What do you think?
Rate this book
Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
The New York Times bestseller that gives readers a paradigm-shattering new way to think about motivation
Most people believe that the best way to motivate is with rewards like money—the carrot-and-stick approach. That's a mistake, says Daniel H. Pink (author of To Sell Is Human: The Surprising Truth About Motivating Others). In this provocative and persuasive new book, he asserts that the secret to high performance and satisfaction—at work, at school, and at home—is the deeply human need to direct our own lives, to learn and create new things, and to do better by ourselves and our world.
Drawing on four decades of scientific research on human motivation, Pink exposes the mismatch between what science knows and what business does—and how that affects every aspect of life. He examines the three elements of true motivation—autonomy, mastery, and purpose—and offers smart and surprising techniques for putting these into action in a unique book that will change how we think and transform how we live.
Most people believe that the best way to motivate is with rewards like money—the carrot-and-stick approach. That's a mistake, says Daniel H. Pink (author of To Sell Is Human: The Surprising Truth About Motivating Others). In this provocative and persuasive new book, he asserts that the secret to high performance and satisfaction—at work, at school, and at home—is the deeply human need to direct our own lives, to learn and create new things, and to do better by ourselves and our world.
Drawing on four decades of scientific research on human motivation, Pink exposes the mismatch between what science knows and what business does—and how that affects every aspect of life. He examines the three elements of true motivation—autonomy, mastery, and purpose—and offers smart and surprising techniques for putting these into action in a unique book that will change how we think and transform how we live.
242 pages, Hardcover
First published December 29, 2009
About the author
Daniel H. Pink
145 books28.7k followersDaniel H. Pink is the author of six provocative books — including his newest, When: The Scientific Secrets of Perfect Timing.
WHEN has spent 4 months on the New York Times bestseller list and was named a Best Book of 2018 by Amazon and iBooks.
Dan's other books include the long-running New York Times bestseller A Whole New Mind and the #1 New York Times bestsellers Drive and To Sell is Human. His books have won multiple awards and have been translated into 39 languages.
He and his wife, who live in Washington, DC, have three children -- a college senior, a college sophomore, and a high school sophomore.
WHEN has spent 4 months on the New York Times bestseller list and was named a Best Book of 2018 by Amazon and iBooks.
Dan's other books include the long-running New York Times bestseller A Whole New Mind and the #1 New York Times bestsellers Drive and To Sell is Human. His books have won multiple awards and have been translated into 39 languages.
He and his wife, who live in Washington, DC, have three children -- a college senior, a college sophomore, and a high school sophomore.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 5,511 reviews
February 6, 2011
Why am I writing this review on Goodreads, anyway? I'm not getting paid for it. There are plenty of other things I should be doing. And it's not like I have a coterie of devoted followers waiting with bated breath for my next review (in fact, the vast majority of reviews I write here get zero comments and zero "likes"). So why, then?
DRIVE has the answer. I do it for me. I do it for intrinsic reasons and thumb my nose at the world of extrinsic ones. I do it because I derive personal pleasure from it, because it challenges me to summarize and critique succinctly, because I am free to be funny, irreverent, scholarly, deadpan, conventional, or wacky. Now THAT'S incentive!
And you don't even have to read this whole book to get Daniel Pink's message. For one, he sums up each chapter in a pecan shell at the end of the book, so you can read that instead next time you're at Barnes & Noble. Or you can visit the TED website and watch Pink sum up his message in a speech for free. But if you want the dirty details, read the book. It's fast, it's easy, it's enlightening.
The book is chiefly geared toward the business community, but has ramifications for all of us and, in my case, for the education community (where I first saw it recommended). It debunks the myth of the carrot and stick, that rewards get results and sticks get results -- always. No, no, no. Science, Pink says, proves otherwise. And he parades one case study after another to make his point.
Perhaps the most salient is the encyclopedia example. Back in 1995, Microsoft paid writers big bucks to write Encarta, an encyclopedia it sold on CD and as software. Only, around 10 years later, Bill Gates' boys had to wave the white flag and fold up camp, vanquished and defeated by a competitor that paid no one -- not a bloody dime -- and offered its encyclopedia for free. That competitor? Wikipedia. Written by everyday Joes and Josephines the world over. For nothing.
Then there was the Swedish blood bank. Its administrators decided to cash in by switching from a donation model to a pay-to-bleed model. What happened? Blood donations plummeted. Why? Swedes preferred to give blood for humane reasons, not for blood money. They did it for intrinsic reasons, not extrinsic ones.
So what does this mean to businesses? It means the old ways of dictatorial managers overseeing not-to-be-trusted worker bees are over. If, Pink says, you give workers THREE gifts -- autonomy, mastery, and purpose -- they will work like hell for you (because it's as much for THEM). In many ways it makes sense. Given the choice, humans will work for less money if a company offers them more leeway, creative outlets, flexibility, challenges with long-term goals, camaraderie, and raison d'être's (so to speak).
Pink points to our childhoods. We're all born with a built-in hunger to learn, to challenge ourselves, to WORK, but schools (and then workplaces) beat it out of us with monotony and inanity, dullness and repetition. What if you got a "FedEx Friday" every week -- a day to work on any project toward the company's cause you wished, as long as you presented your results to co-workers and admins the following Monday? That's how Post-It notes were invented by a guy at 3M. The company gave its workers time to manage and challenge themselves. Voila!
In education, it amounts to adding relevancy to the classroom. What's the point? How does this connect to the world and how can it be used in the student's future? Can we give students choice, provide the tools, and turn them loose while serving as mentors? Oddly, many teachers cannot and will not because they feel like they will be ceding control AND because they will no longer be doing their job the way they have always done it and/or the way THEIR teachers always did it to THEM (oh, sins of the fathers!).
So, yeah. If you don't know the lessons of DRIVE, you should jump on the Autobahn and get up to speed. Really. It's not just for work -- it's for you, too. Motivate yourself. Check it out.
DRIVE has the answer. I do it for me. I do it for intrinsic reasons and thumb my nose at the world of extrinsic ones. I do it because I derive personal pleasure from it, because it challenges me to summarize and critique succinctly, because I am free to be funny, irreverent, scholarly, deadpan, conventional, or wacky. Now THAT'S incentive!
And you don't even have to read this whole book to get Daniel Pink's message. For one, he sums up each chapter in a pecan shell at the end of the book, so you can read that instead next time you're at Barnes & Noble. Or you can visit the TED website and watch Pink sum up his message in a speech for free. But if you want the dirty details, read the book. It's fast, it's easy, it's enlightening.
The book is chiefly geared toward the business community, but has ramifications for all of us and, in my case, for the education community (where I first saw it recommended). It debunks the myth of the carrot and stick, that rewards get results and sticks get results -- always. No, no, no. Science, Pink says, proves otherwise. And he parades one case study after another to make his point.
Perhaps the most salient is the encyclopedia example. Back in 1995, Microsoft paid writers big bucks to write Encarta, an encyclopedia it sold on CD and as software. Only, around 10 years later, Bill Gates' boys had to wave the white flag and fold up camp, vanquished and defeated by a competitor that paid no one -- not a bloody dime -- and offered its encyclopedia for free. That competitor? Wikipedia. Written by everyday Joes and Josephines the world over. For nothing.
Then there was the Swedish blood bank. Its administrators decided to cash in by switching from a donation model to a pay-to-bleed model. What happened? Blood donations plummeted. Why? Swedes preferred to give blood for humane reasons, not for blood money. They did it for intrinsic reasons, not extrinsic ones.
So what does this mean to businesses? It means the old ways of dictatorial managers overseeing not-to-be-trusted worker bees are over. If, Pink says, you give workers THREE gifts -- autonomy, mastery, and purpose -- they will work like hell for you (because it's as much for THEM). In many ways it makes sense. Given the choice, humans will work for less money if a company offers them more leeway, creative outlets, flexibility, challenges with long-term goals, camaraderie, and raison d'être's (so to speak).
Pink points to our childhoods. We're all born with a built-in hunger to learn, to challenge ourselves, to WORK, but schools (and then workplaces) beat it out of us with monotony and inanity, dullness and repetition. What if you got a "FedEx Friday" every week -- a day to work on any project toward the company's cause you wished, as long as you presented your results to co-workers and admins the following Monday? That's how Post-It notes were invented by a guy at 3M. The company gave its workers time to manage and challenge themselves. Voila!
In education, it amounts to adding relevancy to the classroom. What's the point? How does this connect to the world and how can it be used in the student's future? Can we give students choice, provide the tools, and turn them loose while serving as mentors? Oddly, many teachers cannot and will not because they feel like they will be ceding control AND because they will no longer be doing their job the way they have always done it and/or the way THEIR teachers always did it to THEM (oh, sins of the fathers!).
So, yeah. If you don't know the lessons of DRIVE, you should jump on the Autobahn and get up to speed. Really. It's not just for work -- it's for you, too. Motivate yourself. Check it out.
July 19, 2010
I can think of a few alternate titles for this book.
“The Art of Beating a Dead Horse: Your Guide to Regurgitating the Same Point in Every Chapter”
“How to Filter Years of Other People’s Research into Broad Talking Points”
“You Too Can Write a Book With At Least 25% Filler Material”
“The Fair and Balanced Guide to Selling Your Point By Avoiding Contradictory Evidence”
I jest, yet I do think the main topic of this book is important and true. I will save you the pain of reading it by stating it here: people with non-routine jobs are more effectively motivated by intrinsic rewards rather than extrinsic rewards. People work better when they can have autonomy over their work and pursue mastery of their skills. Appealing to an employee’s desire for intrinsic satisfaction makes for a better long term outcome for both company and employee.
The problem with Pink’s book is that he says almost the exact same thing in every chapter. Instead of a progression of ideas, we instead get a boring rehash of the main point, with slightly altered words. Most of this is done by recounting specific studies that prove his main point about intrinsic motivation. However, rarely does he ever mention when intrinsic motivation doesn’t work, except when he mentions “routine, non-creative jobs”. I’d say that a lot of jobs out there are rather routine and non-creative, and I think it’s a mistake to assume that intrinsic motivation has no application for these jobs at all. Additionally, I’m skeptical of anyone that doesn’t at least mention studies that seem to contradict their main idea, which Pink never does. He builds his case by selecting slices of numerous studies, then interpreting the results to fit his narrative.
Pink also talks at length about Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow. I have never read “Flow”, yet I hope the concept is better explained in his book, because in Pink’s book it makes no sense. “Flow” is supposed to describe the mindset of a person when they are deeply involved in something (i.e. a star baseball player swinging at a pitch, an author writing a book, etc.), and Pink tries to say that our whole day should be filled with “flow” moments. Sounds okay, but sometimes I think it’s good to have non “flow” moments. At any rate, this whole concept is under-explained and over-utilized in this book.
The best part of this book was the concept of intrinsic motivation and how it should be applied in business. Also, it is important to note that extrinsic motivators like “if-then” rewards (e.g., ‘if’ we meet the sales quota, ‘then’ you’ll receive $300) can actually be detrimental to motivation.
I wish Pink would have examined the concept of intrinsic motivation in different aspects of life rather than just business. I believe, if explored more thoroughly, it could be very revealing of many different aspects of human behavior. In fact, it would be more helpful to see which motivators are best suited to specific behavioral areas.
All in all, this was a poorly written book with a very interesting idea at its core.
“The Art of Beating a Dead Horse: Your Guide to Regurgitating the Same Point in Every Chapter”
“How to Filter Years of Other People’s Research into Broad Talking Points”
“You Too Can Write a Book With At Least 25% Filler Material”
“The Fair and Balanced Guide to Selling Your Point By Avoiding Contradictory Evidence”
I jest, yet I do think the main topic of this book is important and true. I will save you the pain of reading it by stating it here: people with non-routine jobs are more effectively motivated by intrinsic rewards rather than extrinsic rewards. People work better when they can have autonomy over their work and pursue mastery of their skills. Appealing to an employee’s desire for intrinsic satisfaction makes for a better long term outcome for both company and employee.
The problem with Pink’s book is that he says almost the exact same thing in every chapter. Instead of a progression of ideas, we instead get a boring rehash of the main point, with slightly altered words. Most of this is done by recounting specific studies that prove his main point about intrinsic motivation. However, rarely does he ever mention when intrinsic motivation doesn’t work, except when he mentions “routine, non-creative jobs”. I’d say that a lot of jobs out there are rather routine and non-creative, and I think it’s a mistake to assume that intrinsic motivation has no application for these jobs at all. Additionally, I’m skeptical of anyone that doesn’t at least mention studies that seem to contradict their main idea, which Pink never does. He builds his case by selecting slices of numerous studies, then interpreting the results to fit his narrative.
Pink also talks at length about Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow. I have never read “Flow”, yet I hope the concept is better explained in his book, because in Pink’s book it makes no sense. “Flow” is supposed to describe the mindset of a person when they are deeply involved in something (i.e. a star baseball player swinging at a pitch, an author writing a book, etc.), and Pink tries to say that our whole day should be filled with “flow” moments. Sounds okay, but sometimes I think it’s good to have non “flow” moments. At any rate, this whole concept is under-explained and over-utilized in this book.
The best part of this book was the concept of intrinsic motivation and how it should be applied in business. Also, it is important to note that extrinsic motivators like “if-then” rewards (e.g., ‘if’ we meet the sales quota, ‘then’ you’ll receive $300) can actually be detrimental to motivation.
I wish Pink would have examined the concept of intrinsic motivation in different aspects of life rather than just business. I believe, if explored more thoroughly, it could be very revealing of many different aspects of human behavior. In fact, it would be more helpful to see which motivators are best suited to specific behavioral areas.
All in all, this was a poorly written book with a very interesting idea at its core.
August 19, 2020
To be completely honest, this is one of the books that inspired me to start a new business, a mobile app I’m still working on (Books In Action). This book helped me understand that our education system requires revolution. It’s obsolete, and completely not prepared for the future.
My top 3 takeaways are:
* Some people are motivated intrinsically and some are motivated intrinsically.
* Extrinsic motivation can kill intrinsic motivation. In order words, if we pay someone to do sth, or we force someone to do sth, then he might lose the intrinsic motivation of doing it. Therefore, don’t pay your kids to do homework, home chores, etc. Also, don’t punish them for not doing it.
