TED日本語 - ダン・アリエリー: 仕事のやりがいとは何か?



TED日本語 - ダン・アリエリー: 仕事のやりがいとは何か?

TED Talks

What makes us feel good about our work?
Dan Ariely




I want to talk a little bit today about labor and work. When we think about how people work, the naive intuition we have is that people are like rats in a maze -- that all people care about is money, and the moment we give people money, we can direct them to work one way, we can direct them to work another way. This is why we give bonuses to bankers and pay in all kinds of ways. And we really have this incredibly simplistic view of why people work and what the labor market looks like.

At the same time, if you think about it, there's all kinds of strange behaviors in the world around us. Think about something like mountaineering and mountain climbing. If you read books of people who climb mountains, difficult mountains, do you think that those books are full of moments of joy and happiness? No, they are full of misery. In fact, it's all about frostbite and difficulty to walk and difficulty of breathing -- cold, challenging circumstances. And if people were just trying to be happy, the moment they would get to the top, they would say, "This was a terrible mistake. I'll never do it again." (Laughter) "Instead, let me sit on a beach somewhere drinking mojitos." But instead, people go down, and after they recover, they go up again. And if you think about mountain climbing as an example, it suggests all kinds of things. It suggests that we care about reaching the end, a peak. It suggests that we care about the fight, about the challenge. It suggests that there's all kinds of other things that motivate us to work or behave in all kinds of ways.

And for me personally, I started thinking about this after a student came to visit me. This was a student that was one of my students a few years earlier. And he came one day back to campus. And he told me the following story: He said that for more than two weeks, he was working on a PowerPoint presentation. He was working in a big bank. This was in preparation for a merger and acquisition. And he was working very hard on this presentation -- graphs, tables, information. He stayed late at night every day. And the day before it was due, he sent his PowerPoint presentation to his boss, and his boss wrote him back and said, "Nice presentation, but the merger is canceled." And the guy was deeply depressed. Now at the moment when he was working, he was actually quite happy. Every night he was enjoying his work, he was staying late, he was perfecting this PowerPoint presentation. But knowing that nobody would ever watch that made him quite depressed.

So I started thinking about how do we experiment with this idea of the fruits of our labor. And to start with, we created a little experiment in which we gave people Legos, and we asked them to build with Legos. And for some people, we gave them Legos and we said, "Hey, would you like to build this Bionicle for three dollars? We'll pay you three dollars for it." And people said yes, and they built with these Legos. And when they finished, we took it, we put it under the table, and we said, "Would you like to build another one, this time for $ 2.70?" If they said yes, we gave them another one. And when they finished, we asked them, "Do you want to build another one?" for $ 2.40, $ 2.10, and so on, until at some point people said, "No more. It's not worth it for me." This was what we called the meaningful condition. People built one Bionicle after another. After they finished every one of them, we put them under the table. And we told them that at the end of the experiment, we will take all these Bionicles, we will disassemble them, we will put them back in the boxes, and we will use it for the next participant.

There was another condition. This other condition was inspired by David, my student. And this other condition we called the Sisyphic condition. And if you remember the story about Sisyphus, Sisyphus was punished by the gods to push the same rock up a hill, and when he almost got to the end, the rock would roll over, and he would have to start again. And you can think about this as the essence of doing futile work. You can imagine that if he pushed the rock on different hills, at least he would have some sense of progress. Also, if you look at prison movies, sometimes the way that the guards torture the prisoners is to get them to dig a hole and when the prisoner is finished, they ask him to fill the hole back up and then dig again. There's something about this cyclical version of doing something over and over and over that seems to be particularly demotivating. So in the second condition of this experiment, that's exactly what we did. We asked people, "Would you like to build one Bionicle for three dollars?" And if they said yes, they built it. Then we asked them, "Do you want to build another one for $ 2.70?" And if they said yes, we gave them a new one, and as they were building it, we took apart the one that they just finished. And when they finished that, we said, "Would you like to build another one, this time for 30 cents less?" And if they said yes, we gave them the one that they built and we broke. So this was an endless cycle of them building and us destroying in front of their eyes.

