“I have come to the conclusion that my subjective account of my motivation is largely mythical on almost all occasions. I don't know why I do things.” J.B.S. Haldane
“Classic economic theory, based as it is on an inadequate theory of human motivation, could be revolutionized by accepting the reality of higher human needs, including the impulse to self actualization and the love for the highest values.” Abraham Maslow
I recently read “Drive” by Daniel Pink. He suggests that some well accepted, long standing business practices are bad for motivation; effectively debunking a number of myths. His introduction includes a review of Edward Deci’s work who argues that: Rewards can deliver a short term boost…Just as a jolt of caffeine can keep you cranking for a few more hours. But the effect wears off… and worse, can reduce a person’s longer-term motivation to continue the project. Edward Deci further postulates: Human Beings have an inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise their capacities, to explore, and to learn. Some of the myths debunked are:
Myth # 1: That big contingent individual bonuses, especially for short-term results, will increase employee performance.
From Drive: External rewards and punishments can work nicely for algorithmic[1] tasks. But they can be devastating for heuristic[2] ones because they interfere with people’s creativity.
Myth # 2: Goal setting will improve performance.
From Drive: Goals imposed by others – sales targets, quarterly returns, standardized test scores and so on…. can sometimes have dangerous side effects, including unethical behaviour. Goals that people set for themselves, and that are targeted at attaining mastery of their crafts, are usually better predictors of superior performance.Myth # 3: Professionals (lawyers, accountants, etc.) should use billable hours for charging their clients.
From Drive: Mechanisms such as the “billable hour” are “the most autonomy-crushing mechanism imaginable”. “Focus inevitably veers from the output of their work (solving a client’s problem) to its input (piling up as many hours as possible).
Myth # 4: All you need is talent.
From Drive: Grit[3] may be as essential as talent to high accomplishment.Myth # 5: Good “Management” is critical.
From Drive: If managing is about control then Pink suggests it is an out dated paradigm, and that providing autonomy produces better results. The acronym he uses in the book is ROWE: for results-only work environment. The closer you can get to it the better the results will be.
The Motivational ‘secret sauce’: Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose
Autonomous people working toward mastery perform at very high levels. But those who do so in the service of some greater objective can achieve even more.
The book “Drive” helps develop understanding of what motivates us which most Business Owners know they need help with and I believe is worth taking the time to read and understand.
You can also see a 10 minute YouTube video summarizing Drive’s key concepts by clicking on the following:
Daily beatings will continue until morale improves! I don't know what we'll ever do without you around here, but starting tomorrow we're going to find out! What? You mean these tried and true motivators don't work anymore? O.K., if Maslow created the 'Hierarchy of Needs' pyramid, let's call these draconian methods 'Attila's "LOWERarchy" of The Boss's Needs Black Hole'. Remember, you heard it here first! All kidding aside, and Pink's passion and enthusiasm notwithstanding, I always wonder when considering some recently enlightened method of motivation, why has this never been tried before? Or perhaps the better question would be, why have earlier attempts never been published? My suspicion is that they have been tried, had short-lived success and failed. But in fairness, I have not yet read the book. So now you're thinking "What a blow-hard!" He hasn't even read it, yet he thinks he has all the answers. Au contraire mon ami; I'm simply questioning something new, with little or no empirical evidence to support the abstract. Let's reconsider 'empowerment' that ephemeral management buzz word of the 90's. Why didn't empowerment work? Ask Steve Jobs; ask Bill Gates; ask Jack Welch; ask Warren Buffett. Near-sighted peasants; every one of them! By this time next year, you'll be able to ask the same question of 1 term former President Barak Obama. As managers got giddy with empowerment, subordinates took their eyes off the prize and whole segments of otherwise successful businesses were gobbled up by more carnivorous competitors whose CEO's were hard-driving, results oriented non-delegators. Pink's assertions are a decade or two short of unqualified success, or failure. In the interim, hopefully a boatload of his books will be sold. Because that is in fact what motivates Pink, despite his claim that "some well accepted, long standing business practices are bad for motivation". Sales motivates all businesses, whether the product stands the test of time, or winds up on the scrapheap of bad ideas like empowerment.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is that Daniel Pink bases his "findings" on data which I like. I wouldn't have written about “Drive” (or read it for that matter) if he hadn’t. What he doesn't do is write about the importance of relationships; which of course, most of us intuitively understand are very significant. If we care about & trust someone, we'll go out of our way to do things for them that we wouldn't do otherwise.
ReplyDeleteBut I also think that his premise of us not having great insight into "motivation" is apt. Hence the saying, "The beatings will continue until moral improves." Most people aren't good at motivating others - or ourselves for that matter.
I believe the most popular paradigm is to try & understand motivation through the lens of leadership but there are a zillion leadership theories but I have yet to come across one with data to back it up. Hence, I think Pink brings information to light that's worth considering.