Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us
by Daniel H. Pink. Riverhead Books, 2009
What pushes employees to do their best work? Many businesses operate under the belief that the key to motivating workers is giving them tangible rewards, such as a cash bonus or a corner office. In the book Drive, business writer Daniel H. Pink argues persuasively that these companies have it all wrong. He cites a body of behavioral science research that suggests that optimal performance comes when people find intrinsic meaning in their work.
Pink points to studies that show creating incentives can be counterproductive. This idea was first hinted at in the 1960s, when psychologist Sam Glucksberg, now at Princeton University, experimented with the “candle problem,” a test in which participants are given a candle, matches and a box of tacks and asked to fix the candle to a wall (the solution lies in using the box as a platform). Volunteers who were offered cash to solve the problem fast actually took longer to finish because, as Glucksberg concluded, focusing on the reward interfered with the volunteers’ ability to concentrate on completing the task at hand. In a more recent study, researchers at Harvard Business School asked a panel of artists and curators to rate pieces of artwork for creativity and technical skill without knowing whether or not the works were commissioned. The panel ended up ranking commissioned pieces lower in creativity than noncommissioned pieces, even though they found no difference in technical skill.
Although incentives seem to hamper performance, Pink acknowledges that not all are bad. Dangling carrots may be useful in getting people to plow through boring, routine work. But in the fast-changing 21st-century economy, the success of individuals and organizations increasingly depends on being nimble and innovative, so there is more and more need for people to find intrinsic value in their work. Pink identifies three elements underlying such intrinsic motivation: autonomy, the ability to choose what and how tasks are completed; mastery, the process of becoming adept at an activity; and purpose, the desire to improve the world.
Drive highlights businesses that promote these values. Google lets its engineers work on any project they choose for 20 percent of their time—a policy that has yielded popular products, including Google News. Toms Shoes in California matches every sale with a charitable donation of a pair of shoes to a child in the developing world. Pink also cites educational institutions such as Montessori schools that let kids follow their natural curiosity in self-directed activities. Moving beyond the world of work, he advocates designing your own exercise program rather than following a gym’s cookie-cutter one to motivate you to break a sweat.
A limitation of Drive’s argument is that many people may be too busy making ends meet to seek out work or other activities that hold intrinsic interest. Still, Pink makes a convincing case that organizations ignore intrinsic motivation at their peril.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentSuggest you reread literature on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for additional layers to this issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In a more recent study, researchers at Harvard Business School asked a panel of artists and curators to rate pieces of artwork for creativity and technical skill without knowing whether or not the works were commissioned. The panel ended up ranking commissioned pieces lower in creativity than noncommissioned pieces, even though they found no difference in technical skill."
I don't see how this example was intended to support the argument of motivation, but I'd expect commissioned art to actually be less creative or expressive, since it is intended to satisfy both the artist and the commissioner. I'd expect that the broader the audience intended for a work of art, the more the artist is restricted.
Wonder if Pink ever read Edward Deci. His treatise is a rehash of some pretty firmly set research that's at least 20 years old.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis way of thinking is too simple: analyze the creation of famous works of art like painting, music, poetry, literature, etc and you will find a lot of everything inside.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree. In this economy or any economy having a job and a paycheck is what matters. Forget all the other stuff. One does not have to be happy with what they do for a living or be motivated. You go to work, do your job to the best of your ability, get out of work and find some other place to find meaning to your life. And when not at work you forget about work and make your life meaningful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA job and a paycheck are what matters. The other stuff is just fluff.
IMHO
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just mi personal experience as a Medic working for 5 years in mental health. I can only speak of what I have seen in my patiens, work group and myself...
I work in Chile, on public health, and I can tell you that conditions aren't optimal, not for the workers, neither por patiens.
And so I have seen lots of examples of bad paid persons of different works, even in people that receives minimum salary (US 350 AT MOST).
Starting with co-workers, i have seen, in differents jobs (all related to mental health), that a lot of men and women, even if they can get better salary jobs, dont take them, and put a lot of effort on doing social work with excellence. And they have children to take care of and even so they seems happy with their current job. And i'm not talking about medics, i see it more in psychologists, occupational therapist and social workers, even if they get a lot less money than medics. And speaking of my profession, the best guys around are the ones that enjoy they work, the ones that empathise with patients and therefore feels that are doing a worthy job. There's lots of guys that starts on a "get money career", and sometimes their work sucks.
Speaking of mentally ill persons (i'm talking about "lightly ill people" of course), i have seen people that gets a great change for good in their life when they find a goal worth for them and THEY DO IT (and a lot are pensioned off people, about US160 a month).
I'm pretty sure that a guy with studies, money-earning perspectives and a certain economical status is gonna feel frustrated if he dont gets money, cant get good health care for they children, etc... so money does matters, I totally agree with that. But when you can cover some financial needs, you can either buy a big car or work in something you like... and if you work 8 hours a day IT DOES MATTER THAT YOU LIKE OR DISLIKE YOUR JOB.
Personally, the one time I felt frustrated on a job was one when my efforts and value wheren't recognised.
I have a stressfull job, but i really like mental health area, and I feel fullfilled even if i'm not yet a psychiatrist and i earn a fourth the money one of them gets. But i do it cause i like it, and for my everyday life, even if i dont get money bonuses for my own achievements, I feel happy with my life (that includes 8 hours work, 8 hours sleep and at least 2 hours on transport, eating, bath, etc).
This isn't a scientific research, only what I have seen in my 5 years career, but I can see that having a purpose in your job really makes a difference in quality.
IMHO ;)
In fact, Pink references Deci at the very beginning of his argument. I would recommend you consider the book, because if you enjoyed Deci's work, you will appreciate Pink's summation of similar efforts in the study of motivation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this05:17 PM 3/28/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, Pink references Deci at the very beginning of his argument. I would recommend you consider the book, because if you enjoyed Deci's work, you will appreciate Pink's summation of similar efforts in the study of motivation.