* Find out what people working with you/for you are motivated with. Most likely it’s not money.
You can read the full summary of this book together with the main action points in my app BooksInAction as well as here: https://www.mentorist.app/books/drive...
My top 3 takeaways are:
* Some people are motivated intrinsically and some are motivated intrinsically.
* Extrinsic motivation can kill intrinsic motivation. In order words, if we pay someone to do sth, or we force someone to do sth, then he might lose the intrinsic motivation of doing it. Therefore, don’t pay your kids to do homework, home chores, etc. Also, don’t punish them for not doing it.
* Find out what people working with you/for you are motivated with. Most likely it’s not money.
You can read the full summary of this book together with the main action points in my app BooksInAction as well as here: https://www.mentorist.app/books/drive...
October 30, 2020
Well, it was a quick read. This book aims for self and business improvement. The content in this book gets straight to the point, not beating around the bush.
This books starts with the introduction to what motivates or drives humans to accomplish tasks. Humans have the following types of drives,
1 - Biological drive: eat to sate the hunger, drink to quench the thirst.
2 - Extrinsic drive: you get a reward if you work and you get punished when you don't. It is also known as rewards and punishment or carrots and sticks
In the past century, researchers by conducting experiments have discovered that people not only has biological or extrinsic drives but also another drive called,
3 - Intrinsic drive: people with this drive derives satisfaction from the performance of the task rather than the result of it. The result or compensation comes a by-product.
The very next chapter covers the drawbacks of having the extrinsic motivation, why reward is not always the solution and how it deprives the creativity within us and extrinsic motivators does not help in solving the novel problems. This leads to explaining the types of behaviours,
Type X: People seeks motivation from rewards, these rewards might give them short-term/instant gratification but fails at providing long-term benefit.
Type I: People has inherent satisfaction with the activity itself, than the reward the activity gives in the end.
The organizations and people with Type I mindset would cherish in the long-run, thus the question arises how to develop intrinsic drive and the mindset of Type I? by attaining the below characteristics.
1 - Autonomy
2 - Mastery
3 - Purpose
I found this book interesting, surprised at times to find out few unknown facts, so I started correcting myself.
This books starts with the introduction to what motivates or drives humans to accomplish tasks. Humans have the following types of drives,
1 - Biological drive: eat to sate the hunger, drink to quench the thirst.
2 - Extrinsic drive: you get a reward if you work and you get punished when you don't. It is also known as rewards and punishment or carrots and sticks
In the past century, researchers by conducting experiments have discovered that people not only has biological or extrinsic drives but also another drive called,
3 - Intrinsic drive: people with this drive derives satisfaction from the performance of the task rather than the result of it. The result or compensation comes a by-product.
The very next chapter covers the drawbacks of having the extrinsic motivation, why reward is not always the solution and how it deprives the creativity within us and extrinsic motivators does not help in solving the novel problems. This leads to explaining the types of behaviours,
Type X: People seeks motivation from rewards, these rewards might give them short-term/instant gratification but fails at providing long-term benefit.
Type I: People has inherent satisfaction with the activity itself, than the reward the activity gives in the end.
The organizations and people with Type I mindset would cherish in the long-run, thus the question arises how to develop intrinsic drive and the mindset of Type I? by attaining the below characteristics.
1 - Autonomy
2 - Mastery
3 - Purpose
I found this book interesting, surprised at times to find out few unknown facts, so I started correcting myself.
August 10, 2010
This book comes with its own summary – a very handy thing:
“COCKTAIL PARTY SUMMARY
When it comes to motivation, there’s a gap between what science knows and what business does. Our current business operating system—which is built around external, carrot-and-stick motivators—doesn’t work and often does harm. We need an upgrade. And the science shows the way. This new approach has three essential elements: (1) Autonomy—the desire to direct our own lives; (2) Mastery—the urge to get better and better at something that matters; and (3) Purpose—the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.”
Actually, it comes with a series of summaries, which I think is a really great idea. There is also a twitter summary and a chapter by chapter summary. Then there is a glossary and an index … this guy has taken to heart the ‘tell them you’re going to tell them, tell them and tell them you’ve told them’ advice. And although some reviewers have found all this annoying, I found it really useful. In fact, this is a very useful little book all around and one that nicely brings together lots of threads in the whole ‘motivation’ – ‘behavioural economics’ – ‘social theory’ nexus that I’ve taken an interest in lately.
To tell you the truth, it is like this guy has been reading his way through my library. In fact, he has read more of my library than I have. Eventually I will get to Flow, for example – but he has beaten me to it, and I will also eventually read Talent is Over-rated – it is there beside the bed, but…
The best of this book is that it confirms my prejudices (and, honestly, what is the point of having prejudices if not to have them confirmed?) One of my main prejudices is that money is a crap motivator. This is an idea that is discussed in part in The Upside of Irrationality, however, not nearly as well as it is discussed here. To explain this I am going to tell you a story about an ‘organisational improvement process’ I was involved in once when I was the resident union rat-bag at the City of Melbourne.
Actually, the idea was a remarkably good one. I have a preference for processes that ask the people who do the work what their opinions are on how to make the work they do better. In fact, I’m not all that interested in ‘performance’ per se. I tend to think that performance is a function of other things and trying to fix performance is really tackling the problem from the wrong end. This improvement process was known as Qualitas (yes, I know, close to the worst word ever neologism-atized). The point was really good, though. It was for a team of us (four, in fact, two senior management and two union representatives) to go around the organisation and ask people what they do and if they thought there were better ways to do it. Staff were to come up with ways to make things better – according to a series of criteria – and then to work towards implementing the improvements they came up with. All good so far.
Then the organisation made what was a fatal and (in hindsight and after having read lots of books on behavioural economics) completely predictable mistake. They linked the achievement of the improvements to a performance bonus.
Now, you may be wondering how that could really be a fatal mistake. Surely, if people are going to be paid to do something they are going to want to do it well. Surely, they will also see how important a priority the organisation is making this and ‘put in the extra yards’ to really make things happen. Oh, if only humans were so simple.
The problem is two fold. Firstly, staff had to put in many hours of work to achieve the things they set out to achieve in these improvements. Some of these things involved literally hundreds of hours work. But by linking this to pay people started adding up the additional time and effort and saying (quite rightly) that it simply didn’t add up. I can’t remember what people where going to get for achieving their aims – but I think it might have been a 1% pay bonus – or less than $10 per week on $50,000 (about average pay) before tax. People started to think they could do without the $6 a week after tax.
Secondly, do you really think the organisation could afford to say staff hadn’t met their improvement objectives? And thirdly, as soon as it was linked to money people started to ‘aim low’. The point was to ‘make the target’ rather than the point of the process in the first place – to find ways to improve.
In this book this problem would be discussed as a mismatch of motivators. Taking what ought to have been an intrinsic motivator and instead using an external motivator. And all this comes back to the fundamental assumption underlying most of these problems, the idea that staff in organisations simply do not want to work and will only be motivated to work if they are either punished or rewarded. I’ve worked with people who have won the lottery (quite literally) and still kept coming to work (as they loved their jobs) – so I’ve never really believed that work is just about money.
And if that is the only thing you learn from this book, it is a worthwhile investment of your time. I really liked this book – the ideas are clearly set out and it has to be a good thing if people are saying that people need to be trusted to prefer to achieve things rather than to do nothing. My experience has always been that if you create the right environment people will produce remarkable work. The idea in this book of 20% time (where staff are allowed to spend 20% of their time on projects of their own choosing) is very interesting. I would like to try this out in schools if I ever get the chance.
This is a very worthwhile book – if you see it in a bookshop just flick to the back and read the chapter summaries – that should be enough to encourage you to buy the damn thing.
“COCKTAIL PARTY SUMMARY
When it comes to motivation, there’s a gap between what science knows and what business does. Our current business operating system—which is built around external, carrot-and-stick motivators—doesn’t work and often does harm. We need an upgrade. And the science shows the way. This new approach has three essential elements: (1) Autonomy—the desire to direct our own lives; (2) Mastery—the urge to get better and better at something that matters; and (3) Purpose—the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.”
Actually, it comes with a series of summaries, which I think is a really great idea. There is also a twitter summary and a chapter by chapter summary. Then there is a glossary and an index … this guy has taken to heart the ‘tell them you’re going to tell them, tell them and tell them you’ve told them’ advice. And although some reviewers have found all this annoying, I found it really useful. In fact, this is a very useful little book all around and one that nicely brings together lots of threads in the whole ‘motivation’ – ‘behavioural economics’ – ‘social theory’ nexus that I’ve taken an interest in lately.
To tell you the truth, it is like this guy has been reading his way through my library. In fact, he has read more of my library than I have. Eventually I will get to Flow, for example – but he has beaten me to it, and I will also eventually read Talent is Over-rated – it is there beside the bed, but…
The best of this book is that it confirms my prejudices (and, honestly, what is the point of having prejudices if not to have them confirmed?) One of my main prejudices is that money is a crap motivator. This is an idea that is discussed in part in The Upside of Irrationality, however, not nearly as well as it is discussed here. To explain this I am going to tell you a story about an ‘organisational improvement process’ I was involved in once when I was the resident union rat-bag at the City of Melbourne.
Actually, the idea was a remarkably good one. I have a preference for processes that ask the people who do the work what their opinions are on how to make the work they do better. In fact, I’m not all that interested in ‘performance’ per se. I tend to think that performance is a function of other things and trying to fix performance is really tackling the problem from the wrong end. This improvement process was known as Qualitas (yes, I know, close to the worst word ever neologism-atized). The point was really good, though. It was for a team of us (four, in fact, two senior management and two union representatives) to go around the organisation and ask people what they do and if they thought there were better ways to do it. Staff were to come up with ways to make things better – according to a series of criteria – and then to work towards implementing the improvements they came up with. All good so far.
Then the organisation made what was a fatal and (in hindsight and after having read lots of books on behavioural economics) completely predictable mistake. They linked the achievement of the improvements to a performance bonus.
Now, you may be wondering how that could really be a fatal mistake. Surely, if people are going to be paid to do something they are going to want to do it well. Surely, they will also see how important a priority the organisation is making this and ‘put in the extra yards’ to really make things happen. Oh, if only humans were so simple.
The problem is two fold. Firstly, staff had to put in many hours of work to achieve the things they set out to achieve in these improvements. Some of these things involved literally hundreds of hours work. But by linking this to pay people started adding up the additional time and effort and saying (quite rightly) that it simply didn’t add up. I can’t remember what people where going to get for achieving their aims – but I think it might have been a 1% pay bonus – or less than $10 per week on $50,000 (about average pay) before tax. People started to think they could do without the $6 a week after tax.
Secondly, do you really think the organisation could afford to say staff hadn’t met their improvement objectives? And thirdly, as soon as it was linked to money people started to ‘aim low’. The point was to ‘make the target’ rather than the point of the process in the first place – to find ways to improve.
In this book this problem would be discussed as a mismatch of motivators. Taking what ought to have been an intrinsic motivator and instead using an external motivator. And all this comes back to the fundamental assumption underlying most of these problems, the idea that staff in organisations simply do not want to work and will only be motivated to work if they are either punished or rewarded. I’ve worked with people who have won the lottery (quite literally) and still kept coming to work (as they loved their jobs) – so I’ve never really believed that work is just about money.
And if that is the only thing you learn from this book, it is a worthwhile investment of your time. I really liked this book – the ideas are clearly set out and it has to be a good thing if people are saying that people need to be trusted to prefer to achieve things rather than to do nothing. My experience has always been that if you create the right environment people will produce remarkable work. The idea in this book of 20% time (where staff are allowed to spend 20% of their time on projects of their own choosing) is very interesting. I would like to try this out in schools if I ever get the chance.
This is a very worthwhile book – if you see it in a bookshop just flick to the back and read the chapter summaries – that should be enough to encourage you to buy the damn thing.
June 21, 2020
This is a good book for those who want to be galvanized into doing something but just can’t get the intellectual or physical stamina to do it. While I feel the last 80 pages of the book weren’t necessary, this book was quite good and the research was original. The puzzles at the end were a nice addition as well.
October 28, 2013
From the Fictive Desk of D.J. Ian:
The End is Much More Exciting than It Was Once Upon a Time
The story of GoodBetterBestReads has really only just begun, but we have already become the world’s largest community of potential readers, book buyers and Kindle users who have star-rated a book at least once in the last 12 months.
The problem is you can’t buy a condo or a beer off the back of potential alone. We need people to buy books, and to do that we need people who can sell books.
That’s where you come in.
If you were ever interested in reading, writing, reviewing, we want to speak to you. We want you on our team.
We could harness your skills and change your mind set for ever. We could help you exchange old passions for new.
Ever wanted to turn your passion into a career? Easy. We could help you transition from your love of books to a love of sales.
The Importance of Sales
Look at it this way. There are so many books available now, it would be a crime not to try to sell them.
There’s nothing we’ve got that we can’t sell. Without a little help from you.
We love books, but let’s face it, we love them even more when they’re at your place.
So we need you to find a home for every book we could possibly think of selling.
And guess what, we’re totally format-neutral. Tree books, we’ve got warehouses. E-books, we’ve got cyberspace. But to be honest, if we could shift more ebooks, our staff wouldn’t have to work in smelly warehouses. Think about it. Our staff come first.
The Next Chapter
Do you know what the biggest problem about a community is?
The 80/20 rule? Heard of that? It’s worse in cyberspace. Let us tell you. You won’t believe this. 99% of reviews on GoodBetterBestReads are written by less than one percent of the members.
Did you hear that? 99%! Let’s repeat it. 99%. Let’s repeat it. 99%.
Now, the thing is, we thought that by getting one percent to do all the writing, we could sell to the 100%.
We placed a lot of trust in the one percent. Can you see our dilemma? A lot of people’s welfare depended on the one percent.
What would happen to our cocktails and our cars and our condos, if the one percent staged a strike? Exactly, you know what we mean. You probably feel the same about your job. VULNERABLE!!! Let’s repeat it. VULNERABLE!!!
And You Thought You Knew What a Staff Review Was!
