systems that reward accuracy and punishes inaccuracy versus systems that only reward accuracy and doesn’t punish inaccuracies.

  • Good denizen -

    While hard to find, there are always members in a group who are just passionate to make rational decisions without any external motivators.

In case of stock market and traders, knowing about individual motivators and the impact of those motivators on individuals will help the system assess the crowd estimates and hence present the data in a most informed manner to rest of the users of the system.

Group Motivators -

Now if we move on to group motivations, if groups of individuals are pitted against other groups, and the group’s actions are tied to tangible benefits, “co-operative” and “collaborative” thinking will produce accurate assessments from the group.

Ideally any system or platform that taps into wisdom of crowd should make sure that individual motivators should not counter group motivators lest all motivators will cancel out the group actions.

PS: I limited this blog post to motivators within wisdom of crowd. I will try to address other aspects of wisdom of crowd in future blogs.

Opinions expressed are my own ….

@Vsistla

Ps 2: I have not read book Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki – so, this blog is not a reflection of that book.

Ps 3: I have not done any scientific analysis or research in any of the thoughts – open to debate and suggestions on these thoughts.

Enhanced by Zemanta