Now what happens when you compare these two conditions? The first thing that happened was that people built many more Bionicles -- they built 11 versus seven -- in the meaningful condition versus the Sisyphus condition. And by the way, we should point out that this was not a big meaning. People were not curing cancer or building bridges. People were building Bionicles for a few cents. And not only that, everybody knew that the Bionicles would be destroyed quite soon. So there was not a real opportunity for big meaning. But even the small meaning made a difference.

Now we had another version of this experiment. In this other version of the experiment, we didn't put people in this situation, we just described to them the situation, much as I am describing to you now, and we asked them to predict what the result would be. What happened? People predicted the right direction but not the right magnitude. People who were just given the description of the experiment said that in the meaningful condition people would probably build one more Bionicle. So people understand that meaning is important, they just don't understand the magnitude of the importance, the extent to which it's important.

There was one other piece of data we looked at. If you think about it, there are some people who love Legos and some people who don't. And you would speculate that the people who love Legos will build more Legos, even for less money, because after all, they get more internal joy from it. And the people who love Legos less will build less Legos because the enjoyment that they derive from it is lower. And that's actually what we found in the meaningful condition. There was a very nice correlation between love of Lego and the amount of Legos people built. What happened in the Sisyphic condition? In that condition the correlation was zero. There was no relationship between the love of Lego and how much people built, which suggests to me that with this manipulation of breaking things in front of people's eyes, we basically crushed any joy that they could get out of this activity. We basically eliminated it.

Soon after I finished running this experiment, I went to talk to a big software company in Seattle. I can't tell you who they were, but they were a big company in Seattle. And this was a group within this software company that was put in a different building. And they asked them to innovate and create the next big product for this company. And the week before I showed up, the CEO of this big software company went to that group,200 engineers, and canceled the project. And I stood there in front of 200 of the most depressed people I've ever talked to. And I described to them some of these Lego experiments, and they said they felt like they had just been through that experiment. And I asked them, I said, "How many of you now show up to work later than you used to?" And everybody raised their hand. I said, "How many of you now go home earlier than you used to?" And everybody raised their hand. I asked them, "How many of you now add not-so-kosher things to your expense reports?" And they didn't really raise their hands, but they took me out to dinner and showed me what they could do with expense reports. And then I asked them, I said, "What could the CEO have done to make you not as depressed?" And they came up with all kinds of ideas. They said the CEO could have asked them to present to the whole company about their journey over the last two years and what they decided to do. He could have asked them to think about which aspect of their technology could fit with other parts of the organization. He could have asked them to build some prototypes, some next-generation prototypes, and seen how they would work. But the thing is that any one of those would require some effort and motivation. And I think the CEO basically did not understand the importance of meaning. If the CEO, just like our participants, thought the essence of meaning is unimportant, then he [ wouldn't ] care. And he would tell them, "At the moment I directed you in this way, and now that I am directing you in this way, everything will be okay." But if you understood how important meaning is, then you would figure out that it's actually important to spend some time, energy and effort in getting people to care more about what they're doing.

The next experiment was slightly different. We took a sheet of paper with random letters, and we asked people to find pairs of letters that were identical next to each other. That was the task. And people did the first sheet. And then we asked them if they wanted to do the next sheet for a little bit less money and the next sheet for a little bit less money, and so on and so forth. And we had three conditions. In the first condition, people wrote their name on the sheet, found all the pairs of letters, gave it to the experimenter. The experimenter would look at it, scan it from top to bottom, say "uh huh" and put it on the pile next to them. In the second condition, people did not write their name on it. The experimenter looked at it, took the sheet of paper, did not look at it, did not scan it, and simply put it on the pile of pages. So you take a piece, you just put it on the side. And in the third condition, the experimenter got the sheet of paper and directly put it into a shredder. What happened in those three conditions?