Let’s be totally honest with you. Our original business model was flawed. It was too highly dependent on community. There is only so long that the one percent will carry the 99%. And it’s not long. It’s unsustainable. Especially if your exit strategy is a sale to an online bookseller.
We suppose we could have encouraged the 99% to do more selling. But honest, what we really want them to do is more buying.
So, guess what, we decided to approach the problem a different way.
What if we could reduce our dependence on the one percent? What if less people, not more, could write all of the reviews?
So now we're going to get our staff to write the reviews. It's so brilliant, it's a wonder we didn't think of it earlier.
This is our opportunity to talk about you.
If you’re bright...If you’re talented...If you love books...If you love writing...If you love reviewing...don’t worry, it doesn’t matter.
We just need you to punch out reviews.
Our mission is to help people find and buy books they love. If that’s your kind of story, let’s do business.
Our goal: Two million staff reviews in three years!
Just think, you could write 30,000 of them!
The End is Much More Exciting than It Was Once Upon a Time
The story of GoodBetterBestReads has really only just begun, but we have already become the world’s largest community of potential readers, book buyers and Kindle users who have star-rated a book at least once in the last 12 months.
The problem is you can’t buy a condo or a beer off the back of potential alone. We need people to buy books, and to do that we need people who can sell books.
That’s where you come in.
If you were ever interested in reading, writing, reviewing, we want to speak to you. We want you on our team.
We could harness your skills and change your mind set for ever. We could help you exchange old passions for new.
Ever wanted to turn your passion into a career? Easy. We could help you transition from your love of books to a love of sales.
The Importance of Sales
Look at it this way. There are so many books available now, it would be a crime not to try to sell them.
There’s nothing we’ve got that we can’t sell. Without a little help from you.
We love books, but let’s face it, we love them even more when they’re at your place.
So we need you to find a home for every book we could possibly think of selling.
And guess what, we’re totally format-neutral. Tree books, we’ve got warehouses. E-books, we’ve got cyberspace. But to be honest, if we could shift more ebooks, our staff wouldn’t have to work in smelly warehouses. Think about it. Our staff come first.
The Next Chapter
Do you know what the biggest problem about a community is?
The 80/20 rule? Heard of that? It’s worse in cyberspace. Let us tell you. You won’t believe this. 99% of reviews on GoodBetterBestReads are written by less than one percent of the members.
Did you hear that? 99%! Let’s repeat it. 99%. Let’s repeat it. 99%.
Now, the thing is, we thought that by getting one percent to do all the writing, we could sell to the 100%.
We placed a lot of trust in the one percent. Can you see our dilemma? A lot of people’s welfare depended on the one percent.
What would happen to our cocktails and our cars and our condos, if the one percent staged a strike? Exactly, you know what we mean. You probably feel the same about your job. VULNERABLE!!! Let’s repeat it. VULNERABLE!!!
And You Thought You Knew What a Staff Review Was!
Let’s be totally honest with you. Our original business model was flawed. It was too highly dependent on community. There is only so long that the one percent will carry the 99%. And it’s not long. It’s unsustainable. Especially if your exit strategy is a sale to an online bookseller.
We suppose we could have encouraged the 99% to do more selling. But honest, what we really want them to do is more buying.
So, guess what, we decided to approach the problem a different way.
What if we could reduce our dependence on the one percent? What if less people, not more, could write all of the reviews?
So now we're going to get our staff to write the reviews. It's so brilliant, it's a wonder we didn't think of it earlier.
This is our opportunity to talk about you.
If you’re bright...If you’re talented...If you love books...If you love writing...If you love reviewing...don’t worry, it doesn’t matter.
We just need you to punch out reviews.
Our mission is to help people find and buy books they love. If that’s your kind of story, let’s do business.
Our goal: Two million staff reviews in three years!
Just think, you could write 30,000 of them!
August 12, 2011
So, I listened to this entire book about motivation, and I can't figure out why I don't feel motivated to write a review. No carrot, no stick, no review.
September 8, 2010
What frustrates me is the main premise has a contradiction that is never addressed. He begins the book with some research on monkeys that demonstrated an innate interest in solving puzzles. He then goes on to describe his big premise which is that we are are in the midst of a major motivational shift. First our motivation was our biological drives. Then came a period of motivation from structure and oversight. And now we want autonomy to determine our own motivation. But Pink's presentation on the monkeys demonstrates that 'even' they are intrinsically motivated to solve puzzles. His premise that since we've shifted to more creative tasks - a new age has arrived. We need to be more aware of intrinsic motivation and create the climate for it to flourish. I think it artificially makes us 'more' different than past generations. And he does acknowledge that past generations were successful in the old model. I don't think we've changed that much. Sometimes we like to be rewarded for accomplishing simple tasks efficiently and other times we like to be challenged by something creative. And therefore the basic analysis seems incomplete. I do agree that motivation and goal setting is a tricky business that is often misunderstood. And negative results occur from seemingly good intentions - rewarding people to do something they want to do for an intrinsic reason. It's difficult for me to let go of this flaw. By overstating the shift, the book plays into the sense of "oh no the world is getting more complex so we have to get more creative".
So while the book covers some good ideas about motivation, I am cautious about the presentation.
So while the book covers some good ideas about motivation, I am cautious about the presentation.
July 9, 2010
Only the first chapter is necessary. The rest is repetitious and filled with soon-to-be-obsolete computer metaphors.
However, I've been thinking a lot about this book since I read it (a few weeks ago?), so two stars was perhaps a stingy rating. Everywhere I go lately, I see examples of poorly-designed systems, destined to kill people's intrinsic motivation.
I recently read "Unconditional Parenting" by Alfie Kohn. Kohn's premise is basically that rewarding and punishing children for acting in certain ways only gives them extrinsic motivations to behave how you want and will therefore interfere with their moral development. It makes perfect sense to me that, if the reason a kid shares his toy is because he's after a sticker, he hasn't really learned about generosity.
However, I've been thinking a lot about this book since I read it (a few weeks ago?), so two stars was perhaps a stingy rating. Everywhere I go lately, I see examples of poorly-designed systems, destined to kill people's intrinsic motivation.
I recently read "Unconditional Parenting" by Alfie Kohn. Kohn's premise is basically that rewarding and punishing children for acting in certain ways only gives them extrinsic motivations to behave how you want and will therefore interfere with their moral development. It makes perfect sense to me that, if the reason a kid shares his toy is because he's after a sticker, he hasn't really learned about generosity.
May 15, 2010
As a consultant, I am particularly sensitive to unhelpful jargon and the creation of distinctions without a difference. Enter "Drive." This could have been so much better. As Pink presents correctly, much of the research re human motivation IS counter-intuitive to what most of us tend to think is the best way to reward, incentivize or bribe people to act in beneficial ways. Unfortunately, Pink insists on creating such a tower of babble -- "motivation 3.0," "type-I," "ROE," "if/then contingent rewards," vs. "now/that rewards" -- that we see the cracks and not the solid surface.
Further, why do consultants need to frame everything as either/or (implicit / explicit) when it is in acknowledging the shadings and spectrum that broader engagement comes? This is a book for the choir and not the congregation. So far this year, I've reviewed two other books which have done a much more effective job of covering very similar terrain: Seth Godin's "Lynchpin" and Jeff Jarvis' "What would Google do?"
Further, why do consultants need to frame everything as either/or (implicit / explicit) when it is in acknowledging the shadings and spectrum that broader engagement comes? This is a book for the choir and not the congregation. So far this year, I've reviewed two other books which have done a much more effective job of covering very similar terrain: Seth Godin's "Lynchpin" and Jeff Jarvis' "What would Google do?"
January 28, 2010
Some good ideas, but for once I'd like to see a book where the case studies about flexible scheduling and autonomy don't involve software companies or consultants. I'd like to see an example where they motivate DMV employees to work harder to do the same menial work, but if giving DMV employees 20% flex time for their own projects means a corresponding 20% increase in the 2 hour wait time, I'm not on board with it. I don't know why, but it bugs me when authors use software version numbers, the book extensively compares old antiquated motivation 2.0 and new upgraded motivation 3.0 and I get it, 3 is better than 2.
October 2, 2010
Reading Pink's book, I endlessly thought about teachers and what motivates us (it's NOT merit-pay) and students and what motivates them to read (it's not pizza coupons or AR points). Funny, insightful, and supported by research, Drive has far-reaching implications for our society and how we view work and the people we try to motivate.
January 13, 2013
Are you the type of person that is motivated by money and fame, or are you someone that is motivated by having a larger purpose in life? Or are you a combination of both? Financial gain has always been a motivator for me, but I'm also the type of person that will take on extra work, new projects or volunteer my time simply because I like the work and it makes me feel good. It might sound crazy, but I'm not the only one. The volunteer industry is booming with people just like me who are looking for a personal sense of satisfaction and accomplishment that comes from donating your time to a greater cause than your own.
The central idea in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us highlights the gap between what science already knows and what businesses still do. Traditional businesses have always been centered around the premise that you reward good work with more pay, but this system often doesn't work. In some cases, it can actually do more harm than good because people tend to narrow their focus or skip steps when they have an end reward in sight.
Many studies have shown that most people aren't motivated by financial rewards. They show that most of us are more motivated and fulfilled by having autonomy (the desire to direct our own lives), mastery (the desire to become better and better at something that matters) and purpose (a yearning to do what we want to do in the service of something that is bigger than we are) in our work lives.
I quit my last job because I hated it, and the main reason why I hated it was because my bosses controlled every aspect of my work day. We had no freedom to do the work the way we wanted to do it. One boss in particular literally hovered over my desk to make sure that I was writing and editing something exactly the way she wanted it done, and then she'd still send it back for more revisions. I'd work my ass off and never felt that the financial reward was enough for what I was doing. I soon realized that the greatest satisfaction I get from any job has been about being able to do my work the way I want to do it, when I want to do it. I'm a natural autodidact, so I love to learn and I love to work towards bettering myself, but when I stop learning, I start stagnating. There's no purpose in taking on a job that doesn't allow you to learn and grow with it.
I read this book because I'm a new business owner; my partner and I want to create a happy and healthy work environment for our employees, and also because I'm genuinely interested in the topic. I'm walking away with some terrific ideas on how to restructure our business to meet those goals.
The central idea in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us highlights the gap between what science already knows and what businesses still do. Traditional businesses have always been centered around the premise that you reward good work with more pay, but this system often doesn't work. In some cases, it can actually do more harm than good because people tend to narrow their focus or skip steps when they have an end reward in sight.
Many studies have shown that most people aren't motivated by financial rewards. They show that most of us are more motivated and fulfilled by having autonomy (the desire to direct our own lives), mastery (the desire to become better and better at something that matters) and purpose (a yearning to do what we want to do in the service of something that is bigger than we are) in our work lives.
I quit my last job because I hated it, and the main reason why I hated it was because my bosses controlled every aspect of my work day. We had no freedom to do the work the way we wanted to do it. One boss in particular literally hovered over my desk to make sure that I was writing and editing something exactly the way she wanted it done, and then she'd still send it back for more revisions. I'd work my ass off and never felt that the financial reward was enough for what I was doing. I soon realized that the greatest satisfaction I get from any job has been about being able to do my work the way I want to do it, when I want to do it. I'm a natural autodidact, so I love to learn and I love to work towards bettering myself, but when I stop learning, I start stagnating. There's no purpose in taking on a job that doesn't allow you to learn and grow with it.
I read this book because I'm a new business owner; my partner and I want to create a happy and healthy work environment for our employees, and also because I'm genuinely interested in the topic. I'm walking away with some terrific ideas on how to restructure our business to meet those goals.
December 16, 2017
2.5 ⭐️'s rounded up to 3 — Interesting approach for a hard to nail down answer. Most relevant for employers trying to extract optimum performance from employees, parents raising children, or those with general curiosity.
We're born to be players, not pawns. We're meant to be autonomous individuals, not individual automatons.
Best predictor of success: Grit. (I actually liked Angela Duckworth's book, "Grit," a little more than this one.)
Second Law of Mastery: Mastery Is A Pain
A lot of this stuff is pretty basic, and seems to be more of a sweeping overview than anything applicable or too in-depth.
As wonderful as flow is, the path to mastery, becoming ever better at something you care about, is not lined with daisies and spanned by a rainbow. If it were, more of us would make the trip.
“Being a professional is doing the things you love to do, on the days you don’t feel like doing them.”
— Julius Erving
This book is a good summation of a lot of science and theories put forth by others, including a lengthy book review section at the end. If you're looking for something original or groundbreaking, look elsewhere.
*However,* it is important to note that rewards don't work as a motivating factor. People are more motivated by internal drives, as opposed to external forces.
If you want the best work out of people, let them have freedom and flow, don't micromanage, and don't use money as an incentive for creative output.
TLDR:
Save yourself the time, and check out Pink's TED Talk.
Things to Ponder
Even when we do get what we want, it's not always what we need.
The mastery asymptote is a source of frustration. Why reach for something you can never fully attain? But it's also a source of allure. Why not reach for it? The joy is in the pursuit more than the realization. In the end, mastery attracts precisely because mastery eludes.
- This quote reminded me of the more achievable moon speech by JFK:
"But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
//
Our business has evolved into a ROWE, and it's much more efficient.
Results Only Work Environment (ROWE): The brainchild of two American consultants, a row is a workplace in which employees don't have schedules. They don't have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time, they just have to get their work done.
We're born to be players, not pawns. We're meant to be autonomous individuals, not individual automatons.
Best predictor of success: Grit. (I actually liked Angela Duckworth's book, "Grit," a little more than this one.)
Second Law of Mastery: Mastery Is A Pain
A lot of this stuff is pretty basic, and seems to be more of a sweeping overview than anything applicable or too in-depth.
As wonderful as flow is, the path to mastery, becoming ever better at something you care about, is not lined with daisies and spanned by a rainbow. If it were, more of us would make the trip.
“Being a professional is doing the things you love to do, on the days you don’t feel like doing them.”
— Julius Erving
This book is a good summation of a lot of science and theories put forth by others, including a lengthy book review section at the end. If you're looking for something original or groundbreaking, look elsewhere.
