DRiVE thru
People told me I HAVE TO read Daniel Pink’s book Drive. So, I did.
…and I’m disappointed.
I’m mean I guess I shouldn’t be…it’s one of those books you pick up at the airport for $5.99 just before your flight takes off because you realized you’re iPad is running low on battery and you’re afraid of being stuck on a very long flight with horrible in-flight entertainment (or worst, no entertainment at all).
It’s not that I’m saying you shouldn’t read the book…go ahead, read it…it should take you a few hours and you may find some useful references. But realize the following:
There isn’t a single original thought in the entire book that is the author’s. Daniel Pink is an extremely talented storyteller and demagogue…and he makes a really great case against what he calls Motivation 2.0 and in favor of Motivation 3.o. But unlike books such as Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational where it is clear that the work and ideas presented in the book are the author’s, in Pink’s case, his contribution to the book is the research and editing of a handful of scientific papers about motivation published in the last century. In fact, most of the book is a bird’s eye view of Self Determination Theory and its application to our ever-changing business world.
So, original thinking aside, the book also makes a gross error in structuring the idea of motivation in favor of appealing to the average reader. More specifically, Pink uses the overused metaphor from software development to refer to Motivation 1.0, 2.0, and finally 3.0. (Too) Many books use the “x.0″ version metaphor to refer to a process of evolution. Pink uses it to say that man started with Motivation 1.0 – the need to survive – where hunger, sex, etc. where the key motivators. Then man evolved and came up with production lines and the need to motivate workers so he invented Motivation 2.0 – extrinsic motivation – carrots and sticks to get workers more motivated. Finally, our society evolved into current day information workers who are not motivated by carrots and sticks anymore, so man invented Motivation 3.0 – intrinsic motivation – built upon a sense of autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
That’s a nice story. But it’s not true. Motivation 3.0 is not the evolution of Motivation 2.o in the same way that Motivation 2.o is not the evolution of Motivation 1.0. All three were always there, inside each and every one of us…it’s just that different environments and context tend to bring out the different types of motivation.
Here’s how I think motivation should be framed:
The structure of motivation
Motivation can be separated into extrinsic vs. intrinsic. Extrinsic motivation achieves the best results when it supports a well-defined goal, one with a clear path which can be broken into a set of discrete steps. This is because extrinsic motivators tend to narrow our focus. Extrinsic motivators can be divided into contingent (if-then, “strings attached”) and non-contingent (“no strings attached”). I make this distinction because extrinsic motivators produce very different results when strings are attached vs. when no strings are attached. The rule of thumb is that if you’re going to use extrinsic motivators, it’s better to leave the strings unattached and instead surprise your users with a reward (as opposed to saying “if you do this, you’ll get that”). Intrinsic motivation in the diagram above is based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and includes Pink’s Motivation 1.0 (physiological + safety needs) and Motivation 3.0 (love, belonging, esteem, self-actualization). It’s also where Self-Determination (autonomy, mastery, purpose) fits in on the upper part of the pyramid. Intrinsic motivation is best suited for goals that require creativity because they don’t have a clear path to completion.
A final note about efficacy. Intrinsic motivation is generally regarded as more powerful than its extrinsic counterpart. I like to intuitively think about intrinsic motivation = need + action where in extrinsic motivation there’s only the action (going after something that’s outside of you, without having that internal drive to keep you going).
References:
How Small Wins Unleash Creativity
Self-Determination Theory in Virtual Environments and Video Games
I wouldn’t be so harsh with my judgement. Many authors around interesting topics have no original thoughts or research. Malcom Gladwell, Dan Pink, Po Bronson, Ashley Merryman, Jonah Berger, Alfie Kohn etc. rely a lot on existing research (and they also conduct interviews). But what they do is make this disseminated and often pretty scientific material accessible for the rest of us, tell stories, and out the material into context. That is a huge value in itself.
Which does not make the works of Dan Ariely or Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi less important. They are good story tellers too with the advantage to tap into their own research. BUT: as professors at some respected universities, they do have access to vast resources that allow them to do the research. After all, most of the execution and grinding is done (under their supervision) by undergraduates, doctoral students, and other research assistants.
Dan’s work has done insofar some very valuable work, as it has brought motivation and behavioral science in the middle of the popular discourse – and paved the way for the public perception of gamification.
Perhaps I was a bit too harsh
Partly because I’ve been waiting to read this book for a while and had great expectations.
Storytelling and popularizing scientific research are indeed important and Daniel Pink (and others you mentioned) do it extremely well (which is why they’re able to sell books). However, I think a person like Pink who immersed himself in so much research about motivation would have some personal say in the book. Instead, he chose to rephrase the thoughts of others and I still think that’s a miss…one doesn’t need to be a scientist, professor, researcher, etc. to be able to say something original…especially if he later presents himself as an “expert” on the subject.