In this plot I'm showing you at what pay rate people stopped. So low numbers mean that people worked harder. They worked for much longer. In the acknowledged condition, people worked all the way down to 15 cents. At 15 cents per page, they basically stopped these efforts. In the shredder condition, it was twice as much -- 30 cents per sheet. And this is basically the result we had before. You shred people's efforts, output, you get them not to be as happy with what they're doing. But I should point out, by the way, that in the shredder condition, people could have cheated. They could have done not so good work, because they realized that people were just shredding it. So maybe the first sheet you would do good work, but then you see nobody is really testing it, so you would do more and more and more. So in fact, in the shredder condition, people could have submitted more work and gotten more money and put less effort into it. But what about the ignored condition? Would the ignored condition be more like the acknowledged or more like the shredder, or somewhere in the middle? It turns out it was almost like the shredder.

Now there's good news and bad news here. The bad news is that ignoring the performance of people is almost as bad as shredding their effort in front of their eyes. Ignoring gets you a whole way out there. The good news is that by simply looking at something that somebody has done, scanning it and saying "uh huh," that seems to be quite sufficient to dramatically improve people's motivations. So the good news is that adding motivation doesn't seem to be so difficult. The bad news is that eliminating motivations seems to be incredibly easy, and if we don't think about it carefully, we might overdo it. So this is all in terms of negative motivation or eliminating negative motivation.

The next part I want to show you is something about the positive motivation. So there is a store in the U.S. called IKEA. And IKEA is a store with kind of okay furniture that takes a long time to assemble. (Laughter) And I don't know about you, but every time I assemble one of those, it takes me much longer, it's much more effortful, it's much more confusing. I put things in the wrong way. I can't say enjoy those pieces. I can't say I enjoy the process. But when I finish it, I seem to like those IKEA pieces of furniture more than I like other ones.

And there's an old story about cake mixes. So when they started cake mixes in the '40s, they would take this powder and they would put it in a box, and they would ask housewives to basically pour it in, stir some water in it, mix it, put it in the oven, and -- voila! -- you had cake. But it turns out they were very unpopular. People did not want them. And they thought about all kinds of reasons for that. Maybe the taste was not good. No, the taste was great. What they figured out was that there was not enough effort involved. It was so easy that nobody could serve cake to their guests and say, "Here is my cake." No, no, no, it was somebody else's cake. It was as if you bought it in the store. It didn't really feel like your own. So what did they do? They took the eggs and the milk out of the powder. (Laughter) Now you had to break the eggs and add them. You had to measure the milk and add it, mixing it. Now it was your cake. Now everything was fine.


Now I think a little bit like the IKEA effect, by getting people to work harder, they actually got them to love what they're doing to a higher degree.

So how do we look at this question experimentally? We asked people to build some origami. We gave them instructions on how to create origami, and we gave them a sheet of paper. And these were all novices, and they built something that was really quite ugly -- nothing like a frog or a crane. But then we told them, we said, "Look, this origami really belongs to us. You worked for us, but I'll tell you what, we'll sell it to you. How much do you want to pay for it?" And we measured how much they were willing to pay for it. And we had two types of people. We had the people who built it, and we had the people who did not build it and just looked at it as external observers. And what we found was that the builders thought that these were beautiful pieces of origami, and they were willing to pay for them five times more than the people who just evaluated them externally. Now you could say, if you were a builder, do you think that, "Oh, I love this origami, but I know that nobody else would love it?" Or do you think, "I love this origami, and everybody else will love it as well?" Which one of those two is correct? Turns out the builders not only loved the origami more, they thought that everybody would see the world in their view. They thought everybody else would love it more as well.

In the next version we tried to do the IKEA effect. We tried to make it more difficult. So for some people we gave the same task. For some people we made it harder by hiding the instructions. At the top of the sheet, we had little diagrams of how do you fold origami. For some people we just eliminated that. So now this was tougher. What happened? Well in an objective way, the origami now was uglier, it was more difficult. Now when we looked at the easy origami, we saw the same thing: Builders loved it more, evaluators loved it less. When you looked at the hard instructions, the effect was larger. Why? Because now the builders loved it even more. They put all this extra effort into it. And evaluators? They loved it even less. Because in reality it was even uglier than the first version. Of course, this tells you something about how we evaluate things.