*However,* it is important to note that rewards don't work as a motivating factor. People are more motivated by internal drives, as opposed to external forces.
If you want the best work out of people, let them have freedom and flow, don't micromanage, and don't use money as an incentive for creative output.
TLDR:
Save yourself the time, and check out Pink's TED Talk.
Things to Ponder
Even when we do get what we want, it's not always what we need.
The mastery asymptote is a source of frustration. Why reach for something you can never fully attain? But it's also a source of allure. Why not reach for it? The joy is in the pursuit more than the realization. In the end, mastery attracts precisely because mastery eludes.
- This quote reminded me of the more achievable moon speech by JFK:
"But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
//
Our business has evolved into a ROWE, and it's much more efficient.
Results Only Work Environment (ROWE): The brainchild of two American consultants, a row is a workplace in which employees don't have schedules. They don't have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time, they just have to get their work done.
March 21, 2020
To give this book the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure when it came out it was positively groundbreaking. Unfortunately, 11 years later, concepts such as flow, grit, and mission statements that mean something have become so ubiquitous in the business/psychology world that I kept double checking to make sure I really hadn't read this one already...because it sure felt like I had.
Every case study, story, and 'ground-breaking' new concept is familiar to the point of being hackneyed. And again, I'm willing to say that possibly they are because his book was so successful it made them so. But at the end of the day, I walked away feeling like I learned nothing new.
Every case study, story, and 'ground-breaking' new concept is familiar to the point of being hackneyed. And again, I'm willing to say that possibly they are because his book was so successful it made them so. But at the end of the day, I walked away feeling like I learned nothing new.
September 28, 2021
I read in English but this review is in Bahasa Indonesia
Yang namanya perjalanan untuk mengenali diri memang tidak ada habisnya. Proses tersebut paralel dengan pertumbuhan manusia. Baik secara fisik, batin, atau pola pikir. Di sinilah aku bertemu dengan persimpangan dan kembali bertanya, "Apa yang dicari lagi sejauh ini?"
Pertanyaan-pertanyaan terkait cukupkah kita bekerja hanya alasan keuangan/finansial seringkali bermunculan pada anak muda yang baru saja lulus kuliah atau mereka yang belum menyentuh usia kepala 3. Bagi masyarakat seperti di Indonesia, mencari uang tidaklah perlu banyak cakap. Tidak perlu terlalu selektif. Apa yang ada di depan, lakukan saja. Kata mereka yang boomers, sikap memilih akan membuat anak muda kesulitan di masa depan.
Benarkah demikian?
Tahun 2016, ketika aku mendapatkan kesempatan untuk menjadi salah satu mentee dalam program mentorship, menerima pekerjaan apapun di sebuah kantor konsultan menjadi hal yang tidak lagi bisa ditawar. Ingat betul bagaimana aku diminta untuk pulang ke Surabaya (sebagai "hukuman) setelah mengatakan bahwa mengerjakan proyek video bukanlah hal yang memunculkan spark joy (hingga sekarang aku tidak suka membuat video, lho).
Yang kedua, masih di kantor yang sama, mantan pacarku pernah berujar bahwa orang yang memilih-milih pekerjaan hidupnya sungguh ribet. Dia menganalogikan dengan ujaran, "Tinggal makan aja apa susahnya sih?" Padahal, di balik "tinggal makan aja" ada banyak pertimbangan yang harus dipikirkan. Dan pertimbangan orang satu dengan yang lainnya tidak bisa disamakan begitu saja. Aku memikirkan kalau mengerjakan sesuatu yang tidak "spark joy" adalah beban. Itu tidak sama dengan orang lain yang mengatakan kalau "yang penting dibayar."
Setelah aku memutuskan untuk mengundurkan diri pada 2020, membaca menjadi salah satu kegiatan yang sering dilakukan. Aku juga "bertemu" secara daring dengan teman-teman yang bergerak dalam isu HAM. Termasuk di dalamnya mengangkat isu "modern slavery." Aku memahami bahwa "memilih pekerjaan" bukan semata-mata masalah kenyamanan gaji saja sebagai modal ekstrinsik. Melainkan juga pemenuhan hak mendasar sebagai manusia: jaminan kesehatan dan ketenagakerjaan (BPJS).
Kalau begitu, apakah dengan upah yang layak dan kompensasi yang manusiawi, seorang manusia bisa bekerja dengan giat? Logikanya demikian. Tapi praktiknya tidak semudah itu.
Daniel H. Pink kemudian menuliskan bahwa Motivation 2.0 seringkali hanya membuat seseorang punya tujuan jangka pendek. Selain upah, menerapkan konsep "if-then" yang salah malah membuat seseorang yang melihat ujungnya saja, tanpa mengintegrasikan nilai diri. Misal, apabila seorang Sales bisa menjual 3.000 eksemplar dalam 1 bulan, maka ia mendapatkan hadiah berupa jalan-jalan ke Singapura selama 3 hari gratis. Pink menjelaskan, motornya hanya sebatas mendapatkan hadiah. Orang tersebut tidak terdorong untuk mencoba memutar otak secara kreatif. Bahkan, sangat mungkin adanya peluang untuk berbuat curang. Hal serupa juga berlaku pada konsep "reward and punishment" yang sudah sering kita dengar. Mencurangi sistem agar tidak perlu bayar denda atau mendapatkan hukuman.
Pink mengatakan, "We need upgrade."
Kembali pada istilah "spark joy" dalam melakukan pekerjaan, rupanya itu hal yang dicoba Pink. Motivation 3.0 mengedepankan modal instrinsik manusia untuk bekerja: dorongan dalam diri atau motivasi. Dan seperti yang sudah bisa ditebak, masing-masing orang punya motivasi berbeda. Ketika itu, aku lebih memilih mengurus artikel dan buku ketimbang ikut turun memproduksi video. Sebisa mungkin, aku tidak mendapatkan giliran sebagai asisten ketika ada proyek pengambilan gambar.
Lebih jauh, Pink mengatakan kalau pendekatan pada Motivation 3.0 menekankan pada 3 hal:
Saat membaca bagian tersebut, aku seperti mendapatkan jawaban atas, "Apa sih yang aku cari? Kan sudah ada di industri." Rupanya aku menginginkan suatu proyek di mana bisa secara leluasa mengeksprsikan diri, mengintegrasikan nilai yang aku amini tanpa terhalang birokrasi. Kalau dipikir-pikir, aku bisa melakukannya dengan persona pribadiku maupun melalui Baca Bareng. Membuka keran untuk beragam kolaborasi supaya mencapai "mastery." Hingga akhirnya menuju pada titik Purpose--kalau dalam piramida Maslow, puncak tertingginya: self-actualization. Tanpa ketiga hal itu, barangkali aku cuma menjadi zombie. Sekadar bekerja untuk menyambung hidup dari gaji ke gaji.
Maka dari itu, boomers barangkali harus berhenti mengatakan dan menormalisasi kepada anak muda untuk tidak pilih-pilih pekerjaan. Lah, zamannya saja sudah berubah dengan begitu cepat, tentu saja manusia di dalamnya juga ikut berkembang. Pemikiran yang hanya bertumpu pada Motivation 2.0 hanya berbuah pada manusia yang "menyelesaikan ala-kadarnya" tapi tidak membawa nilai plus (added value) baik untuk organisasi ataupun lingkungan sekitarnya. Sudah waktunya untuk menormalisasi membiarkan anak muda untuk eksplorasi sebanyak mungkin peluang yang bisa ia miliki/ciptakan/tekuni. Sebagaimana Motivasi 3.0 yang membuat manusia menjadi jauh lebih kreatif dan produktif secara sehat.
The problem with making an extrinsic reward the only destination that matters is that some people will choose the quickest route there, even if it means taking the low road.
Yang namanya perjalanan untuk mengenali diri memang tidak ada habisnya. Proses tersebut paralel dengan pertumbuhan manusia. Baik secara fisik, batin, atau pola pikir. Di sinilah aku bertemu dengan persimpangan dan kembali bertanya, "Apa yang dicari lagi sejauh ini?"
Pertanyaan-pertanyaan terkait cukupkah kita bekerja hanya alasan keuangan/finansial seringkali bermunculan pada anak muda yang baru saja lulus kuliah atau mereka yang belum menyentuh usia kepala 3. Bagi masyarakat seperti di Indonesia, mencari uang tidaklah perlu banyak cakap. Tidak perlu terlalu selektif. Apa yang ada di depan, lakukan saja. Kata mereka yang boomers, sikap memilih akan membuat anak muda kesulitan di masa depan.
Benarkah demikian?
Tahun 2016, ketika aku mendapatkan kesempatan untuk menjadi salah satu mentee dalam program mentorship, menerima pekerjaan apapun di sebuah kantor konsultan menjadi hal yang tidak lagi bisa ditawar. Ingat betul bagaimana aku diminta untuk pulang ke Surabaya (sebagai "hukuman) setelah mengatakan bahwa mengerjakan proyek video bukanlah hal yang memunculkan spark joy (hingga sekarang aku tidak suka membuat video, lho).
Yang kedua, masih di kantor yang sama, mantan pacarku pernah berujar bahwa orang yang memilih-milih pekerjaan hidupnya sungguh ribet. Dia menganalogikan dengan ujaran, "Tinggal makan aja apa susahnya sih?" Padahal, di balik "tinggal makan aja" ada banyak pertimbangan yang harus dipikirkan. Dan pertimbangan orang satu dengan yang lainnya tidak bisa disamakan begitu saja. Aku memikirkan kalau mengerjakan sesuatu yang tidak "spark joy" adalah beban. Itu tidak sama dengan orang lain yang mengatakan kalau "yang penting dibayar."
Setelah aku memutuskan untuk mengundurkan diri pada 2020, membaca menjadi salah satu kegiatan yang sering dilakukan. Aku juga "bertemu" secara daring dengan teman-teman yang bergerak dalam isu HAM. Termasuk di dalamnya mengangkat isu "modern slavery." Aku memahami bahwa "memilih pekerjaan" bukan semata-mata masalah kenyamanan gaji saja sebagai modal ekstrinsik. Melainkan juga pemenuhan hak mendasar sebagai manusia: jaminan kesehatan dan ketenagakerjaan (BPJS).
Kalau begitu, apakah dengan upah yang layak dan kompensasi yang manusiawi, seorang manusia bisa bekerja dengan giat? Logikanya demikian. Tapi praktiknya tidak semudah itu.
Daniel H. Pink kemudian menuliskan bahwa Motivation 2.0 seringkali hanya membuat seseorang punya tujuan jangka pendek. Selain upah, menerapkan konsep "if-then" yang salah malah membuat seseorang yang melihat ujungnya saja, tanpa mengintegrasikan nilai diri. Misal, apabila seorang Sales bisa menjual 3.000 eksemplar dalam 1 bulan, maka ia mendapatkan hadiah berupa jalan-jalan ke Singapura selama 3 hari gratis. Pink menjelaskan, motornya hanya sebatas mendapatkan hadiah. Orang tersebut tidak terdorong untuk mencoba memutar otak secara kreatif. Bahkan, sangat mungkin adanya peluang untuk berbuat curang. Hal serupa juga berlaku pada konsep "reward and punishment" yang sudah sering kita dengar. Mencurangi sistem agar tidak perlu bayar denda atau mendapatkan hukuman.
Pink mengatakan, "We need upgrade."
Human beings have an innate inner drive to be autonomous, self-determined, and connected to one another. And when that drive is liberated, people achieve more and live richer lives.
Kembali pada istilah "spark joy" dalam melakukan pekerjaan, rupanya itu hal yang dicoba Pink. Motivation 3.0 mengedepankan modal instrinsik manusia untuk bekerja: dorongan dalam diri atau motivasi. Dan seperti yang sudah bisa ditebak, masing-masing orang punya motivasi berbeda. Ketika itu, aku lebih memilih mengurus artikel dan buku ketimbang ikut turun memproduksi video. Sebisa mungkin, aku tidak mendapatkan giliran sebagai asisten ketika ada proyek pengambilan gambar.
Lebih jauh, Pink mengatakan kalau pendekatan pada Motivation 3.0 menekankan pada 3 hal:
(1) Autonomy—the desire to direct our own lives; (2) Mastery—the urge to make progress and get better at something that matters; and (3) Purpose—the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.
Saat membaca bagian tersebut, aku seperti mendapatkan jawaban atas, "Apa sih yang aku cari? Kan sudah ada di industri." Rupanya aku menginginkan suatu proyek di mana bisa secara leluasa mengeksprsikan diri, mengintegrasikan nilai yang aku amini tanpa terhalang birokrasi. Kalau dipikir-pikir, aku bisa melakukannya dengan persona pribadiku maupun melalui Baca Bareng. Membuka keran untuk beragam kolaborasi supaya mencapai "mastery." Hingga akhirnya menuju pada titik Purpose--kalau dalam piramida Maslow, puncak tertingginya: self-actualization. Tanpa ketiga hal itu, barangkali aku cuma menjadi zombie. Sekadar bekerja untuk menyambung hidup dari gaji ke gaji.
Maka dari itu, boomers barangkali harus berhenti mengatakan dan menormalisasi kepada anak muda untuk tidak pilih-pilih pekerjaan. Lah, zamannya saja sudah berubah dengan begitu cepat, tentu saja manusia di dalamnya juga ikut berkembang. Pemikiran yang hanya bertumpu pada Motivation 2.0 hanya berbuah pada manusia yang "menyelesaikan ala-kadarnya" tapi tidak membawa nilai plus (added value) baik untuk organisasi ataupun lingkungan sekitarnya. Sudah waktunya untuk menormalisasi membiarkan anak muda untuk eksplorasi sebanyak mungkin peluang yang bisa ia miliki/ciptakan/tekuni. Sebagaimana Motivasi 3.0 yang membuat manusia menjadi jauh lebih kreatif dan produktif secara sehat.
February 26, 2012
In Drive, Daniel H. Pink suggests that there is a gap between what "science knows and what business does." I was not shocked to learn that this gap exists, and I attributed Pink's decision to emphasize the existence of this gap to what I believe is the author's drive to attract corporate speaking engagements, consultancies, and Op/Ed articles in national newspapers. If he's lucky, he could maybe land a job as a pundit. Ostensibly, Pink's purpose is to share the "surprising truth about what motivates us," and I enjoyed this book whenever I was able to view it as a book about self-determination theory rather than an advertisement for speaking engagements and consultancy.
