Contrafreeloading

Why we want to work for our rewards

A few years ago at the Bronx Zoo, researchers gave a group of giraffes two choices for how they could get to their favorite food, grain. One was an open bowl and the other a “challenging feeder” that required more tongue manipulation to get the grain. The observed behavior was that many of the giraffes spent much more time feeding from the more challenging feeders despite receiving less sustenance for the effort. This behavior is interesting because it flies in the face of our common sense belief that all of us including animals would maximize the nutrient consumption to effort ratio. It also contradicts theoretical frameworks such as the optimal foraging theory.

This behavior is known as contrafreeloading and was originally observed and described in 1963 by Glen Jensen, a behavioral psychologist, who provided a group of rats the choice between food from a bowl and identical food that could be obtained by pressing a metal bar. He observed that almost every single rat preferred to obtain their food by pressing the bar. Since that original experiment, this behavior has been observed in many species of wild and domesticated mammals including mice, gerbils, pigs, bears, wolves, pigeons, etc. The notable exception to this list is….the domestic cat. 

The book, Drive by Daniel Pink, introduced the idea that autonomy, mastery, and purpose were the true motivating factors that drove us. Autonomy is the feeling of controlling one’s destiny, mastery is the feeling of getting better at something, and purpose is believing that what you are doing is meaningful. As managers and leaders, many of us have adopted these concepts to help motivate and encourage our team members. All three of these help explain why animals and humans prefer to work for their rewards. We want, nay dare I say need, this challenge in order to feel that we have autonomy in our decisions of when to acquire food, that we are working on skills (even bar pressing for mice or tongue manipulation for giraffes), and that we have meaningful work. 

I really like Pink’s framework as it reminds us that most of us are not just trying to maximize our monetary-reward/effort ratio. Certainly most of us need to get paid for our work but we’re much, much more than that. Once we’ve exceeded the basic necessities we begin desiring other things, à la Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Pink’s framework highlights some important leadership principles such as not micromanaging and giving teams the ability to self direct as much as possible. For product development teams so much rests on this principle. While simple sounding, there are layers and layers of complications that have to be overcome to enact this properly. All of which and the how-to is covered in Marty Cagan and Chris Jones’ book EMPOWERED: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Products. 

As much as I appreciate Pink’s framework for work, It is Alexander Chalmers, the Scottish author, who I turn to for a framework more suited for all of life and not just work. He is attributed with this quote, "The three grand essentials of happiness are: Something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for." I think writers often observe or imagine the world long before scientists can catch up with theories or inventors can make it into reality. The list of science fiction authors whose writing became a reality is long. In this case Chalmers, a 19th century journalist, observed something that it took researchers another hundred years to define. We need something to do and something to hope for, even if that hope is a bit contrived such as hoping if I continue to press this bar, food pellets will continue to fall. If Pink’s framework is helpful for guiding employees into more meaningful and satisfying work, Chalmers’ framework can be useful for not only guiding employees into more meaningful careers, e.g. hope for the next promotion, but it can also be helpful for making our products better for our customers. 

A famous product marketing story comes from the General Mills brand Bety Crocker. As the story goes, sales of their “just add water” instant cake mixes sold poorly at first. That is until Dr. Ernet Dichter, a business psychologist, conducted a study that concluded that people purchasing this product felt guilty for not needing to work enough. He later wrote, "This is typical of what the average housewife said: 'Yes, I'm using a cake mix; it saves me a lot of trouble but I really shouldn't,'" Dichter’s advice was to leave the homemaker something to do, such as add eggs, and they would feel that they had contributed something. According to Dichter, his client seized on this wisdom and promptly reformulated their mixes, leaving out the dried eggs, resulting in dry cake mixes becoming a success. While the causal nature of making the baker feel that they had contributed vs fresh eggs just making better cakes is debatable, it does seem reasonable given Chalmer’s observations and the more recent work of Jensen on contrafreeloading, that people do like to do some work for their rewards. 

This is the lesson for managers and leaders whether you are helping employees through their careers or helping customers with their product experiences, most people want to have to work for their rewards. Promotions received after striving for it for years are the ones people are most proud of. The bargains that had to be found by searching through bins are the ones that bargain hunters remember and talk about. I am reminded of what Randy Pausch said as he opened his Last Lecture to a standing ovation, “Make me earn it.” or as Bruce Lee said, “Do not pray for an easy life; pray for the strength to endure a difficult one.”