正解: BCorrect: B
外発的報酬が内発的動機を損なうアンダーマイニング効果です。金銭報酬をやめ、記事の反響や執筆テーマの自由、学習機会など、自律性と有能感を支える承認に切り替えるのが望ましい対応です。This is the undermining effect, in which extrinsic rewards erode intrinsic motivation. The appropriate response is to remove the cash reward and replace it with recognition that supports autonomy and competence, such as visible feedback, freedom in choosing topics, and learning opportunities.
Deci の 1971 年の実験以来、興味から行っていた活動に金銭などの統制的な報酬を与えると、活動が「報酬のための手段」と再解釈され、報酬がなくなった後や報酬に見合わないと感じた際に活動量が減る現象が繰り返し確認されています（Deci, Koestner & Ryan による 1999 年のメタ分析）。本ケースでは、記事執筆が「100ユーロの仕事」に変わり、質より量が優先され、その後は報酬に見合わないと感じた人が離脱したと解釈できます。選択肢Aは報酬をさらに強めるだけで、統制感を高めます。Cのノルマは自律性を奪い、さらに悪化させます。Dは因果関係を無視しています。自己決定理論では、報酬でも「有能さを伝える情報的な承認」であれば動機を損ないにくいとされるため、正解のような転換が理にかなっています。Since Deci's 1971 experiments, researchers have repeatedly found that giving controlling rewards such as money for an activity people already enjoy leads them to reinterpret the activity as a means to the reward; once the reward is gone or feels inadequate, activity declines (see the 1999 meta-analysis by Deci, Koestner, and Ryan). In this case, writing turned into "a 100-euro job," quantity displaced quality, and people who felt the pay did not justify the effort dropped out. Option A intensifies the reward and the sense of control. Option C removes autonomy through quotas and would make things worse. Option D ignores the causal link. SDT notes that rewards perceived as informational, conveying competence, are less likely to undermine motivation, which is why the shift described in the correct answer makes sense.
いったん導入した金銭報酬を撤廃すると「取り上げられた」という不満が生じ、短期的に動機がさらに下がる可能性があります。また、すべての業務が内発的動機で回るわけではなく、地味だが必要なタスクには外発的な仕組みも必要です。Withdrawing a cash reward once introduced can create resentment about something being "taken away," further lowering motivation in the short term and damaging trust in leadership. Not all work can run on intrinsic motivation either; tedious but necessary tasks such as documentation or compliance reviews still need some extrinsic structure to get done reliably.
撤廃の理由を透明に説明し、既存の執筆者に新しい仕組みの設計へ参加してもらいましょう。報酬を残す場合は成果連動ではなく、執筆に使える業務時間の確保や外部カンファレンス登壇の支援など、自律性と成長を支える資源の形にします。導入前後で記事数と質を測定し、効果を検証する姿勢も重要です。Explain the reasons for the change transparently and invite existing writers to co-design the new system. If some reward remains, make it a resource that supports autonomy and growth, such as protected writing time or support for speaking at external conferences, rather than pay per output. Measure article counts and quality before and after to verify the effect.