Pink's report on self-determination theory and how it affects motivation is consistently fascinating. We traditionally acknowledge two drives that inspire action. The first is the biological drive, which is intrinsic. The second drive, which arguably has more to do with the workplace than the first, is material incentives, such as salary and punishment. These are extrinsic motivators. Under this view, work is agony and we need careful structures of incentives and disincentives to control employee laziness.
What Pink reports is that there is evidence of a third drive. It seems that people find satisfaction in completing tasks. In other words, people are intrinsically motivated to work and produce. The key to motivating workers here is to give them: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. If one of these is lacking, people may actually not feel motivated to work at all. So if workers seem disengaged, Pink's solution is to stop focusing on carrots and sticks and start inspiring workers to feel like human beings by shaping work to engage the third drive. My favorite example of this was when Pink contrasted two approaches to organizing call centers to illustrate 1) the power of the third drive and 2) that even work that we'd often dismiss as a McJob can benefit from this approach.
Self-determination theory in the workplace gets interesting when we consider the intersection of money and the third drive. For complex tasks, carrots and sticks actually inhibit performance. Though they can help in the short-term, people that tap into the third drive almost always outperform the donkeys in the long term. Pink suggests that the most useful thing an employer can do to improve performance is to take the discussion of money off the table by offering a fair wage. So long as people make enough money that they feel they are being treated fairly, money will not stop them from performing. Next, offer them autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
I found it interesting that Pink often stops to mention that most companies refuse to acknowledge the third drive. When they do acknowledge it, as Best Buy did, they often only allow middle management or higher to experience it. It's almost as though a majority of business leaders refuse to believe that their employees are human beings, as opposed to donkeys. I couldn't help thinking of the novel Fight Club, in which employees quit their jobs because Tyler Durden offers them autonomy, mastery, and purpose through an underground network called "Project Mayhem."
I actually found a great deal of this discussion fascinating. However, there are some disappointing decisions in Drive. Pink is able to clearly and, for the most part, concisely explain self-determination theory in popular format. At times, there is a little too much repetition, particularly the closing chapter that offers three different summaries (Twitter, cocktail party, and chapter by chapter) of the book's message (autonomy, mastery, and purpose).
More annoyingly, Pink continuously refers to the drives as "Motivation 1.0," Motivation 2.0," and "Motivation 3.0," which I found an incredibly hackneyed attempt to sound "with it." Worse, he doesn't seem to realize that "Drive" has a computer science connotation.
Things are referred to as the "Zen" of management, which, yes, sounds trendy. However, if I could set up some guidelines for authors to follow, I'd suggest they actually research what "Zen" means. It is more than an art of motorcycle maintenance and many authors might be surprised to learn that its roots go back further than middle management strategies.
Ultimately, I found self-determination theory extremely interesting, and I suspect that Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us will have me thinking about what I do and how I do it for a long time to come. However, it does require readers to overlook a lot of irritatingly trendy writing that tries to "connect" with the audience through "21st century power words" like "2.0," the "Zen" of compensation, and even a Twitter summary.
Pink's report on self-determination theory and how it affects motivation is consistently fascinating. We traditionally acknowledge two drives that inspire action. The first is the biological drive, which is intrinsic. The second drive, which arguably has more to do with the workplace than the first, is material incentives, such as salary and punishment. These are extrinsic motivators. Under this view, work is agony and we need careful structures of incentives and disincentives to control employee laziness.
What Pink reports is that there is evidence of a third drive. It seems that people find satisfaction in completing tasks. In other words, people are intrinsically motivated to work and produce. The key to motivating workers here is to give them: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. If one of these is lacking, people may actually not feel motivated to work at all. So if workers seem disengaged, Pink's solution is to stop focusing on carrots and sticks and start inspiring workers to feel like human beings by shaping work to engage the third drive. My favorite example of this was when Pink contrasted two approaches to organizing call centers to illustrate 1) the power of the third drive and 2) that even work that we'd often dismiss as a McJob can benefit from this approach.
Self-determination theory in the workplace gets interesting when we consider the intersection of money and the third drive. For complex tasks, carrots and sticks actually inhibit performance. Though they can help in the short-term, people that tap into the third drive almost always outperform the donkeys in the long term. Pink suggests that the most useful thing an employer can do to improve performance is to take the discussion of money off the table by offering a fair wage. So long as people make enough money that they feel they are being treated fairly, money will not stop them from performing. Next, offer them autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
I found it interesting that Pink often stops to mention that most companies refuse to acknowledge the third drive. When they do acknowledge it, as Best Buy did, they often only allow middle management or higher to experience it. It's almost as though a majority of business leaders refuse to believe that their employees are human beings, as opposed to donkeys. I couldn't help thinking of the novel Fight Club, in which employees quit their jobs because Tyler Durden offers them autonomy, mastery, and purpose through an underground network called "Project Mayhem."
I actually found a great deal of this discussion fascinating. However, there are some disappointing decisions in Drive. Pink is able to clearly and, for the most part, concisely explain self-determination theory in popular format. At times, there is a little too much repetition, particularly the closing chapter that offers three different summaries (Twitter, cocktail party, and chapter by chapter) of the book's message (autonomy, mastery, and purpose).
More annoyingly, Pink continuously refers to the drives as "Motivation 1.0," Motivation 2.0," and "Motivation 3.0," which I found an incredibly hackneyed attempt to sound "with it." Worse, he doesn't seem to realize that "Drive" has a computer science connotation.
Things are referred to as the "Zen" of management, which, yes, sounds trendy. However, if I could set up some guidelines for authors to follow, I'd suggest they actually research what "Zen" means. It is more than an art of motorcycle maintenance and many authors might be surprised to learn that its roots go back further than middle management strategies.
Ultimately, I found self-determination theory extremely interesting, and I suspect that Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us will have me thinking about what I do and how I do it for a long time to come. However, it does require readers to overlook a lot of irritatingly trendy writing that tries to "connect" with the audience through "21st century power words" like "2.0," the "Zen" of compensation, and even a Twitter summary.
June 21, 2019
I read Drive a while back, like in 2012, and as I recall, I sort of liked it, but apparently not all that much, as evidenced by the fact that I retained very little of the materiel, gave it a (x3) star rating and didn’t bother to write a review of it.
Anyway, I re-read it as a little supplement to an Emotion, Cognition and Motivation course I’m taking.
And as it turns out, it’s better in the broader context of the field.
So I’m taking this opportunity to reconsider the book, and give it the ‘once-over-twice’ it deserves.
It should be noted that the author of Drive, Danieal Pink, is a journalist not a scientist.
Drive is more or less a popularization of the work of Edward L. Deci, and Self-Determination Theory.
According to Pink’s account, earlier biologically driven theories of motivation focused on ‘Motivation 1.0’ the innate, instinctive, automatic, evolutionarily conditioned drive systems (survival and reproduction).
Later behaviorist theories focused on ‘Motivation 2.0’ which essentially explained motivation in terms of contingency based systems of reward and punishment (carrots and sticks).
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) acknowledges the human need for personal exploration and growth as a legitimate motivational drive. What Pink refers to as ‘Motivation 3.0’.
Extrinsic Motivation: refers to ‘external’ factors e.g. environmental or socially derived reasons for doing things.
Think of the threats to survival and opportunities to reproduce from ‘Motivation 1.0, and/or the carrots and sticks from ‘Motivation 2.0’.
Intrinsic Motivation: refers to ‘internal’ factors e.g. things that we do because they are fun, interesting and/or meaningful, as mentioned in ‘Motivation 3.0’.
Algorithmic Tasks: refers to programatic, repetitive tasks that can be easily automated. Think; assembly line work in a factory.
Heuristic Tasks: refers to interesting, novel work that takes spontaneity and creative problem solving and improvisation. Think; art and design, or relationally driven work like therapist or coach.
According to Pink, Extrinsic Motivation (carrots & sticks) works great with Algorithmic Tasks (working in the coal mine etc.), because they are typically uninteresting, and repetitive, and stuff like paychecks and threats of getting fired are basically to only things that keep people motivated to do that type of shit.
What is somewhat surprising though, is that Extrinsic Motivators are deadly to the Intrinsic Motivations to do Heuristic Tasks.
In other words, if you love to do something, just for the sake of doing it, than adding money and other types of performance based carrots and sticks can actually kill your buzz, and turn you joy thing into a chore.
Pink’s ultimate point is, that today’s information base economy is automating (and there by killing) Algorithmic Task oriented jobs.
Conversely; today’s economy is rewarding Heuristic Tasks that take creativity and empathy (the shit robots can’t do) like never before.
Subsequently, our old school, Industrial age incentive structures (cash and prizes) and management styles (your fired if you don’t do what I tell you to do) are a BIG FAIL in creative and/or relationally driven organizations.
Pink posits the following human needs as the corner stones of Intrinsic + Heuristic ‘Motivation 3.0’.
Autonomy: the need to be free and direct our own lives.
Mastery: the urge to grow and become better at stuff.
Purpose: the longing for meaning, and the need to be connected to something bigger than ourselves.
If we want to create incentivize creativity and empathy, than we need to integrate autonomy, mastery and purpose into our raison d’être.
Can I get a hell to the yeah on that?
I’m upgrading my earlier assessment of this book from (x3) to (x4) stars.
The is good, but it feels just a little bit dated. It was published in 2011, which seems like last week, but was actually like 8 years ago, and some of the presentation seems kind of iPhone 4S.
Anyway, I re-read it as a little supplement to an Emotion, Cognition and Motivation course I’m taking.
And as it turns out, it’s better in the broader context of the field.
So I’m taking this opportunity to reconsider the book, and give it the ‘once-over-twice’ it deserves.
It should be noted that the author of Drive, Danieal Pink, is a journalist not a scientist.
Drive is more or less a popularization of the work of Edward L. Deci, and Self-Determination Theory.
According to Pink’s account, earlier biologically driven theories of motivation focused on ‘Motivation 1.0’ the innate, instinctive, automatic, evolutionarily conditioned drive systems (survival and reproduction).
Later behaviorist theories focused on ‘Motivation 2.0’ which essentially explained motivation in terms of contingency based systems of reward and punishment (carrots and sticks).
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) acknowledges the human need for personal exploration and growth as a legitimate motivational drive. What Pink refers to as ‘Motivation 3.0’.
Extrinsic Motivation: refers to ‘external’ factors e.g. environmental or socially derived reasons for doing things.
Think of the threats to survival and opportunities to reproduce from ‘Motivation 1.0, and/or the carrots and sticks from ‘Motivation 2.0’.
Intrinsic Motivation: refers to ‘internal’ factors e.g. things that we do because they are fun, interesting and/or meaningful, as mentioned in ‘Motivation 3.0’.
Algorithmic Tasks: refers to programatic, repetitive tasks that can be easily automated. Think; assembly line work in a factory.
Heuristic Tasks: refers to interesting, novel work that takes spontaneity and creative problem solving and improvisation. Think; art and design, or relationally driven work like therapist or coach.
According to Pink, Extrinsic Motivation (carrots & sticks) works great with Algorithmic Tasks (working in the coal mine etc.), because they are typically uninteresting, and repetitive, and stuff like paychecks and threats of getting fired are basically to only things that keep people motivated to do that type of shit.
What is somewhat surprising though, is that Extrinsic Motivators are deadly to the Intrinsic Motivations to do Heuristic Tasks.
In other words, if you love to do something, just for the sake of doing it, than adding money and other types of performance based carrots and sticks can actually kill your buzz, and turn you joy thing into a chore.
Pink’s ultimate point is, that today’s information base economy is automating (and there by killing) Algorithmic Task oriented jobs.
Conversely; today’s economy is rewarding Heuristic Tasks that take creativity and empathy (the shit robots can’t do) like never before.
Subsequently, our old school, Industrial age incentive structures (cash and prizes) and management styles (your fired if you don’t do what I tell you to do) are a BIG FAIL in creative and/or relationally driven organizations.
Pink posits the following human needs as the corner stones of Intrinsic + Heuristic ‘Motivation 3.0’.
Autonomy: the need to be free and direct our own lives.
Mastery: the urge to grow and become better at stuff.
Purpose: the longing for meaning, and the need to be connected to something bigger than ourselves.
If we want to create incentivize creativity and empathy, than we need to integrate autonomy, mastery and purpose into our raison d’être.
Can I get a hell to the yeah on that?
I’m upgrading my earlier assessment of this book from (x3) to (x4) stars.
The is good, but it feels just a little bit dated. It was published in 2011, which seems like last week, but was actually like 8 years ago, and some of the presentation seems kind of iPhone 4S.
November 4, 2010
This is another great book by Daniel Pink. It may be a coincidence, but just a few weeks ago I read another book on the same theme: Punished by Rewards: The Trouble With Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A'S, Praise, and Other Bribes by Alfie Kohn. The book by Kohn was published about 20 years earlier, and tells much the same story, in a much more scholarly, and perhaps drier style.
Daniel Pink's book, though, is much more readable, much shorter, and has a different slant. Rewards can be used to motivate people to do tasks, as long as these are repetitious, relatively mindless tasks that require little creativity or thoughtfulness. On the other hand, rewards backfire, if the tasks require creativity or original thinking of any sort. The book has an interesting approach toward motivating people with some useful guidelines.
Daniel Pink's book, though, is much more readable, much shorter, and has a different slant. Rewards can be used to motivate people to do tasks, as long as these are repetitious, relatively mindless tasks that require little creativity or thoughtfulness. On the other hand, rewards backfire, if the tasks require creativity or original thinking of any sort. The book has an interesting approach toward motivating people with some useful guidelines.
March 26, 2015
Cuốn sách này viết về gì?
Một cuộc cách mạng về cách cổ vũ động viên người khác trải qua 3 giai đoạn
- Hệ 1.0 - động lực sinh học: thỏa mãn được mấy nhu cầu cơ bản nhất của con người: ăn, uống, ngủ nghỉ, tình dục, lương thưởng...