Now think about kids. Imagine I asked you, "How much would you sell your kids for?" Your memories and associations and so on. Most people would say for a lot, a lot of money -- on good days. (Laughter) But imagine this was slightly different. Imagine if you did not have your kids, and one day you went to the park and you met some kids, and they were just like your kids. And you played with them for a few hours. And when you were about to leave, the parents said, "Hey, by the way, just before you leave, if you're interested, they're for sale." (Laughter) How much would you pay for them now? Most people say not that much. And this is because our kids are so valuable, not just because of who they are, but because of us, because they are so connected to us and because of the time and connection. And by the way, if you think that IKEA instructions are not good, think about the instructions that come with kids. Those are really tough. (Laughter) By the way, these are my kids, which, of course, are wonderful and so on. Which comes to tell you one more thing, which is, much like our builders, when they look at the creature of their creation, we don't see that other people don't see things our way.

Let me say one last comment. If you think about Adam Smith versus Karl Marx, Adam Smith had the very important notion of efficiency. He gave an example of a pin factory. He said pins have 12 different steps, and if one person does all 12 steps, production is very low. But if you get one person to do step one and one person to do step two and step three and so on, production can increase tremendously. And indeed, this is a great example and the reason for the Industrial Revolution and efficiency. Karl Marx, on the other hand, said that the alienation of labor is incredibly important in how people think about the connection to what they are doing. And if you make all 12 steps, you care about the pin. But if you make one step every time, maybe you don't care as much.

And I think that in the Industrial Revolution, Adam Smith was more correct than Karl Marx, but the reality is that we've switched and now we're in the knowledge economy. And you can ask yourself, what happens in a knowledge economy? Is efficiency still more important than meaning? I think the answer is no. I think that as we move to situations in which people have to decide on their own about how much effort, attention, caring, how connected they feel to it, are they thinking about labor on the way to work and in the shower and so on, all of a sudden Marx has more things to say to us. So when we think about labor, we usually think about motivation and payment as the same thing, but the reality is that we should probably add all kinds of things to it -- meaning, creation, challenges, ownership, identity, pride, etc. And the good news is that if we added all of those components and thought about them, how do we create our own meaning, pride, motivation, and how do we do it in our workplace and for the employees, I think we could get people to both be more productive and happier.

Thank you very much.


今日は「労働」 と「仕事」について少し お話しましょう 人がどう働くかを考える時 まず頭に浮かぶのは 人はまるで迷路のネズミの様だと -- 皆の関心はお金の事だけで お金さえ渡せば 人を ある方向へ また別の方向へと 動かせると思ってしまいます これが 銀行家に色んな方法でボーナスを支給する理由です 私達は 驚くほど単純なイメージを持ってます なぜ人が働き 労働市場がどんな仕組みか

同時に よく考えてみると 世の中は おかしな行為で溢れてます 登山や山登りを例に取りましょう 難関に挑戦する 登山家の本を読んで その本は 幸せと喜びの瞬間だらけだと思いますか? いえ 苦難ばかりです 事実 すべて凍傷と歩行困難 呼吸困難 寒さに 厳しい状況ばかり 人が幸せになる事だけを考えるなら登頂した瞬間に言うでしょう 「これは大きな間違いだった 二度とやるまい」 (笑) 「代わりに どこかの海辺でモヒートでも飲んでいれば良かった」 しかし人は 下山して回復するとまた登山するんです この山登りの事を例に取って考えてみると 実に多くのことがわかります 私たちにとって 最終地点 つまり頂上へ 行き着くことが大切だろうとか 戦い 挑戦も大切だろうとわかります 他にも仕事や あらゆる事をする上で 意欲のもととなるものは沢山あるようです

