Opinion
Rethink the marshmallow test and earn trust to win employee commitment
Summary
- Patience for later rewards depends on trust. Workers opting for instant gratification suggests too little of it. Organizations must ensure their promises are credible.
In the 70s, Stanford professor Walter Mischel designed the famous marshmallow test, which became synonymous with the relationship between one’s ability to delay gratification and long-term success. Two options were given to a group of children under the age of five. They could either eat a single marshmallow placed in front of them immediately, or choose to wait for 15 minutes, after which they would get two instead of one treat.
The idea was to see who was able to control the impulse of immediate gratification versus delaying it for a larger prize later. Over decades, follow-up studies on children appeared to confirm that those who waited tended to achieve higher educational attainment, better health and greater professional success. The results were compelling, suggesting that patience and self-control could predict higher scholastic test scores, better emotional well-being and superior social skills, supporting the belief that self-discipline is a key determinant of success.
This construct of deferred gratification found its way into organizations too, suggesting, for example, that young graduates who valued rich experience over higher remuneration options in the early stages of their career would be more successful eventually. The construct’s logic also seeped into the reward mechanisms of organizations in the form of variable pay, bonuses, vested stock options, etc, implying that those who could defer gratification were more valued by employers.
It was broadly believed that success was squarely the responsibility of the individual and her ability to defer gratification. However, this interpretation oversimplified the complexities of human behaviour by placing the entire onus on the individual, neglecting crucial socioeconomic and psychological factors that contextualize all decision-making.
The traditional interpretation of the marshmallow test assumed uniform backgrounds and similar ‘experienced beliefs’ among all participants. It presupposed that the promise of future rewards is universally credible, which may not be true for kids from different socioeconomic backgrounds, and thus failed to appreciate disparities that can influence a child’s decision. Children from less well-off homes experience less stability and are less likely to trust that promised rewards will actually materialize.
Their reluctance is not a failure of self-control, but a rational response to their ‘lived experiences.’ This was corroborated by variations of the test that first shaped the children’s trust by consistently fulfilling or breaking promises. It was found that those who experienced reliability were far likelier to wait for the second marshmallow, which suggests that trust is a crucial part of the decision to delay gratification.
There are other psychological and emotional aspects at play too. Children raised in nurturing environments where promises are consistently kept are more likely to develop the optimism and patience necessary to wait for greater rewards than those growing up in unpredictable environments.
These implications of experiences with trust or mistrust equally affect adult behaviour in the workplace. Employees who learn to mistrust promises will prefer immediate gratification, influencing their career choices and performance. This preference manifests in a propensity for switching jobs that offer quick rewards instead of believing employer promises of long-term benefits that require sustained effort, patience, and, most importantly, trust in the employer.
This becomes especially important when dealing with a young workforce whose lived experiences may have comprised broken promises. Broken by the doublespeak of politicians, for example, or by the duplicity of role models caught in scams, or by deceitful business interactions or by unfortunate experiences as part of a broken family. When a child sees the two pillars of her world break their promise to each other, it is natural for them to be sceptical of promises.
This should propel organizations, especially those facing heavy attrition, to introspect and gauge the trust index of their leadership and organizational culture as a whole. If employees aren’t ‘loyal’ or don’t seem to be reposing much faith in longer-term promises, then the question to be asked is not whether those promises are attractive enough, but whether the lived experiences of employees play a role in their perceptions of assurances.
If the organizational culture fosters an environment of intimidation and punitive action, or places physical presence at work above emotional engagement, alignment over innovative action, hierarchy over capability and conformity with the status quo over contrarian thinking, then there would surely be some dissonance between what the organization purports and what it actually practices. A dissonance that erodes trust.
In re-evaluating the marshmallow test for today’s corporate environments, leaders ought to reflect on how they cultivate trust and commitment. Success is not solely about promising future gratification, but also ensuring that work environments have the consistency and reliability needed to make promises credible. If employees consistently seem to prefer a bird in hand to two in a bush, it’s a reflection of the trust index of the organization and its leadership.
