The carrot or the stick?

The Carrot Or The Stick?

This week a new TV series began on British television called The Carrot Or The Stick. Two teams of 6 men, chosen from thousands of applicants for being particularly unmotivated, compete in a number of tough physical challenges.

Team One is put through a strict army-style regime. They are never praised if they succeed. They are only punished if they fail. They are given numbers rather than names and they are constantly barked at by their leaders.

Team Two live in a tepee, wear their own clothes and meditate for 20 minutes every morning. They are only ever praised and encouraged and if they do not achieve a desired result they are congratulated for their effort. The emphasis is on working as a team and motivation from within.

Which team do you think will win over all?

The story so far…
At the end of the first programme Team Two had won the first challenge and were rewarded with a hot meal and the luxury of a hot shower. Working as a team meant that, although they had not trained as hard, they helped each other through the challenge and supported their weakest teammate. (By the way, Team One were punished for their failure by being forced to carry out their task again immediately).

However, Team One won the second challenge. Their success was treated as reward enough. Team Two felt very low and started to resent their weakest team mate who was actually physically carried by other members of the team during part of the challenge.

What can we take from this?
Sorry to leave you on this cliffhanger but I don't yet know how this experiment will turn out! However, I will update you next month.

So far though I have made these observations:

1. Team Two were initially cynical about the relaxed approach of their leaders and felt that they would benefit from being shouted at. After their success in the first challenge they became converts to the supportive and encouraging way they were led.

2. Team One hate every minute of their training. However, they find themselves able to achieve results they never thought possible.

3. The leaders of the two teams are frustrated that they can only use either the carrot or the stick. Ideally they would like elements of both.

4. Both teams experience periods of low morale especially after failing. But Team One turn this in to determination to do better next time and, having seen how team-working benefited the other team, start to work more closely with each other. However, Team Two turn their frustration at failing on their weakest team-mate. Their team spirit seems flimsy at this point.

5. The leaders of Team One constantly have to cajole, threaten and attack their team. Without that, the team would not have any reason to push themselves. The leaders of Team Two guide their team members but ultimately trust that with the right environment, the team will motivate itself. When the leaders are no longer there, they argue, those individuals will still be able to achieve results.

What I have taken so far from this fascinating experiment is that we all make assumptions about what works best. I would assume that Team One would win in the short-term. However, on-going sustained punishment with no reward would start to affect results long term and individuals would crack under the pressure.

I would also assume that Team Two would care less about winning and more about each other. They would stick together no matter what and, like the tortoise and the hare, win the longer game.

But having seen the first programme, it appears this is not a forgone conclusion. Team Two have started to attack each other, picking especially on their weakest member. And Team One seem to get stronger as the days and weeks go on.

So, when it comes to motivation it seems there is only one thing safe to assume: Assume nothing!