私が個人的に この事を考え始めたのは ある生徒の訪問がきっかけでした 彼は 数年前の教え子で ある日キャンパスにやってきました そしてこの話をしてくれました 彼は 2週間以上にわたってパワーポイントのプレゼン資料を作っていた と 大銀行に勤めています これは 銀行の合併に関わる準備でした なので このプレゼンに全力を尽くしていた― グラフ 表 情報 毎晩 遅くまで居残り 締め切りの前日にこのプレゼン資料を上司に送った と すると上司は返信で 「良いプレゼン資料だけど合併はキャンセルになったから」 彼は酷く落ち込みました 実は 作業に熱中していた頃は けっこう幸せだったのです 毎晩 彼は仕事を楽しんでいた 夜遅くまで居残ってこのプレゼン資料作りに専念していました しかし この資料は誰の目にも触れないその事が 彼を酷く落ち込ませました

ここで私は考えましたどう研究するか― 「労働」に対する「報酬」の思考について まず始めに ある実験をしました 被験者に レゴを渡してそれを組み立てて貰うんです その中の何人かには こう言います 「このロボット型レゴを $3.00で作って貰えませんか?お支払いします」 と そして皆 はい と答え レゴを作り始めました 終わったら受け取って 下に置いてから 「じゃあ今度は $2.70でもう1つ作って貰える?」 はい と答えれば もう1つ渡し― 終わったら また「もう1ついいかな?」 今度は$2.40、その次は$2.10…と値下げしていって― 「もうやる意味がない」と言うまで続けます これを「意義のある」状況と呼びます 皆 レゴを次々に作っ て 終わるごとに 全てテーブルの下に置いていますが 実験が終わったら 受け取った これらのレゴをバラして 次の被験者のために箱に戻すと伝えてあります

もう一つの状況は 私の生徒のデイビッドからヒントを得たもので 「徒労」の状況と名付けたものです ギリシャ神話の シーシュポスの話ご存知でしょうか シーシュポスは 神々から罰を受け1つの岩を山頂まで転がすことを命ぜられました しかし間もなく頂上という所で 岩は転げ落ち 始めからやり直し続けなければならないのです これは無駄な骨折りそのものです いろいろな山々に行って 岩を転がすのなら 多少の進歩を感じられたかもしれません また 監獄モノの映画で― 看守が囚人を虐待するシーンで 囚人に穴を掘らせて それが終わると その穴を埋めさせまた掘らせるというのがあります この 同じ作業を何度も何度も繰り返すという行為は モチベーションを低下させる事と特に関係があるようです そこで これを2つ目の実験条件として使いました 被験者にこう言います「$3.00でロボット型レゴ作って貰えますか?」 はい と答えたら作って貰い 「じゃあ次は $2.70でもう1つ作って貰える?」と聞きます はい と答えたらもう1つ渡し新しいのに取り掛かっている間に さっき作ったのをバラすんです 彼らが作り終わったら 「もう1つお願いできないかな今度は30セント安くで」 はい と答えたらバラしたレゴを渡すんです これがエンドレスな行為― 彼らが作り その目の前で僕らがバラす

この2つの条件を比べると 何がわかるでしょう? まず違うのが 作ったレゴの数です 11対7の割合で「意義のある状況」の人の方が 「徒労の状況」の人より 多くレゴを作りました これは 別に大して意義のある作業ではありません ガンをなくすとか橋の建設とは違います 小銭程度の報酬で レゴを作る作業です それだけでなく 皆すぐにレゴが壊される事を知っていました つまり大きな意義を得るような機会ではないわけです でも こんな小さな事でも差が出たんです

さて この実験の別バージョンも行いました このバージョンの実験では 人を「状況下」に置くのではなく 今私がやっている様に状況を説明して結果を予想してもらったのです どうなったでしょう? 方向性は正しく予測されましたが規模が違いました 実験の説明を与えられただけの人は 「意義のある状況」に置かれた人の方が1つ多くレゴを作っただろうと答えました つまり 人々は「意義」が重要なのだと理解していますが 重要性の度合いを理解していません こんなに差があるとは思わないのです

