Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
by Daniel H. Pink | Goodreads
Want to Read
Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Preview
Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
by
Daniel H. Pink (Goodreads Author)
3.94 · Rating details · 72,498 Ratings · 3,559 Reviews
Forget everything you thought you knew about how to motivate people—at work, at school, at home. It's wrong. As Daniel H. Pink (author of To Sell Is Human: The Surprising Truth About Motivating Others) explains in his paradigm-shattering book Drive, the secret to high performance and satisfaction in today's world 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 our lives. He demonstrates that while the old-fashioned carrot-and-stick approach worked successfully in the 20th century, it's precisely the wrong way to motivate people for today's challenges. In Drive, he reveals the three elements of true motivation:
*Autonomy—the desire to direct our own lives
*Mastery—the urge to get better and better at something that matters
*Purpose—the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves
Along the way, he takes us to companies that are enlisting new approaches to motivation and introduces us to the scientists and entrepreneurs who are pointing a bold way forward.
Drive is bursting with big ideas—the rare book that will change how you think and transform how you live. (less)
Hardcover, 242 pages
Published December 29th 2009 by Riverhead Books (first published 2008)
Original Title
Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
Feb 03, 2011Ken rated it really liked it
Shelves: contemporary, finished-in-2011, nonfiction
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 theAutobahn and get up to speed. Really. It's not just for work -- it's for you, too. Motivate yourself. Check it out. (less)
flag402 likes · Like · 37 comments · see review
Jul 11, 2010Paul Eckert rated it it was ok
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.
(less)
flag141 likes · Like · 16 comments · see review
Oct 12, 2013Ian "Marvin" Graye rated it it was amazing
Shelves: cul-poli-phil-art, read-2013, reviews, reviews-5-stars
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! (less)
flag52 likes · Like · 41 comments · see review
Aug 04, 2010Trevor rated it it was amazing
Shelves: behavioural-economics, economics, psychology, social-theory
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.
(less)
flag43 likes · Like · 9 comments · see review
Aug 30, 2010Laura rated it liked it
Shelves: nonfiction
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.
(less)
flag35 likes · Like · 10 comments · see review
Feb 07, 2011Jeanette "Astute Crabbist" rated it liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: audio, cultural-and-social-commentary, how-to, nonfiction
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.
flag34 likes · Like · 6 comments · see review
Jan 04, 2010Phoebe rated it it was ok
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 cert ...more
flag19 likes · Like · 3 comments · see review
Dec 30, 2009Doug rated it it was ok
Shelves: business, nonfiction
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. (less)
flag16 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
May 23, 2010Donalyn rated it really liked it
Shelves: adult-nonfiction
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.
flag15 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
May 15, 2010Jay Connor rated it it was ok
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?"
(less)
flag14 likes · Like · comment · see review
Dec 12, 2017Laura Noggle rated it liked it
Shelves: improvement, nonfiction, business, 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. (less)
flag11 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
Feb 25, 2012Ryan rated it really liked it
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. (less)
flag9 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Jan 12, 2010Carrie Kellenberger rated it it was amazing
Shelves: business, pyschology, business-management, self-help
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 Ushighlights 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.
(less)
flag9 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
May 02, 2010Tomio rated it really liked it
Recommended to Tomio by: Leah
Shelves: poppsych
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. 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.(less)
flag8 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Jan 19, 2011Michael Halligan rated it it was amazing
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! (less)
flag8 likes · Like · comment · see review
May 23, 2011Ken rated it really liked it
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.
(less)
flag7 likes · Like · comment · see review
Feb 18, 2011Lars Guthrie rated it liked it
In his essay about the spate of new books dealing with the effects of the internet on culture in a recent New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics...), Adam Gopnik separates observers into three camps: the Never-Betters, the Better-Nevers, and the Ever-Wasers.
Daniel Pink, as readers of his previous ‘A Whole New Mind,’ will guess, is a Never-Better type, seriously optimistic about our potential and the odds of achieving it.