- Hệ 2.0 - động lực ngoại vi: động lực kiểu "cây gậy và củ cà rốt", tốt thì thưởng, sai thì phạt
- Hệ 3.0 - động lực nội tại: xuất phát từ 3 gốc rễ: quyền tự trị, sự làm chủ, và mục đích ý nghĩa.
Cuốn sách xoay quanh những nhược điểm trong hệ 2.0 - điều gì khiến "cây gậy và củ cà rốt" lỗi thời trong thời đại NÃO PHẢI ngày nay và được nâng cấp bằng hệ 3.0. Bên cạnh đó, sách vạch rõ 9 chiến thuật áp dụng cụ thể hệ 3.0
Tại sao nên đọc cuốn sách này?
Mình đọc cuốn này bởi vì muốn làm một nhóm đọc sách, lục lọi moi móc ra cách để tạo, giữ và push nhóm.
Những nhận thức mới
Lâu nay mình đang chạy hệ điều hành 2.0, làm giỏi thì tao thưởng, làm ngu thì tao quất đít. Nên có nhiều mối quan hệ bằng mặt không bằng lòng và dần dần tan mất.
Kích người khác làm, lấy những động lực bên ngoài không lâu dài và bền vững được. Họ phải tự có động lực nội tại bằng cách trao cho họ 3 quyền: tự trị, làm chủ, mục đích ý nghĩa.
Trước khi đọc sách, mình dự định tạo một nhóm bạn để cùng tiến, nên trong đầu mình sợ các bạn sẽ không còn hứng thú, động lực đi với nhau lâu dài, mình cứ hỏi xoay quần trong đầu cái câu này: LÀM SAO ĐỂ ĐỘNG VIÊN NGƯỜI KHÁC?
Sau khi đọc xong, mình á đù một phát và nhận ra...mình sai ngay từ câu hỏi.
Dành công sức khích lệ người khác là mất thời gian vô ích. Nếu tìm đúng người, họ sẽ tự biết cách tạo động lực cho mình, khi đó câu hỏi sẽ là "chúng ta sẽ quản lý sao để họ KHÔNG mất đi động lực của họ"
Mình nghĩ 1 chút rồi... à há! Bản thân dưới góc nhìn của hệ động lực 3.0, thì mỗi người đã có một ĐỘNG LỰC NỘI TẠI rồi, họ ắt sẽ bộc lộ chứ không nhất thiết phải "nếu thế này... thì mày được cái này"
Một cuốn sách hay là cuốn mang tới những nhận thức mới, để dẫn đến những hành động mới rồi tạo ra kết quả mới.
Nên tao cho mi 5 sao!
Một cuộc cách mạng về cách cổ vũ động viên người khác trải qua 3 giai đoạn
- Hệ 1.0 - động lực sinh học: thỏa mãn được mấy nhu cầu cơ bản nhất của con người: ăn, uống, ngủ nghỉ, tình dục, lương thưởng...
- Hệ 2.0 - động lực ngoại vi: động lực kiểu "cây gậy và củ cà rốt", tốt thì thưởng, sai thì phạt
- Hệ 3.0 - động lực nội tại: xuất phát từ 3 gốc rễ: quyền tự trị, sự làm chủ, và mục đích ý nghĩa.
Cuốn sách xoay quanh những nhược điểm trong hệ 2.0 - điều gì khiến "cây gậy và củ cà rốt" lỗi thời trong thời đại NÃO PHẢI ngày nay và được nâng cấp bằng hệ 3.0. Bên cạnh đó, sách vạch rõ 9 chiến thuật áp dụng cụ thể hệ 3.0
Tại sao nên đọc cuốn sách này?
Mình đọc cuốn này bởi vì muốn làm một nhóm đọc sách, lục lọi moi móc ra cách để tạo, giữ và push nhóm.
Những nhận thức mới
Lâu nay mình đang chạy hệ điều hành 2.0, làm giỏi thì tao thưởng, làm ngu thì tao quất đít. Nên có nhiều mối quan hệ bằng mặt không bằng lòng và dần dần tan mất.
Kích người khác làm, lấy những động lực bên ngoài không lâu dài và bền vững được. Họ phải tự có động lực nội tại bằng cách trao cho họ 3 quyền: tự trị, làm chủ, mục đích ý nghĩa.
Trước khi đọc sách, mình dự định tạo một nhóm bạn để cùng tiến, nên trong đầu mình sợ các bạn sẽ không còn hứng thú, động lực đi với nhau lâu dài, mình cứ hỏi xoay quần trong đầu cái câu này: LÀM SAO ĐỂ ĐỘNG VIÊN NGƯỜI KHÁC?
Sau khi đọc xong, mình á đù một phát và nhận ra...mình sai ngay từ câu hỏi.
Dành công sức khích lệ người khác là mất thời gian vô ích. Nếu tìm đúng người, họ sẽ tự biết cách tạo động lực cho mình, khi đó câu hỏi sẽ là "chúng ta sẽ quản lý sao để họ KHÔNG mất đi động lực của họ"
Mình nghĩ 1 chút rồi... à há! Bản thân dưới góc nhìn của hệ động lực 3.0, thì mỗi người đã có một ĐỘNG LỰC NỘI TẠI rồi, họ ắt sẽ bộc lộ chứ không nhất thiết phải "nếu thế này... thì mày được cái này"
Một cuốn sách hay là cuốn mang tới những nhận thức mới, để dẫn đến những hành động mới rồi tạo ra kết quả mới.
Nên tao cho mi 5 sao!
December 6, 2011
This book has been on my "to read" shelf for some time, and while I had read some excerpts, understood the general ideas and seen the excellent RSA Animate excerpt (http://goo.gl/zH1QH), there is far more here than is generally summed up.
This book became extremely interesting because it was juxtaposed with a discussion of Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs published shortly after his death. A coworker not known for his managerial skills but who is respected for his results read the Jobs book and commented that his biggest takeaway from Steve Jobs' contribution was that despite my coworker's abusive management style, he was far to kind to his employees. Jobs was notable for his often abrasive and abusive style in pursuit of better results, and many seem to believe that his willingness to disregard others in pursuit of excellence was one of the secrets to Jobs' success. Dan Pink's "Drive" offers an alternative explanation and is excellent lens into the true genius of Steve Jobs and those like him.
In reality, Pink shows that the strongest results regardless of the field generally come from individuals that are intrinsically rather than externally motivated. Pounding on people in any setting produces short term results, but as Pink shows, can have disastrous long term consequences. Despite this, Jobs and other tyranical managers often show results. I suggest that the reason for their success is really in their ability to choose talent and offer vision rather than their work style. Pink shows via numerous examples that, given resources, freedom and opportunity to develop themselves, people will seek the highest and best use for themselves.
While much of the book is a survey of other work (Arielly is mentioned by name, and there is much that is reminiscent of Talib and Gladwell), Pink goes further and adds some insight of his own by expanding on the idea of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations.
More importantly, he adds a series of practical suggestions for developing intrinsic motivation in a number of settings at the end of the book. Practical applications are what is most often missing from books of this genre and his suggestions are welcome.
In the end the book is an easy read and is definitely not a panacea for management skill in any setting. But it delivers in the area that it should. It provides a foundation for the reader to consider specific ways they can improve themselves and others. In other words, the book makes you think.
This book became extremely interesting because it was juxtaposed with a discussion of Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs published shortly after his death. A coworker not known for his managerial skills but who is respected for his results read the Jobs book and commented that his biggest takeaway from Steve Jobs' contribution was that despite my coworker's abusive management style, he was far to kind to his employees. Jobs was notable for his often abrasive and abusive style in pursuit of better results, and many seem to believe that his willingness to disregard others in pursuit of excellence was one of the secrets to Jobs' success. Dan Pink's "Drive" offers an alternative explanation and is excellent lens into the true genius of Steve Jobs and those like him.
In reality, Pink shows that the strongest results regardless of the field generally come from individuals that are intrinsically rather than externally motivated. Pounding on people in any setting produces short term results, but as Pink shows, can have disastrous long term consequences. Despite this, Jobs and other tyranical managers often show results. I suggest that the reason for their success is really in their ability to choose talent and offer vision rather than their work style. Pink shows via numerous examples that, given resources, freedom and opportunity to develop themselves, people will seek the highest and best use for themselves.
While much of the book is a survey of other work (Arielly is mentioned by name, and there is much that is reminiscent of Talib and Gladwell), Pink goes further and adds some insight of his own by expanding on the idea of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations.
More importantly, he adds a series of practical suggestions for developing intrinsic motivation in a number of settings at the end of the book. Practical applications are what is most often missing from books of this genre and his suggestions are welcome.
In the end the book is an easy read and is definitely not a panacea for management skill in any setting. But it delivers in the area that it should. It provides a foundation for the reader to consider specific ways they can improve themselves and others. In other words, the book makes you think.
January 31, 2022
To quickly summarise Pink's argument in the book, he believes that the idea that humans are predominantly motivated to do things, such as better their performance at work, through the promise of a reward (motivation 2.0), is outdated. Instead, there is new evidence for a third and most effective motivation (motivation 3.0) which is the fulfilment and enjoyment we get out of doing something. Rewards may draw us to perform certain tasks, but it is the true enjoyment of said tasks that gets them done well. Thus, for instance, in a work environment employers shouldn't just look to bribe their employees into working hard, they should make the job more enjoyable as well.
Personally, the themes with in this book would not typically draw my attention within psychology. However, I found Pink's clever way of using examples from multiple scenarios where the third drive could be used, such as in exercise or education, to be an amazing way of helping the reader to understand his ideas. Additionally, the chapter summaries towards the end of the book are a great way to help the reader refresh the most important ideas of the book - they are also useful when a chapter appeared more complex. Then, finally, the engage the reader he lists a bunch of questions regarding your experience of reading the material and your thoughts on his ideas which is good for those who are perhaps researching his work or are looking to go beyond the material within the book.
Overall, Pink does an excellent job of persuading the reader that the third drive is very real, and very important. I am not surprised that his work has had so much success as he has already influenced the attitudes of employers, and also makes his book accessible to those who perhaps take less interest or have less of a grasp on the topic.
Personally, the themes with in this book would not typically draw my attention within psychology. However, I found Pink's clever way of using examples from multiple scenarios where the third drive could be used, such as in exercise or education, to be an amazing way of helping the reader to understand his ideas. Additionally, the chapter summaries towards the end of the book are a great way to help the reader refresh the most important ideas of the book - they are also useful when a chapter appeared more complex. Then, finally, the engage the reader he lists a bunch of questions regarding your experience of reading the material and your thoughts on his ideas which is good for those who are perhaps researching his work or are looking to go beyond the material within the book.
Overall, Pink does an excellent job of persuading the reader that the third drive is very real, and very important. I am not surprised that his work has had so much success as he has already influenced the attitudes of employers, and also makes his book accessible to those who perhaps take less interest or have less of a grasp on the topic.
December 15, 2017
I made myself finish this because I was sure there had to be something new and interesting in this crazy popular book. Nope. It's all the stuff you've already heard--growth mindset, flow, blah blah blah. Skip this one.
July 10, 2020
طريقة الثواب و العقاب تحدد من الأفكار والمهارات وتقود الى التفكير على المدى القصير، ع الاغلب نستخدم هاي الطريقة مع الاطفال لتشجيعهم على اتمام مهام معينه، ولكن بهذه الطريقة نحد من قدراته ومهاراته الابداعية.
هالكتاب رح يوضح شنو الحلول، وانواع التحفيز الي توصل للابداع والتفكير على المدى الطويل
هالكتاب رح يوضح شنو الحلول، وانواع التحفيز الي توصل للابداع والتفكير على المدى الطويل
November 12, 2016
الهدف من الكتاب هو توضيح عدم التوافق الكبير مابين ما يطرحه العلم، وخاصة علم النفس، وبين ما يقوم به الناس في قطاع الأعمال. عدم التوافق هذا في مجال عوامل التحفيز والإثارة يشكل حفرة كبير مفزعة، الجميع يكره أعمالهم ولا يرون أنها تحفيزية. المال لم يعد حافزًًا الا للبعض. العلم يوضح أن سياسات مثل سياسة العصا والجزرة، والمكافئة والعقاب، والتي نعتقد أنها طبيعية كجزء محفز للإنسان من الممكن أن يعمل بشكل حسن ولكن فقط في دائرة ظروف ضيقة. ويوضح كذلك أن سياسات مثل “اذا فعلت- فسوف تحلصل على..” هي سياسات غير مفيد وخاصة في القرن الواحد والعشرين وتسبب تدهور في الإبداع والإنتاجية. والسر في الإنتاجية العالية والتقدم لا يعتمد على محفزات المكافئة والعقاب المعتادين ولا محفزات جمع المال والغذاء التي تعد بيولوجية، بل يعتمد على ماهو أعمق من ذلك، يعتمد على رغبة داخلية في التحكم بحياتنا بإستقلالية، في التطور وتوسيع مهاراتنا وقدراتنا الكلية والعيش بهدف مُرضي ونبيل.
.