この時 着目したデータがもう1つあります よく考えてみるとレゴが大好きな人と そうでない人がいます 皆さん レゴ好きの人は― より少ないお金でも多くのレゴを作ると推測するでしょう なぜなら 元来この作業を心から楽しめるから また レゴがそこまで好きじゃない人はあまり作らない 得られる楽しみがそもそも低いからです 「意義のある状況」では予想通りの結果が 得られました レゴに対する愛と 作ったレゴの数との間にとても良い相互関係がありました 先程の「徒労の状況」ではどうなったでしょう? この場合 相互関係はゼロでした レゴに対する愛と 作ったレゴの数との間に関連性がなく 目の前で作ったものを壊すと言うこの心理的操作によって 我々はこれによりこの行動で得られる 小さな喜びを潰し― つまり取り去ったのです

この実験の後 少しして シアトルの ある大きなソフトウェア会社に話をしに行きました どことは言えませんが とにかくシアトルの大企業です 別のビルに配置された社内のあるグループに話しをしました 彼らはこの会社の為に次の大きな製品を作るように言われていました 私が行く一週間前― このソフトウェア会社の社長が200名のエンジニアからなる このグループに プロジェクトのキャンセルを告げたのです そこで 今までになく酷く落ち込んだ200名もの人達の前で 話をすることになりました それでこのレゴの実験の話をすると― 彼らは その実験と同じ経験をしたような気分だと言いました それでこう聞きました 「この中で 以前より遅い時刻に出社している人は?」 すると皆が手を上げました 「この中で 以前より早い時刻に帰宅している人は?」 また皆が手を上げました 「疑わしいものを 経費として報告している人は?」 彼らは手を上げませんでしたが― 私を夕食に誘い どこまで経費で落とせるか見せてくれました 私は聞いてみました 「君達が こんなに落ち込まずに済むように社長が出来た事って何だと思う?」 様々なアイディアが出て来ました 彼らが 過去2年かけた努力の過程を― 会社全体にプレゼンする機会をくれれば良かった 彼らの技術の どの部分が他部署でも使えるか 考える機会が与えられたり 次世代の試作品を作ってどう動くか見てもらえれば良かった 次世代の試作品を作ってどう動くか見させてくれれば 良かった どのアイデアも実行するには 努力やモチベーションが必要です 社長は「意義」の重要性を理解していなかったのでしょう もし先ほどの実験結果を予測した人たち同様 「意義」の本質を軽視していたなら 彼は気にもしなかったでしょう そしてこう言うでしょう―「あの時はそのように指示を出したけれど 今はこう言った指示を出します全部上手くいきます」 しかし もし「意義」の大事さを理解していたのなら 本当に重要な事が何か 気付くでしょう 人に何かを一生懸命させるには時間と エネルギーと 努力を費やす事だと

次の実験は少し違います ランダムな文字が並んだ紙を1枚渡し 同じ文字が並んでいるものを探してもらう これがタスクです 皆1枚目をやった所で 2枚目を もう少し少ない金額で出来ないか― 次のはさらに少ない金額でやるか尋ねます これを3つの状況下で行います 1つめは 自分の名前を紙に書いて貰い― 同じ文字が並んだペアを全て見つけたら 実験者に紙を提出してもらいます 実験者はそれを上から下まで目を通して 「はいどうも」と言って彼らの横にある紙束の上に載せる 2つめは 名前を紙に書いて貰わずに― 実験者はそれを見て 紙を受け取って 見もせず 確認もせず ただ紙束の上に載せる つまり受け取って横に置くだけです 3つめは 実験者は紙を受け取りそれをすぐさまシュレッダーにかける これら3つの状況下で何が起こったでしょう?