While ‘Drive’ isn’t specifically about what the Internet is doing to us, it is about the kind of motivation we’ll need in a new age that has come about largely because of online technology. If you can handle Pink’s relentless positivity, he makes a compelling case for reconfiguring the reward and punishment paradigm we’ve been using to get work done.
Pink suggests changing the goal itself to solving problems and creating solutions. That goal will be realized when workers feel their work has purpose, and when they are given the independence to achieve competence in their own way.
We need to throw out ‘Motivation 2.0’ for a new ‘operating system,’ one based on ‘Type I’ behavior, rather than ‘Type X.’ Type I types are ‘fueled more by intrinsic desires that extrinsic ones.’ Type X types are dinosaurs left over from the Industrial Age mentality exemplified by assembly-line advocate Frederick Winslow Taylor, and the behaviorist school mindset personified by B.F. Skinner.
Such a revolution is grounded in work done by newer psychologists, particularly Edward Deci. Deci’s studies indicate that ‘if-then’ motivators for puzzle solvers actually result in subjects performing at a lower level than those who were offered no recompense other than the joy of solving puzzles.
Deci, working with Richard Ryan, developed self-determination theory. Countering behaviorist ideas that our actions are merely the result of responses to positive or negative reinforcements, Deci and Ryan propose that what we do happens because of ‘three innate psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness.’
Pink is a staunch disciple of that philosophy. He presents his case in a most entertaining fashion. As in ‘A Whole New Mind,’ he does a wonderful job of synthesizing disparate strands of evidence, and gives readers lots of great ideas for future exploration.
A couple of issues that are glossed over, however, concern me.
One is economics. Pink acknowledges that on a basic level, intrinsic motivation is not enough compensation for labor. Workers should get fair wages. Indeed, he encourages employers to ‘pay more than average.’ But he never says what is fair, just that it is less than you might think.
Our society runs because it has an infrastructure that is running—although these days you might wonder about that. Many infrastructure jobs are mundane—moving things in, taking things out, keeping the conduits open. People who do that work are needed, but they are often not paid well. Is that fair?
Again, Pink doesn’t deny that there are routine, boring, but necessary jobs that justify ‘if-then’ rewards. He just doesn’t pay too much attention to them, or how much they are worth. Instead, he investigates creative businesses which employ progressive policies.
Far more exciting. Sometimes, though, someone’s got to take out the trash.
The other issue is educational. When I went through SF State’s teaching credential program a few years back, the emphasis was definitely on intrinsic motivation with students. In my subsequent work as a tutor, however, I’ve worked with many special needs kids.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Special Education has a distinctly different take on extrinsic motivators—far less critical—than Regular Ed. Why is that and why does it never seem to be addressed? There are certain areas of behavior where we haven’t yet completely escaped the Skinner box. (less)
flag6 likes · Like · comment · see review
Dec 01, 2009Cath Duncan rated it it was amazing
I got an early copy for the Bottom-line Bookclub. Look out for Drive on the shelves from 29 Dec.
I'm LOVING this latest book by Dan Pink. A Whole New Mind is a stroke of genius in understanding the way that the world of work has changed, and DRIVE is a powerful extension to A Whole New Mind that argues that, because of the ways that the world of work has changed, carrot-and-stick motivation is no longer effective or desirable. Instead, he explains how you can elicit a much more powerful form of motivation - intrinsic motivation, by creating opportunities for autonomy, mastery and purpose in the workplace.
By the time you've read this book, because it's structured so well and written to clearly, you'll probably be able to stand up and give a lecture on the topic, and if you take a bit of time to review and do the practical exercises he suggests, then you'll be making massive changes in your workplace.
Transformational stuff!
