Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive, the surprising truth about
what motivates us. New York, New York: Riverhead Books.
Summary
The field of pop-psychology is full of books about how to be
great leaders and motivators. Often
times, these books are written by business leaders with MBAs who have been
successful, business writers who have observed other business leaders becoming successful,
psychologists who offer tips on what can make YOU successful, and even
entrepreneurs with little formal education in the field of psychology or
business documenting what has made them successful.
Daniel Pink is none of those. He is a formally trained lawyer, with his
juris doctorate from Yale. He writes
from the perspective of somebody who has studied economics in addition to law;
his assertions are reasoned and rooted in many economic principles, something
sorely missing from many other “motivational” studies. He writes of his experience studying
economics in the early 1980s: “Economics…was
the study of behavior. [People] were
rational calculators of our economic self-interest” (Pink, 24). He continues by describing how this idea of
pursuit of self-interest persisted in law school; there was no way around it –
the only factor in decision making was an ongoing calculation of
self-interest. But Pink has somewhat of
a crisis of faith in 2002 after the Nobel Prize for economics is given to a
psychologist who argued that the idea of the person as a self-interest calculator
is simply fiction. Decision making, and
thusly motivation, is much more complicated.
Pink then gives a historiography of motivation. According to Pink, Motivation 1.0 was all
about survival. Whatever kept you alive
was your motivation (Pink, 16).
Motivation 2.0 emerges as societies become more complex. Motivation 2.0 is all about seeking reward
and avoiding punishment (Pink, 16). Pink
then spends approximately the next 50 pages debunking much of the assumptions
of Motivation 2.0. For example, Pink
asserts that Motivation 2.0 assumes that “work is inherently not enjoyable”
which is why preferred behaviors are rewarded and questionable behaviors are
punished (Pink, 29). But this is really
just the tip of the iceberg. Pink
suggests that there are 3 fundamental problems with Motivation 2.0 – people are
not only motivated by extrinsic rewards but also by intrinsic purpose, people
are not “single minded economic robots,” and finally, in the 21st
century, work is not simply a labor of necessity but is often creative,
interesting, and stimulating (Pink, 31).
The purpose of Pink’s argument is to arrive at what he calls
Motivation 3.0. And, according to Pink,
there are two types of people – Type I and Type X. Type I are intrinsically motivated (Hence the
“I” nomenclature) and seek to meet their intrinsic needs and desires. Type X are motivated primarily by extrinsic
rewards (Pink, 75). Pink is careful to
offer a non-judgmental analysis of Type X, but he readily admits that Motivation
3.0 hinges on the emergence of Type I, which Pink argues is the natural state
of people and it’s only through learned behavior that we become Type X (Pink,
77).
Finally, Pink describes the 3 components of Motivation 3.0 –
Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose. In his analysis
of these three concepts, Pink gives multiple examples of successful businesses
that have adopted them as fundamental principles. He describes the emergence of the ROWE
(Results Only Work Environment), which emphasizes autonomy rather than control
(Pink, 98). He uses the example of West
Point as an example of mastery which is long term and ongoing (Pink, 122). He highlights the emergence of a huge Baby
Boomer population who seek work beyond the profit margin (Pink, 133). Pink closes the book with a Toolkit to help
the reader, manager, organization that is looking to move from Type X to Type I
(Pink, 150-217).
Evaluation
There were multiple points reading through Pink’s book where
I found myself thinking about my own experience sitting in economics classes
and learning about what is “rational” and “irrational.” Economics is an natural lens with which to
critically examine motivation. One of
components that is consistently missing from many books in the canon of
motivation is the acknowledgement of economic principles. Pink did an interesting thing by addressing
these principles, but then disavowing them right away (Pink, 25). However, Pink is not dismissive of these
principles and doesn’t disavow them because they aren’t true. Rather, he distances his ideas of motivation
from economics by using the ideas of Daniel Kahneman, the 2002 Nobel Prize
winner described above. By doing this,
Pink gives his argument more credibility by virtue of using this cutting edge
economic thinking. His argument becomes
grounded in Kahneman’s radical (but critically supported) idea that people are
more than their economic self-interest.
After imbuing his argument with economic credibility, Pink
bases much of his argument on the findings of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan,
developers of the “Self Determination Theory” (Pink, 69). Self Determination Theory (SDT), Pink
explains, contends that people have three basic psychological needs – “competence,
autonomy, and relatedness” (Pink, 70).
Deci and Ryan have contributed to the field of behavioral psychology in
many ways, and Pink cites them frequently.
However, Pink has compiled a thorough and well-researched synthesis of
many leading thinkers in the fields of behavior psychology, sociology,
economics, and clinical research – Mark Lepper, David Greene, Alfie Kohn, Dan
Ariely, Teresa Amabile, Richard Titmuss, Pierre Azoulay, Anton Suvorov, Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi, Bruno Frey, and Carol Dweck among others.
Throughout most of the book, Pink is careful to not adhere
too closely to one researcher or the other.
He is skilled at synthesizing many different perspectives and narratives
into one cogent argument of his own.
However, Pink falls short in two notable occasions, both in the same chapter. In his chapter titled “Mastery,” Pink bases
the first part of the chapter on the idea of “Flow” established by Mihaly
Czikszentmihalyi. Flow, is essentially
the point when a person is so into what they are doing that “time, place, and
even [sense of self] melt away” (Pink, 113).
The second part of the chapter is entirely based on the work of Carol
Dweck, and specifically her book Mindset. While both Czikszentmihalyi and Dweck are
touchstone authors in their field, Pink’s argument seems somewhat weak by
anchoring so steadfastly to their own.
The other chapters of the book are full of synthesized ideas that
support Pink’s idea, and this chapter comes across as simply a summary of two.
Relevance
As I read Drive,
there were numerous “Whoa, awesome!” moments.
I thought a lot about my work experience before teaching, and realized
why many of my colleagues and I were unhappy.
Our employer definitely adhered to a Motivation 2.0 model, with few
carrots, but lots of sticks. Our
employer used “extrinsic motivators like bonuses, incentive plans, and forced
rankings” (Pink, 19) to get us to do more, which often led to many of the
pitfalls of Motivation 2.0 described by Pink in Chapter 2. Interestingly, our employer used Motivation
2.0 (rewards and punishment), but wanted us to use Motivation 3.0 (purpose
driven, seeking mastery, etc.).
In terms of how I thought about the classroom, I thought
about effective teachers I have seen.
Effective teachers encourage students through Motivation 3.0 without
realizing it, and ineffective teachers are often strict adherents to Motivation
2.0. Many of my own teachers in high
school sought control, and were concerned with memorization rather than
mastery.
But, being out of the classroom made me really think about
the ideas being presented in Drive. There are certainly instances of being able to
help motivate students (Extra-curricular activities, discipline issues, etc.),
but what I thought more about was developing professional development for my
adult colleagues. It would be quite
interesting to develop some kind of PD relating to motivating students and
really exploring and unpacking what we do in our classrooms and school in order
to motivate students. This concept could
relate to our core values, and what makes us, as a professional learning
community, different than larger more traditional learning environments.