このグラフは 人々が作業をやめた支払額を示しています つまり低い数字は 一生懸命働いた人です彼らは より長く働いた 仕事をきちんと「認識される状況」下では一番最低は15セントで働きました 1ページ15セントこれが作業を辞めたポイントです 「シュレッダーの状況」下では 倍の30セントです 以前に得た結果に似ています 人の 努力や成果を 切り刻んでしまうと 自分のしている事に対しあまり嬉しくない状況になってしまいます ここで 1つだけ指摘しておきたいのは 「シュレッダーの状況」下ではズルが出来たはずだと言う事です 適当な仕事をする事が出来たはずです シュレッダーにかけられることが分かっていたからです つまり 1枚目はいい仕事をしても 誰も確認する人がいないと分かれば もっともっと出来るはずなんです なので実際は「シュレッダーの状況」下では 皆 もっと提出して もっと稼げたはず あまり努力もせずに です 「無視の状況下」ではどうだったでしょう? 「認識」と「シュレッダー」の どちらかに近いか それとも 真ん中らへんでしょうか? 「シュレッダー」に近い結果となりました

ここで 良いニュースと 悪いニュースです 悪いニュース人の成果を無視する行為は 人の努力を 目の前で切り刻むのと同等に酷い事なのです 無視すると 作業をやめる額はずっと高くなります 良いニュースは 誰かがやった何かを ただ さーっと見て 「はい どうも」と言うだけで 人のモチベーションを劇的に高めるのに十分 事足りると言う事です つまり 良いニュースとは人のモチベーションを高めるのは そう難しくないと言う事 悪いニュースとはモチベーションを砕くのは 驚くほどたやすく― よく考えずに行動するとやりすぎてしまうだろう と言う事です ここまでは負のモチベーションと それを無くす話しでしたが方法について話しましたが

次のパートでは 良いモチベーションの与え方についてお見せしていきます アメリカにイケアと言うお店があります イケアでは 組み立てるのにすごく時間のかかるまぁまぁな家具を売っています (笑) 皆さんは どうか知りませんが僕が組み立てる時は いつでも― より時間がかかり より努力を要しすごく難解なんです 間違った方向に付けちゃったり それら部品を楽しめてるとは言えないし 過程を楽しめてるとも思えない ですが 作り終えたとき―僕は他のより そのイケアの家具の方が 好きみたいです

ケーキミックスに関する 古い話があります 40年代に ケーキミックスを生産し始めた時 この粉を箱に入れて 主婦たちに水を入れて かき混ぜるように言いました 混ぜて オーブンに入れるだけでーほら!ケーキの出来上がり しかし全く人気が出なかった 売れなかったのです 生産者は様々な理由を考えました もしかしたら味が悪かったのか― いえ 味は問題なしです 彼らはそこに 「十分な努力」 が含まれていない事が 原因だと知りました 簡単すぎて お客さんに出す時に 「私のケーキよ」と言えません いやいや これは誰かのケーキだ それはまるで お店から買ってきたようで 自分の物とは 感じられなかったのです じゃあ どうしたか 卵と牛乳を その粉から抜いたのです (笑) 今度は卵を割って 足さないといけない ミルクを量って 入れて 混ぜて 今度は 自分のケーキですこれで完璧です


もう少し 「イケア効果」について考えてみると 人々に努力をさせることで やっていることを さらに好きにさせているんです

この問題を どう実験したらいいでしょう? 私たちは 被験者たちに折り紙を作ってもらいました 折り紙の作り方を教えてから 1枚の紙を渡しました ちなみにみんな初心者で出来上がった物は とても不格好で― カエルにもツルにも見えません そこでこう伝えます「この折り紙は私達のもので― あなた達が作ってくれたけどあなた達に売ります これにいくら支払いますか? そして皆が いくらなら支払うか調査しました 2つのグループを作りました 「製作者」と 作らずに見るだけの「観察者」 分かった事は 製作者達は この折り紙をすばらしいと評価し 観察者の評価した額の5倍の額を支払うと言ったのです こうも言えるでしょうもし あなたが製作者だったら― どう思いますか? 「私はこの折り紙大好きだけど 他の人は好きじゃないかも」 それとも「私はこの折り紙大好きだし 他の人もきっと好きだ」 これらのどちらが正しいのでしょう? 結果 製作者は 観察者よりも折り紙を気に入っていただけでなく 他の人も皆 自分と同じ価値観を持っていると思ったのです 他の人も もっと気に入るだろうとも思っていました