You can get the Bottom-line on Drive, including my interview with Daniel Pink over here:
http://www.bottomlinebookclub.com/201... (less)
flag6 likes · Like · comment · see review
Sep 18, 2010David rated it it was amazing
Shelves: business, psychology
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. (less)
flag6 likes · Like · comment · see review
Want to Read
Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Preview
Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
by
Daniel H. Pink (Goodreads Author)
3.94 · Rating details · 72,498 Ratings · 3,559 Reviews
Forget everything you thought you knew about how to motivate people—at work, at school, at home. It's wrong. As Daniel H. Pink (author of To Sell Is Human: The Surprising Truth About Motivating Others) explains in his paradigm-shattering book Drive, the secret to high performance and satisfaction in today's world 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 our lives. He demonstrates that while the old-fashioned carrot-and-stick approach worked successfully in the 20th century, it's precisely the wrong way to motivate people for today's challenges. In Drive, he reveals the three elements of true motivation:
*Autonomy—the desire to direct our own lives
*Mastery—the urge to get better and better at something that matters
*Purpose—the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves
Along the way, he takes us to companies that are enlisting new approaches to motivation and introduces us to the scientists and entrepreneurs who are pointing a bold way forward.
Drive is bursting with big ideas—the rare book that will change how you think and transform how you live. (less)
Hardcover, 242 pages
Published December 29th 2009 by Riverhead Books (first published 2008)
Original Title
Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
Feb 03, 2011Ken rated it really liked it
Shelves: contemporary, finished-in-2011, nonfiction
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 theAutobahn and get up to speed. Really. It's not just for work -- it's for you, too. Motivate yourself. Check it out. (less)
flag402 likes · Like · 37 comments · see review
Jul 11, 2010Paul Eckert rated it it was ok
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.
(less)
flag141 likes · Like · 16 comments · see review
Oct 12, 2013Ian "Marvin" Graye rated it it was amazing
Shelves: cul-poli-phil-art, read-2013, reviews, reviews-5-stars
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! (less)
flag52 likes · Like · 41 comments · see review
Aug 04, 2010Trevor rated it it was amazing
Shelves: behavioural-economics, economics, psychology, social-theory
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.
(less)
flag43 likes · Like · 9 comments · see review
Aug 30, 2010Laura rated it liked it
Shelves: nonfiction
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.
(less)
flag35 likes · Like · 10 comments · see review
Feb 07, 2011Jeanette "Astute Crabbist" rated it liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: audio, cultural-and-social-commentary, how-to, nonfiction
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.
flag34 likes · Like · 6 comments · see review
Jan 04, 2010Phoebe rated it it was ok
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 cert ...more
flag19 likes · Like · 3 comments · see review
Dec 30, 2009Doug rated it it was ok
Shelves: business, nonfiction
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. (less)
flag16 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
May 23, 2010Donalyn rated it really liked it
Shelves: adult-nonfiction
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.
flag15 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
May 15, 2010Jay Connor rated it it was ok
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?"
(less)
flag14 likes · Like · comment · see review
Dec 12, 2017Laura Noggle rated it liked it
Shelves: improvement, nonfiction, business, 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. (less)
flag11 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
Feb 25, 2012Ryan rated it really liked it
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. (less)
flag9 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Jan 12, 2010Carrie Kellenberger rated it it was amazing
Shelves: business, pyschology, business-management, self-help
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 Ushighlights 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.
(less)
flag9 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
May 02, 2010Tomio rated it really liked it
Recommended to Tomio by: Leah
Shelves: poppsych
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. 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.(less)
flag8 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Jan 19, 2011Michael Halligan rated it it was amazing
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! (less)
flag8 likes · Like · comment · see review
May 23, 2011Ken rated it really liked it
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.
(less)
flag7 likes · Like · comment · see review
Feb 18, 2011Lars Guthrie rated it liked it
In his essay about the spate of new books dealing with the effects of the internet on culture in a recent New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics...), Adam Gopnik separates observers into three camps: the Never-Betters, the Better-Nevers, and the Ever-Wasers.
Daniel Pink, as readers of his previous ‘A Whole New Mind,’ will guess, is a Never-Better type, seriously optimistic about our potential and the odds of achieving it.
