In his Ted Talk, Dan Pink examines the science of motivation. Most managers don’t know what has been ascertained by social scientists: Traditional rewards aren’t always as effective as we think.
Dan Pink has published the book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, which uses 50 years of behavioural science to overturn the conventional wisdom about human motivation and offer a new path to high performance.
“Drive” is one of the best books I’ve read last year (I also enjoyed Pink’s first book: “A Whole New Mind”, which is even more fascinating… hopefully we’ll talk about it in ISDI Learning Corner). What really resonated with me was the way Pink defines motivation: it’s not so much about rewards and punishment, which are extrinsic factors, but about autonomy, mastery and purpose, which are intrinsic, i.e. they come from the heart and soul.
Transposed to the workplace, it means that will perform well in a job if we are truly engaged in what we do, almost regardless of the monetary or career rewards, or of the penalties of underperforming.
Pink contends that in order to be engaged we need:
– AUTONOMY: not micromanagement from our boss, but a vast sphere of freedom that makes us feel that we are responsible for what we do, and that we can choose the most creative way to accomplish it, in a way that suits our personality and style.
– MASTERY: the joy of working is feeling that, day after day, we are becoming better and better at what we do, whether it’s manangement, cooking or writing. How appropriate that Pink uses the concept of “flow” from the Buddhist tradition: it’s a state of total engagement in an activity, so that time and space seem to disappear.
– PURPOSE: if we think that what we do is useless, in time our motivation will shrink. It’s crucial to feel that we are making a contribution to something important and worthwhile. It doesn’t need to be saving human lives or sending a robot to Mars… it just needs to be meaningful not pointless or self-serving.
Can we apply these principles to our everyday lives? Are we trying to motivate our staff with promises of rewards or threats of sanctions, or are we giving them an intrinsic motivation to perform well?
Great comment Tommaso and thanks for the summary of Pink’s book…it looks like an interesting read.
I especially like the three intrinsic factors and I can see how beneficial they can be when applied properly to a workforce.
The only thing I’m confused about is how to apply intrinsic and extrinsic factors in the case of extreme employees. I feel that by the very nature of an intrinsic trait, either someone is a passionate worker or they’re not. I’ve come across people (myself included :/ ) whom are a bit masochistic and no matter what the workload, no matter if there is a reward at the end, etc., they keep on marching, even if it is physically or psychologically damaging to oneself in the long run.
In this case, no extrinsic factor will derail the person. The “leader” can only try and point the worker in the right direction and “off they go”, like the Energizer bunny.
At the other end of the spectrum there is the “worker” that only appears passionate about doing as little as possible. Again, no extrinsic carrot or stick will make this person work anymore than they have to and I find it difficult to tap into their inner psyche to figure out what makes them tick. Even if you find a common ground or what motivates them, they insist on sitting in their comfort zone and will not make strides to improve.
Oh well, the world is interesting because it is varied. One day we will figure out how to help these unfortunate souls. 🙂
Hello Enzo,
well, the case you are describing – the employee who is “passionate about doing as little as possible” – is a tough one… in the most extreme cases, I fear that only the extrinsic motivation of not loosing his/her job can be effective…
Grazie Tommaso, I can see your solution working in certain cases. I would say that there is more flexibility in private industry as opposed to the public sector. The “lazy” employees are not stupid, on the contrary, they are usually very clever and manipulative.
They know their contracts better than the authors and learn all the relative loopholes therein. They operate “just” within the “legal” limits and therefore cannot be fired for any contractual infringements.
The only light at the end of the tunnel appears to be a tiered grading system (eg: valutazioni in MAE speak) where there is a realistic chance of being fired for habitually receiving the wooden spoon [fanalino di coda].
Obviously, we have to be careful, we don’t want to be playing bingo with livelihoods at stake. Any system has to be sound, fair and regulated…dare I say it, by trade unions that we know have a strong influence in the civil service.
Unfortunately, we have another problem. You will note that our “lazy” friends are very often actively involved in the trade unions and “there’s the rub”; I’m sure that they will somehow find ways of dodging the firing squad “to be or not to be”…watch this space.
Thanks again Tommaso, I’ve enjoyed our chat. 🙂