عام 1961- أجرى عالم النفس “إدوراد ديسي” تجربة لقياس تأثير المكافئات المادية على الأفراد، أحضر مجموعتين من الطلاب، مجموعة “أ” ومجموعة “ب” وعرض عليهم أحجية من المكعبات ليقوموا بتركيبها بمساعدة خريطة أو دليل تركيب يدوي. مدة المهمة ساعة واحدة. في اليوم الأول أبدى جميع الطلاب بلاءًا حسنًا، وبعد إنقضاء الساعة الواحدة طلب منهم المسؤول عن المهمة ال��نتظار بضع دقائق (٨-١٠ دقائق) حتى يسجل بعض المعلومات المطلوبة في جهاز الحاسب..- ولكن في تلك الأثناء كان يراقب مدى إهتمامهم بالإحجية ذاتها. كان أغلب اطلاب من كلا المجموعتين يتفقد الدليل اليدوي للتركيب وينضر لمكعبات اللعبة بحماسة وإهتمام. في اليوم الثاني، بعد إنقضاء الساعة الواحدة، عرض المسؤول عن المهمة مبلغ مادي لطلاب المجموعة “ب” يقدر ب٦ إلى ١٠ دولارات. وطلب منهم الإنتظار بضع دقائق ليسجل معلومات ما، وقام بمراقبتهم، كان كل من في المجموعة “ب” مثار الدهشة وبينوا اهتمامًا شديد باللعبة والمكعبات المتروكة أمامهم حتى انهم قاموا بتفحص الدليل عدة مرات إستعدادًا للأشكال التي سيقومون ببناءها في الأيام القادمة. المجموعة “أ” تُركت من غير مقابل وأبلت نفس الإهتمام السابق (مثل اليوم الأول) باللعبة. في اليوم الثالث، بعد انقضاء مهلة التركيب. أعتذر مسؤول المهمة من طلاب المجموعة “ب” بأنه لن يقوم بمنحهم أي مبلغ أو مقابل على التركيب في هذه المرة، وجعلهم ينتظرون نفس مدة الإنتظار السابقة وقام بمراقبة تصرفاتهم. جميع المشاركين في مجموعة “ب” انفروا من الطاولة وبدؤوا بالعبث بأشياء موجودة في غرفة التجربة وليس لها أي علاقة بالتركيب مثل تصفح المجلات والنضر عبر الباب، ولكنهم لم يبدوا أي أهتمام كالإهتمامات السابقة التي فعلوها باليوم الأول والثاني. المجموعة “أ” التي لم تحصل على أي مقابل في الثلاث أيام استمرت علي نفس الإهتمام ذاته. النتيجة هنا هو أنه اذا تكيفت مجموعة ما على المقابل المادي لن تقوم بالمهمة الا به. وان المقابل المادي لن يست��ر طويلًا في التحفيز!!
.
هنالك شكلين من الأعمال، الشكل الأول حسابي، والشكال الآخر إكتشافي. في المهام الحسابية نقصد المهام المألوفة التي تتبع تعليمات مبنية مسبقًا وتصل بنا لنتيجة نهائية، شي يشبه الروتين والتكرار، مثل أعمال القانون، المحاسبة. أما في الأعمال الإكتشفاية فلا يوجد تعليمات محددة تتبعها لتنفذ المهمة، انت تكتشف المعلومات وكل مشكله تمر عليك تعتبر فريدة لا يوجد لها سابقة. انت هنا تكتشف الحلول.
خلال القرن الماضي كانت أغلب المهام حسابية، والمؤثر الدافع للقيام بها هو محفزات للبقاء مثل طلب المال والغذاء ومحفزات مثل الترهيب والترغيب. أما الآن وبواسطة وجود برامج المعلومات، أصبحت الكثير من المهام تُنفذ بواسطة الحاسب ولا يوجد الزام لوجود شخص يقوم بها. في المقابل الكثير من المهام أصبحت أكتشافية وتتضمن حل مشاكل لا يوجد لها حل مسبق، أكتشاف أو اختراع مواد لا يدرك العالم أنه بالفعل في حاجة ماسة لها، المهام الإستكشفاية تحتاج إبداع ولا تعتمد على المحفزات البيولوجيكية مثل الغذاء والمال. هذه المهام الإستكشافية تحتاج إلى محفزات جديدة تناسب القرن الواحد والعشرين محفزات تشعر أن الإنسان أصبح إنسان منفرد وبعقلية مستقلة ولا يعمل كالآلات.
الثلاثة محفزات الرئيسية التي تقود الإنسان:
١- محفز بيولوجي، مثل إيجاد الغذاء.
٢- محفز الترغيب والترهيب والذي يتبع سياسة العصا والجزرة.
٣- محفز داخلي ينبع من حاجة الشخص للإستقلال والتميز.
.
المحفز رقم٢، ينقاد ويعتمد إعتماد أساسي بالرغبات الخارجية مثل رغبات الأشخاص في بناء الشهرة، و المال. (رغبات خارجية) أما المحفز رقم٣، ينقاد بواسطة رغبات داخلية مثل رغبات الشخص في التعلم، التطور وبناء المهارة. (رغبات داخلية). أصحاب الرغبات الداخلية يستجيبون أكثر للمحفز رقم٢، يهتمون بالمقابل المادي أكثر وهم يحملون رضى نفسي أقل بكثير من أصحاب الرغبات الداخلية. لكن اللي نحتاجة في عصرنا الحالي هم أصحاب الرغبات الداخلية، هم أشخاص مع مهازات قيادية أقوى، صحة أفضل، حياة ممتعة أكثر. لما سياسة العصا والجزرة تتدخل في المحفز الثالث، تسبب إحباط وعدم قبول، لان هذا النوع من المحفزات “اذا-سوف” يعطي أصحابه أقل مما يريدون، ويحطم الأداء طويل الأمد، ويعكر صفو التفكير قصير الأمد لان الشخص بيضل يفكر بالمقابل في إثناء أداءه للمهمة، ويقضي على كل الإبداع، ويخلق شي من الإدمان السلبي للمقابلات المادية!
لكي نقوم بتفعيل المحفز رقم٣، لكي يعمل على أفضل وجه نحتاج إلى ثلاثة عوامل: الإستقلال، البراعة، الغاية.
الإستقلال:
تم جمع عدد من الرساميين وتم الطلب منهم بأن يقوموا بتقليد خمسة رسومات موجودة، وان يبتكروا خمسة رسومات أخرى من مخيلتهم، النتيجة هي ان الرسومات المبتكرة حضيت على إعجاب أكبر من قبل المحكمين على التجربة وحضي الرسامون خلال تنفيذهم برضى نفسي وعملوا بإتقان أكبر في الرسومات التي كانت من إبتكارهم وليست المقلدة، كل ذلك يدل على ان الإستقلال جزء من حرية الشخص، الحرية التي تجعله ينفرد بأفكاره من غير أوامر أو فروض واجبة عليه، الحرية سبيل للإبداع وخاصة في أعمال القرن الواحد والعشرين. إعداداتنا النفسية الإفتراضة تحكم وجود الإستقلالية كدافع إساسي لإنجاز الأعمال والحصول على الرضى. ولكن الضروف التي تتظمن الإدارة السيئة تغير من إستقلالية الشخص وتجعله يتبع المحفز رقم٢، بدلًا من المحفز رقم٣. ولكي تتغلب على المحفز رقم ٢، يجب أن يكون لديك السيطرة في خيارات مهمة في مهامك مثل : كيف تعمل (الطريقة التي تود اتمام عملك بها)، متى تعمل (الوقت) ومن تعمل معهم (أفراد المجموعة).
البراعة:
المحفز رقم٢، يتطلب الإلتزام والإذعان بينما المحفز رقم٣، يتطلب جذب الإنتباه، لأن جذب الإنتباه يصنع البراعة، يجذب انتباهك ليجعلك تتقن شيء. البراعة في العمل امر مهم في محفزات رقم٣. البراعة تخلق شعور مثل الطوفان او العوم، ذلك الشعور الذي نحس به عندما نقوم بشي نستمتع به ولا نشعر بمرور الوقت معه ولا نشعر بأنفسنا، هذا العوم مسؤول في بقائنا في نفس الحالة النفسية الصحية التي نحاول الحفاظ عليها. تم الطلب من مجموعة عدم القيام بأي أعمال ممتعة لمدة ثلاث أيام، حتى وان كانت تلك الأعمال مثل غسيل الأطباق اذا كانت تمنح متعة أو شعور العوم لصاحبها، وكانت النتيجة انه وفي اليوم الأول شعر المشاركون في المجموعة بصداع وإكتئاب غير مبرر. هذه الأعمال البسيطة قد لا تتطلب مهارات جمة ولكن القيام بها يتعبر براعة لانها توافق مستوى قدراتنا كأفراد من غير تصعيب. البراعة تتطلب أن ننضر إلى قدراتنا على إنها لا منتهية. البراعة تعني أيضًا الألم. تحتاج الى الجهد، والممارسة.
الغاية
الناس بالطبيعة يطلبون الهدف، سبب يجعلهم يتحملون أكثر من طاقتهم. المحفز رقم٢، لا يؤمن بالغايات ولكن المحفز رقم٣، فالغايات تشكل وقود دافع وقوي لكل الأعمال التي يقوم بها وهي ما تحفز الناس على القيام بالمهام التطوعية أفضل من المهام الإلزامية لان التطوع له غايات واضحه.. لكي نفعل الغايات نستخدم الأهداف المشتركة، قوة الكلمات ثم نلجأ للقوانين.
الكتاب جدًا رائع وعملي تقيمي له ٥ من ٥! :)
.
عام 1961- أجرى عالم النفس “إدوراد ديسي” تجربة لقياس تأثير المكافئات المادية على الأفراد، أحضر مجموعتين من الطلاب، مجموعة “أ” ومجموعة “ب” وعرض عليهم أحجية من المكعبات ليقوموا بتركيبها بمساعدة خريطة أو دليل تركيب يدوي. مدة المهمة ساعة واحدة. في اليوم الأول أبدى جميع الطلاب بلاءًا حسنًا، وبعد إنقضاء الساعة الواحدة طلب منهم المسؤول عن المهمة ال��نتظار بضع دقائق (٨-١٠ دقائق) حتى يسجل بعض المعلومات المطلوبة في جهاز الحاسب..- ولكن في تلك الأثناء كان يراقب مدى إهتمامهم بالإحجية ذاتها. كان أغلب اطلاب من كلا المجموعتين يتفقد الدليل اليدوي للتركيب وينضر لمكعبات اللعبة بحماسة وإهتمام. في اليوم الثاني، بعد إنقضاء الساعة الواحدة، عرض المسؤول عن المهمة مبلغ مادي لطلاب المجموعة “ب” يقدر ب٦ إلى ١٠ دولارات. وطلب منهم الإنتظار بضع دقائق ليسجل معلومات ما، وقام بمراقبتهم، كان كل من في المجموعة “ب” مثار الدهشة وبينوا اهتمامًا شديد باللعبة والمكعبات المتروكة أمامهم حتى انهم قاموا بتفحص الدليل عدة مرات إستعدادًا للأشكال التي سيقومون ببناءها في الأيام القادمة. المجموعة “أ” تُركت من غير مقابل وأبلت نفس الإهتمام السابق (مثل اليوم الأول) باللعبة. في اليوم الثالث، بعد انقضاء مهلة التركيب. أعتذر مسؤول المهمة من طلاب المجموعة “ب” بأنه لن يقوم بمنحهم أي مبلغ أو مقابل على التركيب في هذه المرة، وجعلهم ينتظرون نفس مدة الإنتظار السابقة وقام بمراقبة تصرفاتهم. جميع المشاركين في مجموعة “ب” انفروا من الطاولة وبدؤوا بالعبث بأشياء موجودة في غرفة التجربة وليس لها أي علاقة بالتركيب مثل تصفح المجلات والنضر عبر الباب، ولكنهم لم يبدوا أي أهتمام كالإهتمامات السابقة التي فعلوها باليوم الأول والثاني. المجموعة “أ” التي لم تحصل على أي مقابل في الثلاث أيام استمرت علي نفس الإهتمام ذاته. النتيجة هنا هو أنه اذا تكيفت مجموعة ما على المقابل المادي لن تقوم بالمهمة الا به. وان المقابل المادي لن يست��ر طويلًا في التحفيز!!
.
هنالك شكلين من الأعمال، الشكل الأول حسابي، والشكال الآخر إكتشافي. في المهام الحسابية نقصد المهام المألوفة التي تتبع تعليمات مبنية مسبقًا وتصل بنا لنتيجة نهائية، شي يشبه الروتين والتكرار، مثل أعمال القانون، المحاسبة. أما في الأعمال الإكتشفاية فلا يوجد تعليمات محددة تتبعها لتنفذ المهمة، انت تكتشف المعلومات وكل مشكله تمر عليك تعتبر فريدة لا يوجد لها سابقة. انت هنا تكتشف الحلول.
خلال القرن الماضي كانت أغلب المهام حسابية، والمؤثر الدافع للقيام بها هو محفزات للبقاء مثل طلب المال والغذاء ومحفزات مثل الترهيب والترغيب. أما الآن وبواسطة وجود برامج المعلومات، أصبحت الكثير من المهام تُنفذ بواسطة الحاسب ولا يوجد الزام لوجود شخص يقوم بها. في المقابل الكثير من المهام أصبحت أكتشافية وتتضمن حل مشاكل لا يوجد لها حل مسبق، أكتشاف أو اختراع مواد لا يدرك العالم أنه بالفعل في حاجة ماسة لها، المهام الإستكشفاية تحتاج إبداع ولا تعتمد على المحفزات البيولوجيكية مثل الغذاء والمال. هذه المهام الإستكشافية تحتاج إلى محفزات جديدة تناسب القرن الواحد والعشرين محفزات تشعر أن الإنسان أصبح إنسان منفرد وبعقلية مستقلة ولا يعمل كالآلات.
الثلاثة محفزات الرئيسية التي تقود الإنسان:
١- محفز بيولوجي، مثل إيجاد الغذاء.
٢- محفز الترغيب والترهيب والذي يتبع سياسة العصا والجزرة.
٣- محفز داخلي ينبع من حاجة الشخص للإستقلال والتميز.
.
المحفز رقم٢، ينقاد ويعتمد إعتماد أساسي بالرغبات الخارجية مثل رغبات الأشخاص في بناء الشهرة، و المال. (رغبات خارجية) أما المحفز رقم٣، ينقاد بواسطة رغبات داخلية مثل رغبات الشخص في التعلم، التطور وبناء المهارة. (رغبات داخلية). أصحاب الرغبات الداخلية يستجيبون أكثر للمحفز رقم٢، يهتمون بالمقابل المادي أكثر وهم يحملون رضى نفسي أقل بكثير من أصحاب الرغبات الداخلية. لكن اللي نحتاجة في عصرنا الحالي هم أصحاب الرغبات الداخلية، هم أشخاص مع مهازات قيادية أقوى، صحة أفضل، حياة ممتعة أكثر. لما سياسة العصا والجزرة تتدخل في المحفز الثالث، تسبب إحباط وعدم قبول، لان هذا النوع من المحفزات “اذا-سوف” يعطي أصحابه أقل مما يريدون، ويحطم الأداء طويل الأمد، ويعكر صفو التفكير قصير الأمد لان الشخص بيضل يفكر بالمقابل في إثناء أداءه للمهمة، ويقضي على كل الإبداع، ويخلق شي من الإدمان السلبي للمقابلات المادية!