While ‘Drive’ isn’t specifically about what the Internet is doing to us, it is about the kind of motivation we’ll need in a new age that has come about largely because of online technology. If you can handle Pink’s relentless positivity, he makes a compelling case for reconfiguring the reward and punishment paradigm we’ve been using to get work done.
Pink suggests changing the goal itself to solving problems and creating solutions. That goal will be realized when workers feel their work has purpose, and when they are given the independence to achieve competence in their own way.
We need to throw out ‘Motivation 2.0’ for a new ‘operating system,’ one based on ‘Type I’ behavior, rather than ‘Type X.’ Type I types are ‘fueled more by intrinsic desires that extrinsic ones.’ Type X types are dinosaurs left over from the Industrial Age mentality exemplified by assembly-line advocate Frederick Winslow Taylor, and the behaviorist school mindset personified by B.F. Skinner.
Such a revolution is grounded in work done by newer psychologists, particularly Edward Deci. Deci’s studies indicate that ‘if-then’ motivators for puzzle solvers actually result in subjects performing at a lower level than those who were offered no recompense other than the joy of solving puzzles.
Deci, working with Richard Ryan, developed self-determination theory. Countering behaviorist ideas that our actions are merely the result of responses to positive or negative reinforcements, Deci and Ryan propose that what we do happens because of ‘three innate psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness.’
Pink is a staunch disciple of that philosophy. He presents his case in a most entertaining fashion. As in ‘A Whole New Mind,’ he does a wonderful job of synthesizing disparate strands of evidence, and gives readers lots of great ideas for future exploration.
A couple of issues that are glossed over, however, concern me.
One is economics. Pink acknowledges that on a basic level, intrinsic motivation is not enough compensation for labor. Workers should get fair wages. Indeed, he encourages employers to ‘pay more than average.’ But he never says what is fair, just that it is less than you might think.
Our society runs because it has an infrastructure that is running—although these days you might wonder about that. Many infrastructure jobs are mundane—moving things in, taking things out, keeping the conduits open. People who do that work are needed, but they are often not paid well. Is that fair?
Again, Pink doesn’t deny that there are routine, boring, but necessary jobs that justify ‘if-then’ rewards. He just doesn’t pay too much attention to them, or how much they are worth. Instead, he investigates creative businesses which employ progressive policies.
Far more exciting. Sometimes, though, someone’s got to take out the trash.
The other issue is educational. When I went through SF State’s teaching credential program a few years back, the emphasis was definitely on intrinsic motivation with students. In my subsequent work as a tutor, however, I’ve worked with many special needs kids.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Special Education has a distinctly different take on extrinsic motivators—far less critical—than Regular Ed. Why is that and why does it never seem to be addressed? There are certain areas of behavior where we haven’t yet completely escaped the Skinner box. (less)
flag6 likes · Like · comment · see review
Dec 01, 2009Cath Duncan rated it it was amazing
I got an early copy for the Bottom-line Bookclub. Look out for Drive on the shelves from 29 Dec.
I'm LOVING this latest book by Dan Pink. A Whole New Mind is a stroke of genius in understanding the way that the world of work has changed, and DRIVE is a powerful extension to A Whole New Mind that argues that, because of the ways that the world of work has changed, carrot-and-stick motivation is no longer effective or desirable. Instead, he explains how you can elicit a much more powerful form of motivation - intrinsic motivation, by creating opportunities for autonomy, mastery and purpose in the workplace.
By the time you've read this book, because it's structured so well and written to clearly, you'll probably be able to stand up and give a lecture on the topic, and if you take a bit of time to review and do the practical exercises he suggests, then you'll be making massive changes in your workplace.
Transformational stuff!
You can get the Bottom-line on Drive, including my interview with Daniel Pink over here:
http://www.bottomlinebookclub.com/201... (less)
flag6 likes · Like · comment · see review
Sep 18, 2010David rated it it was amazing
Shelves: business, psychology
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. (less)
flag6 likes · Like · comment · see review
