Daniel Pink, author of, “A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future” and his latest, “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us” explains why the majority of what we know about motivation is wrong.
Citing many recent studies, Pink shows that traditional carrot-and-stick approaches to management, such as pay bonuses for good work, only apply jobs that are purely mechanical. For jobs that require even a small amount of rudimentary cognitive skill, pay incentives actually led to worse performance.
In the following video, RSA (The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce…whew) animates Pink’s ideas in real-time as he talks. If it seems distracting at first, just give it a minute, the animation helps us visual learners digest Pink’s ideas and ends up adding some insight.
(definitely worth 10min of your time.)
Popularity: 2% [?]
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent video, thanks for sharing.
I appreciate the examples of these successful companies and how they will pay people enough money that their well-being is not an issue or concern and it becomes more about the mastery of their work which then benefits people other than themselves giving it purpose.
My question is how often in these orgs does mediocrity set in once you’ve taken away the monetary incentives? Why work harder if you’re taken care of? (looking out for number 1)
I guess one way to manage that is somehow hold people personally acountable for their efforts or only hire people who are self-motivators and driven by the purpose of the organization.
It seems that in order to work in this type of environment, you would have to love what you do and be motivated to excell at it. Really, how often do people work where they want to and do what makes them happy?
PS-I recognize the cynicism in this comment, but I believe it is reality for people that they work to pay the bills or they work so that they can do the things they love on the weekends.
@ JP,
I think the point is not to deny that employees have self-interest, everyone does, but simply to say that as long as the base pay is adequate using additional pay as an incentive for better performance in non-mechanical jobs is not effective. At one level, everyone works to pay the bills, but I think Pink is just showing that we humans have other needs and desires aside from money.
For example, every year thousands of officers decide to leave the military at the 10yr points despite offers for large pay bonuses in exchange for more time. Many look at their decisions and say, “you’re crazy, all you have to do is put in 10 more years and you can get full retirement on top of a large bonus!”
What they fail to understand is that the promise of more money/security is obviously not the primary motivation for these people. Perhaps it is autonomy (not something in large supply in the military) or a desire to master other skills/vocations not available in the military.
When we develop a narrow view of motivation, one in which money is the primary motivator, we will tend to attract employees for whom this is true and drive away others for whom it is not. Self-fulfilling prophecy?
Self-fulfilling prophesy? I believe so. =)
I was thinking more about low skilled technical jobs, where people’s basic needs are often what they are working for. This wasn’t the example that he gave as you mentioned. And I guess it still holds true that in the technical skilled jobs the carrot and stick method still works.