لكي نقوم بتفعيل المحفز رقم٣، لكي يعمل على أفضل وجه نحتاج إلى ثلاثة عوامل: الإستقلال، البراعة، الغاية.
الإستقلال:
تم جمع عدد من الرساميين وتم الطلب منهم بأن يقوموا بتقليد خمسة رسومات موجودة، وان يبتكروا خمسة رسومات أخرى من مخيلتهم، النتيجة هي ان الرسومات المبتكرة حضيت على إعجاب أكبر من قبل المحكمين على التجربة وحضي الرسامون خلال تنفيذهم برضى نفسي وعملوا بإتقان أكبر في الرسومات التي كانت من إبتكارهم وليست المقلدة، كل ذلك يدل على ان الإستقلال جزء من حرية الشخص، الحرية التي تجعله ينفرد بأفكاره من غير أوامر أو فروض واجبة عليه، الحرية سبيل للإبداع وخاصة في أعمال القرن الواحد والعشرين. إعداداتنا النفسية الإفتراضة تحكم وجود الإستقلالية كدافع إساسي لإنجاز الأعمال والحصول على الرضى. ولكن الضروف التي تتظمن الإدارة السيئة تغير من إستقلالية الشخص وتجعله يتبع المحفز رقم٢، بدلًا من المحفز رقم٣. ولكي تتغلب على المحفز رقم ٢، يجب أن يكون لديك السيطرة في خيارات مهمة في مهامك مثل : كيف تعمل (الطريقة التي تود اتمام عملك بها)، متى تعمل (الوقت) ومن تعمل معهم (أفراد المجموعة).
البراعة:
المحفز رقم٢، يتطلب الإلتزام والإذعان بينما المحفز رقم٣، يتطلب جذب الإنتباه، لأن جذب الإنتباه يصنع البراعة، يجذب انتباهك ليجعلك تتقن شيء. البراعة في العمل امر مهم في محفزات رقم٣. البراعة تخلق شعور مثل الطوفان او العوم، ذلك الشعور الذي نحس به عندما نقوم بشي نستمتع به ولا نشعر بمرور الوقت معه ولا نشعر بأنفسنا، هذا العوم مسؤول في بقائنا في نفس الحالة النفسية الصحية التي نحاول الحفاظ عليها. تم الطلب من مجموعة عدم القيام بأي أعمال ممتعة لمدة ثلاث أيام، حتى وان كانت تلك الأعمال مثل غسيل الأطباق اذا كانت تمنح متعة أو شعور العوم لصاحبها، وكانت النتيجة انه وفي اليوم الأول شعر المشاركون في المجموعة بصداع وإكتئاب غير مبرر. هذه الأعمال البسيطة قد لا تتطلب مهارات جمة ولكن القيام بها يتعبر براعة لانها توافق مستوى قدراتنا كأفراد من غير تصعيب. البراعة تتطلب أن ننضر إلى قدراتنا على إنها لا منتهية. البراعة تعني أيضًا الألم. تحتاج الى الجهد، والممارسة.
الغاية
الناس بالطبيعة يطلبون الهدف، سبب يجعلهم يتحملون أكثر من طاقتهم. المحفز رقم٢، لا يؤمن بالغايات ولكن المحفز رقم٣، فالغايات تشكل وقود دافع وقوي لكل الأعمال التي يقوم بها وهي ما تحفز الناس على القيام بالمهام التطوعية أفضل من المهام الإلزامية لان التطوع له غايات واضحه.. لكي نفعل الغايات نستخدم الأهداف المشتركة، قوة الكلمات ثم نلجأ للقوانين.
الكتاب جدًا رائع وعملي تقيمي له ٥ من ٥! :)
May 3, 2010
I picked this up on a tangential reference from Leah and blitzed through it one gorgeous afternoon. It's a pretty concise roadmap (pardon the pun) of a "new" form of motivation theory, one that is centered less on external rewards and more on internal forces. Pulling from and conglomerating a number of other recently-popular texts and concepts, it combines the concepts of flow (from the book of the same name by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi), 20% time (originally 3M, apparently, but recently brought to the limelight by Google), and the as yet very unofficial "for-benefit" style organization that is starting to gain some ground. The result paints a picture very different from the traditional reward/punishment paradigm of motivation, one that speaks of self-direction, personal satisfaction, and pride in one's work (or in Pink's words, Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose).
I wax philosophic about this because it rings very true for what I have experienced in my own projects. However, there is one very obvious danger that I think Pink's excitement let pass with only minor mention, and that is balance.
Autonomy is wonderful, and that variable is the reason I have loved some work and hated others. However, Autonomy still needs a certain amount of direction, and to be honest, I think it needs to be put in contrast to non-autonomous work. There needs to be the right ratio of freedom to direction, relative to the degree of self-discipline the worker has.
Similarly, if mastery of a skill is asymptotic as Pink describes (and I follow that), then from an effectual, time-wrangling standpoint there has to be a cut-off point. If perfection is unattainable, then some threshold must be set to mitigate the diminishing returns. You can't keep slogging away to get that last impossible percent, and you had probably gone farther than you ever needed to at 80% mastery anyway.
As far as purpose goes, I think it's not so much a danger that anyone will start waving the charity flag so hard they impale themselves on it. You need resources to support a cause, and if you aren't generating those resources, be they money or manpower or what have you, that system will come to a grinding halt pretty fast. I think the trick there will be in finding the right balance between making and giving that is both sustainable and significantly supporting the cause in question, and convincing investors that it is in their best interest for you to support the cause in the first place.
I'm also not entirely convinced Pink's system will work smoothly across the board. There are some people who seem to prefer keeping their head down and following orders. There are some who just don't seek out constant self-improvement. But if this credo of intrinsic motivation spreads, I think it will eventually have a whole swath of societal benefits, ranging from the classroom to the workplace (wherever that may be) to, if one may be so hopeful, international relations. It just needs to be implemented carefully.
I wax philosophic about this because it rings very true for what I have experienced in my own projects. However, there is one very obvious danger that I think Pink's excitement let pass with only minor mention, and that is balance.
Autonomy is wonderful, and that variable is the reason I have loved some work and hated others. However, Autonomy still needs a certain amount of direction, and to be honest, I think it needs to be put in contrast to non-autonomous work. There needs to be the right ratio of freedom to direction, relative to the degree of self-discipline the worker has.
Similarly, if mastery of a skill is asymptotic as Pink describes (and I follow that), then from an effectual, time-wrangling standpoint there has to be a cut-off point. If perfection is unattainable, then some threshold must be set to mitigate the diminishing returns. You can't keep slogging away to get that last impossible percent, and you had probably gone farther than you ever needed to at 80% mastery anyway.
As far as purpose goes, I think it's not so much a danger that anyone will start waving the charity flag so hard they impale themselves on it. You need resources to support a cause, and if you aren't generating those resources, be they money or manpower or what have you, that system will come to a grinding halt pretty fast. I think the trick there will be in finding the right balance between making and giving that is both sustainable and significantly supporting the cause in question, and convincing investors that it is in their best interest for you to support the cause in the first place.
I'm also not entirely convinced Pink's system will work smoothly across the board. There are some people who seem to prefer keeping their head down and following orders. There are some who just don't seek out constant self-improvement. But if this credo of intrinsic motivation spreads, I think it will eventually have a whole swath of societal benefits, ranging from the classroom to the workplace (wherever that may be) to, if one may be so hopeful, international relations. It just needs to be implemented carefully.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 24, 2011
I imagine this is a great book to confuse those with a lot of management theory behind them. Luckily I'm not one of those, and this book has really struck home. Pink focuses begins by focusing on describing existing management processes as a carrot and stick reward system having evolved workplace of monotonous, undesirable tasks. He introduces the work of a number of social scientists and management theorists, as well as the results of their experiments both in the lab and in the work place. He posits that today's left-brain worked is better "managed" through intrinsic motivation, which he defines as being best facilitated when people are given Autonomy in how they do their work, given the tools to strive for Mastery in their skills, and working towards a Purpose, or a greater good. My brain has been quite active for a few days now, working out missteps I've made in the past along these guidelines, and coming up with ideas as to how to better handle similar situations in the future. It also has a quick but interesting section on fallacies in using reward systems as motivation for educating our children. Definitely a fantastic book, borrow mine!
January 7, 2016
This book was a really exciting read, it covered research into motivational field and opinions and theories of experts in psychology and business. It is rare that a textbook type of book captions my attention so much that I don't really want to read anything else, but this one did so.
In many of the situations and models described I saw myself, my flaws and actually got motivated to change something in my life. I don't really know, how long the motivation will last though. What also helped is that in the book many people's research I have learned about in my educational studies were covered, which helped me with the read and also made me see that education is developing and evolving and at some point will be able to at least partially adjust to the modern society's needs and psychology.
It was a slow read for me, because I read it on my way in train and that gave me the opportunity to think a lot about what I read. But because of that the summary at the end of the book was really boring for me. Wanted to snatch away a star for that, but decided to stay on four stars.
In many of the situations and models described I saw myself, my flaws and actually got motivated to change something in my life. I don't really know, how long the motivation will last though. What also helped is that in the book many people's research I have learned about in my educational studies were covered, which helped me with the read and also made me see that education is developing and evolving and at some point will be able to at least partially adjust to the modern society's needs and psychology.
It was a slow read for me, because I read it on my way in train and that gave me the opportunity to think a lot about what I read. But because of that the summary at the end of the book was really boring for me. Wanted to snatch away a star for that, but decided to stay on four stars.
July 12, 2013
Amanda's Informal Notes:
Surprisingly, pretty darn fascinating. I don't usually read a lot of non-fiction, so it took me a bit to get used to the author's style, but I'm glad I pushed through because Drive gave me some great food for thought:
-So for hundreds of years, businesses have been modeled around the idea that people don't have any inherent motivation to work. To keep your workforce productive, you have to reward employees for good behavior (i.e. money and recognition) and punish them for bad (reprimands and firing).
-But science is demonstrating that humans possess a powerful third drive that Pink calls "intrinsic motivation." In a nutshell, people (and monkeys for that matter) solve puzzles because it's fun. Finding the answer is a reward in itself, which makes perfect sense if you think about it.
-Unfortunately, blanket application of the business world's carrot-and-stick theory can even harm our intrinsic desire to work and create. It's like when I tried Interior Design; once you turned it into work, it sucked all the fun out of it.
-Of course, we all require some basic amount of money/comfort (what Pink calls "hygiene factors") in our jobs. He says employers should satisfy these needs enough to take them off the table, but beyond that, if they really want motivated workers, they should better support employees' intrinsic drive. I'd definitely rather take a basic amount of money to do something I really enjoy than a ton of money to do something I hate.
-Pink also points out how technology has removed the necessity for a lot of monotony in our jobs. Because the mindless stuff can be automated, people are left with the complex tasks. As a result, all of our jobs are requiring more creativity. His example was accountants before and after Excel.
-He proposes that most people want to work hard and do a good job, and businesses should make policies based on THAT majority- not punish everyone because of the small percentage that would take advantage.
-In Pink's words, "People need autonomy over task (what they do), time (when they do it), team (who they do it with), and technique (how they do it)." Sounds nice, right?
-He gives several examples of companies with extremely flexible schedules or that set aside time for each employee to pursue their own projects and how everyone has profited from those decisions. Some of these ideas seem to really only apply to the software world, but several really could be implemented almost anywhere.
-Finally, Pink thinks to be most successful, we should maximize "flow," those times when your abilities are perfectly matched to any challenges and you completely lose track of time. The first thing that came to mind is when I'm doing crafty projects, but I feel it sometimes at work when I'm really interested in what I'm doing.
All in all, a really interesting book. I hope my company takes note. :)
Surprisingly, pretty darn fascinating. I don't usually read a lot of non-fiction, so it took me a bit to get used to the author's style, but I'm glad I pushed through because Drive gave me some great food for thought:
-So for hundreds of years, businesses have been modeled around the idea that people don't have any inherent motivation to work. To keep your workforce productive, you have to reward employees for good behavior (i.e. money and recognition) and punish them for bad (reprimands and firing).
-But science is demonstrating that humans possess a powerful third drive that Pink calls "intrinsic motivation." In a nutshell, people (and monkeys for that matter) solve puzzles because it's fun. Finding the answer is a reward in itself, which makes perfect sense if you think about it.
-Unfortunately, blanket application of the business world's carrot-and-stick theory can even harm our intrinsic desire to work and create. It's like when I tried Interior Design; once you turned it into work, it sucked all the fun out of it.
-Of course, we all require some basic amount of money/comfort (what Pink calls "hygiene factors") in our jobs. He says employers should satisfy these needs enough to take them off the table, but beyond that, if they really want motivated workers, they should better support employees' intrinsic drive. I'd definitely rather take a basic amount of money to do something I really enjoy than a ton of money to do something I hate.
-Pink also points out how technology has removed the necessity for a lot of monotony in our jobs. Because the mindless stuff can be automated, people are left with the complex tasks. As a result, all of our jobs are requiring more creativity. His example was accountants before and after Excel.
-He proposes that most people want to work hard and do a good job, and businesses should make policies based on THAT majority- not punish everyone because of the small percentage that would take advantage.
-In Pink's words, "People need autonomy over task (what they do), time (when they do it), team (who they do it with), and technique (how they do it)." Sounds nice, right?
-He gives several examples of companies with extremely flexible schedules or that set aside time for each employee to pursue their own projects and how everyone has profited from those decisions. Some of these ideas seem to really only apply to the software world, but several really could be implemented almost anywhere.
-Finally, Pink thinks to be most successful, we should maximize "flow," those times when your abilities are perfectly matched to any challenges and you completely lose track of time. The first thing that came to mind is when I'm doing crafty projects, but I feel it sometimes at work when I'm really interested in what I'm doing.
All in all, a really interesting book. I hope my company takes note. :)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 5,511 reviews