I'm intrigued by Daniel Pink's idea that type I folks - folks who are intrinsically motivated - are not born but can be made -- and perhaps more importantly, he offers some practical advice for helping to create "intrinsically motivated" types in the workplace.
In Drive, Pink's basic premise is that we have long believed that the way to motivate people at work in business and industrial settings is with extrinsic rewards: money, benefits, recognition. Pink argues that these rewards, while necessary, are not sufficient. In fact, the highest and best performances are those that are intrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivation is the pleasure you get from doing the task.
Pink argues that extrinsic motivation works very well for motivating workers performing routine tasks and can inspire them to perform such tasks more quickly. But for complex and creative problem-solving, Pink argues, using extrinsic motivation will actually narrow the focus of workers and is likely to hamper or stifle their creativity.
To support his claim, he presents evidence from a variety of experiments - one done in India for the Federal Reserve Bank by economists, including Dan Ariely of Predictably Irrational famel another done with schoolchildren; and most importantly, the candle problem, a famous experiment from the 1930's more recently recast with incentives. (Pink also used this example in his TED lecture, which you can view at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y).
The candle problem, an experiment created by psychologist Karl Duncker, goes like this:
You're given the following materials, laid out on a table next to a wooden wall:
A candle
A book of matches
A shallow cardboard box of tacks (this works better with pictures)
and given these instructions:
Attach the candle to the (wooden) wall so that the candle's wax does not drip on the table.
Typically, folks struggle trying to attach the candle to the walls with tacks or attach the candle to the wall by melting the side of the candle and then sticking to the wall.
The solution is to empty the box of tacks, tack the box to the wooden wall with several tacks, and stick the candle in the box which protects anything below the box from the candle's wax.
The experiment is designed to assess a subject's level of "functional fixedness," i.e, whether the subject can conceive of a new use for the tack box to solve the problem.
A few decades ago psychologist Sam Glucksberg wanted to test how a reward for solving the problem quickly affected the ability to solve conceptual problems. He gave the candle problem to two groups.
He told the first group that he was timing how long it took them to solve the candle problem in order to establish an estimated time required to solve the problem.
He told the second group that if they finished in the top 25% of all folks solving the problem, they would receive $5 -- and, to the faster finisher, he offered $20.
"Motivation 2.0" predicts that the group with an incentive for performance will perform more quickly. In fact, the second group, on average, took three and a half minutes longer to solve the problem.
Pink explains that the results occurred because rewards narrow our focus. A narrowed focus is distracting from creative problem solving, when you have to "think outside the box."
Pink says that goal setting, something that many of us do in our personal lives as well as our work lives, can be counter-productive. This may come as a big relief for anyone who's ever failed at meeting a personal goal!
The reason why this is important, Pink explains, is that "Motivation 2.0" often worked fairly well for routine tasks but the conceptual, nonroutine tasks of the 21st century require different behaviors on the part of employees and they need, in essence, to be self-motivated, self-monitoring and -directed and to be creative thinkers. What motivates the creative thinkers of the 21st century? Well, in part, the joy of the task itself, and also, the opportunity to have autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Pink devotes a chapter to each of these three topics: autonomy, mastery and purpose.
The last part of the book is a toolkit, and its purpose is to provide practical directions for using autonomy, mastery and purpose to motivate people (regardless of whether they're in your family or in your company). And there's a reading list of 15 "essential" books that includes, of course, Outliers.
The new research about happiness, motivation and performance, and authors like Ariely, Pink and Gladwell, give us an opportunity to listen to scientists talk about what matters in why we make the decisions we do and how we can use that knowledge to improve our lives. I think that's really exciting.
In Drive, Pink's basic premise is that we have long believed that the way to motivate people at work in business and industrial settings is with extrinsic rewards: money, benefits, recognition. Pink argues that these rewards, while necessary, are not sufficient. In fact, the highest and best performances are those that are intrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivation is the pleasure you get from doing the task.
Pink argues that extrinsic motivation works very well for motivating workers performing routine tasks and can inspire them to perform such tasks more quickly. But for complex and creative problem-solving, Pink argues, using extrinsic motivation will actually narrow the focus of workers and is likely to hamper or stifle their creativity.
To support his claim, he presents evidence from a variety of experiments - one done in India for the Federal Reserve Bank by economists, including Dan Ariely of Predictably Irrational famel another done with schoolchildren; and most importantly, the candle problem, a famous experiment from the 1930's more recently recast with incentives. (Pink also used this example in his TED lecture, which you can view at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y).
The candle problem, an experiment created by psychologist Karl Duncker, goes like this:
You're given the following materials, laid out on a table next to a wooden wall:
A candle
A book of matches
A shallow cardboard box of tacks (this works better with pictures)
and given these instructions:
Attach the candle to the (wooden) wall so that the candle's wax does not drip on the table.
Typically, folks struggle trying to attach the candle to the walls with tacks or attach the candle to the wall by melting the side of the candle and then sticking to the wall.
The solution is to empty the box of tacks, tack the box to the wooden wall with several tacks, and stick the candle in the box which protects anything below the box from the candle's wax.
The experiment is designed to assess a subject's level of "functional fixedness," i.e, whether the subject can conceive of a new use for the tack box to solve the problem.
A few decades ago psychologist Sam Glucksberg wanted to test how a reward for solving the problem quickly affected the ability to solve conceptual problems. He gave the candle problem to two groups.
He told the first group that he was timing how long it took them to solve the candle problem in order to establish an estimated time required to solve the problem.
He told the second group that if they finished in the top 25% of all folks solving the problem, they would receive $5 -- and, to the faster finisher, he offered $20.
"Motivation 2.0" predicts that the group with an incentive for performance will perform more quickly. In fact, the second group, on average, took three and a half minutes longer to solve the problem.
Pink explains that the results occurred because rewards narrow our focus. A narrowed focus is distracting from creative problem solving, when you have to "think outside the box."
Pink says that goal setting, something that many of us do in our personal lives as well as our work lives, can be counter-productive. This may come as a big relief for anyone who's ever failed at meeting a personal goal!
The reason why this is important, Pink explains, is that "Motivation 2.0" often worked fairly well for routine tasks but the conceptual, nonroutine tasks of the 21st century require different behaviors on the part of employees and they need, in essence, to be self-motivated, self-monitoring and -directed and to be creative thinkers. What motivates the creative thinkers of the 21st century? Well, in part, the joy of the task itself, and also, the opportunity to have autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Pink devotes a chapter to each of these three topics: autonomy, mastery and purpose.
The last part of the book is a toolkit, and its purpose is to provide practical directions for using autonomy, mastery and purpose to motivate people (regardless of whether they're in your family or in your company). And there's a reading list of 15 "essential" books that includes, of course, Outliers.
The new research about happiness, motivation and performance, and authors like Ariely, Pink and Gladwell, give us an opportunity to listen to scientists talk about what matters in why we make the decisions we do and how we can use that knowledge to improve our lives. I think that's really exciting.
