Why a bigger bonus can make your team worse

In a classic 1962 experiment, psychologist Sam Glucksberg gave people the candle problem: using a box of tacks, a candle, and matches, attach the candle to the wall so wax doesn't drip on the floor. The trick is realizing the tack box itself can be emptied and pinned up as a shelf. Glucksberg offered one group cash for solving it fast — and they took, on average, about three and a half minutes longer than the group offered nothing. The reward narrowed their focus and made the creative leap harder.

Author Daniel Pink popularized this pattern in his book Drive: if-then rewards ('do this, get that') reliably boost performance on routine, mechanical tasks where the path is obvious. But for work that needs cognitive flexibility or creativity, dangling a big carrot can actually degrade results by tunneling attention onto the prize instead of the problem.

Pink argues that for knowledge work, the real drivers are autonomy (control over how you work), mastery (getting visibly better at something), and purpose (work that matters). Pay people enough that money is off the table as a worry — then stop leaning on bonuses to spark the kind of thinking money can't buy.