次の実験では 「イケア効果」をやってみました この実験をより難しくしました ある人々には さっきと同じタスクを与えます その他の人々には 説明を隠してより難しくしました 紙の一番上には 折り方の図が書いてあり― 一部の人々の分はそれを消してあります より難しくなったのですどうなったか? 客観的に見ると 今度の折り紙はより不格好でより難解になっています 簡単な方の折り紙を見てみると 先ほどと同じ結果で 製作者は気に入り観察者の評価は あまり高くありません では 難しい方法で作った方を見ると この効果はさらに大きくなりました なぜ?それは製作者が それをより気に入ったからです この作品に より多くの努力を注ぎ込んだから 観察者の評価は?さらに低くなりました なぜなら 最初のバージョンよりも更に不格好だったからです 当然ですが この実験は我々がどう物事を評価するかも表しています

子ども達の事を考えてみてください もし私が「あなたの子供をいくらだったら売る?」と質問したら 思い出や 結びつき などなど ほとんどの人が すごく 大きな額を提示するでしょう いい子にしてる日はね (笑) でも 少し違う方向から想像してみて下さい もしあなたに子どもがいなかったとして ある日公園で子ども達に出会い 自分の子どもの様に感じて 何時間か一緒に遊ぶとしましょう そして 帰ろうとした時に子ども達の親がこう言います 「行く前にちょっと―もし興味があれば 売り出し中なんだけど」 (笑) 今度は いくら支払うと思いますか? ほとんどの人が そんなに支払わないでしょう これはなぜかと言うと自分の子どもには すごく価値があるからです その子だから と言う事ではなく 自分自身―彼らは自分と とても結びついているから 時間と 繋がりのせいなのです ところで イケアの説明書が 良くないと思っている人 子どもに付いてくる説明書を思ってください ものすごく難しいですから (笑) ともかく これらが私の子ども達でもちろん素晴らしいんですが ここで もうひとつ 言っておく事があります それは先ほどの製作者達のように 自分達の作り出した物を見ると 我々は 他者が自分と同じ物の見方をしないという事を見落とします

最後にひとつ 付け加えさせて下さい アダム・スミスと カール・マルクス の事を考えると アダム・スミスは 効率性に関して大切な観念を持っていました 彼は ピン工場を例にとって ピンには12の工程があることを指摘し 1人が12もの工程を全てすると生産性はとても低いと 言いました しかし 工程1をある人がやり次の人が工程2 工程3と言うようにしていくと 生産性がものすごく上がると言っています そして確かに これが産業革命と効率化の素晴らしい例であり 理由なのです 一方 カール・マルクスは 疎外された労働の考えは 自分のする事の意義について考える上で 非常に大切だと述べています ピン製造の12工程全てをやる事でピンを大切に思う と言う事です しかし いつも1工程しかしない人は恐らく そんなに大事には思わない

産業革命においてこれを当てはめると アダム・スミスは カール・マルクスよりも正しかった しかし現実には もう我々は変わってしまい知識経済の中に生きています 自分に問いかけてみてください知識経済では一体どうなるのか? 効率性は 意義よりも大事なものでしょうか 私はそうは思いません 状況が変わり どれだけ努力や 気配りをし思い入れや結びつきを感じるか 通勤途中やシャワー中に仕事のことを考えたり そんな度合いを自分で決める時代になり また突然 マルクスがもっと語りかけてくるかもしれません 労働について考えるとき 我々はモチベーションと給与を 同じ物だと考えがちです しかし現実には 我々はもっといろんな事を付随して考えるべきです 意義・創造・チャレンジ・所有権・アイデンティティ・ 誇り など 良いニュースは我々はその構成要素を足し上げて― どうやって自分自身の意義や誇りやモチベーションを生み出すか どうやってそれを 職場で職員達にもたらすか を考えた時 私は 皆を より生産的で幸せにできると信じています



― もっと見る ―
― 折りたたむ ―


  • 主語
  • 動詞
  • 助動詞
  • 準動詞
  • 関係詞等