To illustrate Dan’s thesis, let’s look at one of his examples: An MIT study. The study conducted by MIT used 3 levels of monetary incentive for people doing a variety of tasks. When it came to physical tasks, the results were predictable; the higher the level of incentive for the person, the better the person performed. This was also true for any task which was a basic “if I do this, then I get that” carrot and stick model. However when it came to any tasks that were even rudimentarily conceptual, it was found that the higher the incentive was for the individual, the worse the individual tended to perform.

Why might this be? As counter-intuitive as this may sound, Dan actually gives us a very reasonable answer as to why this is. If you give a person enough of an incentive, say a wad of cash, they will immediately be focused on the task at hand and trying hard to figure out the solution. When the answer to the problem is straightforward and logical, this is great. But when a bit of creativity is required to attain the solution, being extremely focused on the problem and trying to think through it as logically as possible is probably the wrong approach. As Dan puts it, a large incentive like this “is the enemy of creative problem solving… because your not picking up on the lateral signals.” Going back to the carrot and stick analogy, you can completely focus on the carrot but not see the other things around you, be it a pot of gold (other great idea) or an 18-wheeler speeding at you (other pitfalls).

How does this have any application to sales you might ask? Well if you think about it, you can apply this to your sales reps and especially to those mid level performers. The monetary incentive has always been there for them, but they continue to perform around an average level. They are either less motivated or not as adept at selling as the other reps. If it is a question of motivation, obviously money is not working. If it is a question of skill, well then should we not try and motivate them to learn and become better at what they do? Maybe a different method of incentive will allow them to see sales solutions more clearly.

Dan sites three factors that lead to better personal performance and engagement:

• Autonomy, or our desire to be self directed.
• Mastery, or our desire to get better at what we do.
• Purpose, which can be the best motivator of all. We as people are both purpose maximizers as well as profit maximizers. While money is all well and good, if you can provide a person with a sense of purpose, it may motivate them a whole lot more than a bonus or commission ever could.

Applying this to the world of sales, you can try to encourage your reps to master what they do. Challenge them by pointing out that this is what they do all day every day and they should take pride in it. Explain that even though they might not believe it, the job of a salesman is mostly autonomous, as they are on their own the majority of the time selling a product or service to every prospect and lead that they receive. That being said you and the other salesman are always there to assist them, which can lead into the common sense of purpose. The entire team is working together toward one goal (or one number), and it is the manager’s job to convey this sense of camaraderie and purpose. If you can successfully convey this, you might just find that this team environment provides enough encouragement and creative thinking for each rep to go above and beyond.