Dan Pink
Daniel Pink is the author of several bestselling books about the changing world of work, including Free Agent Nation and A Whole New Mind. For his new book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Pink looked at forty years of research on human behavior and found a mismatch between what scientists know about motivation and what business does.
We asked Pink about the best and worst ways to motivate people for today’s challenges.
McLaughlin: What led you to delve into the topic of motivation in the workplace?
Pink: I’ve always been interested in the subject, and I included the idea of intrinsic motivation in my previous books. A Whole New Mind raised questions that pushed me to look at motivation more closely. That book focused on the shift in emphasis from left-brain, logical skills to right-brain, creative abilities.
People’s reaction was—if you’re right about that shift, how do we motivate people to do the more right-brain kind of work? How do we create an environment that will foster those skills?
McLaughlin: Did you discover the answers to those questions in your research?
Pink: When I looked at the science of motivation, what I found surprised me. The classic form of motivation in business is what I call “if-then” motivators: If you do this (or you fail to do it), then you will get that.
These carrot and stick motivators are effective for some types of work, particularly the simple, routine tasks that are such a big part of how people have earned a living in the last couple of centuries. But for creative, conceptual undertakings, the science shows that if-then motivators often don’t work and, in fact, can do harm.
McLaughlin: Why do you think the if-then approach to motivation is so prevalent?
Pink: Well, I actually think the if-then system is one of the greatest achievements of human civilization. The carrot-stick approach to motivation has been as important to economic progress as coal, oil, and steam were in fueling the industrial revolution.
That’s because human beings have a basic drive to respond to rewards and punishment in our environment. And, with our big brains, we are very good at responding to those motivators. But that’s not all that is important to us; human beings have different kinds of motivations.
Obviously, our first drive is biological: We drink when we’re thirsty, eat when we’re hungry, and want to run away when we’re in danger. The second drive—to respond to those carrots and sticks—is also innate. Although, adept as we are at responding to rewards and punishment, our responses are not always totally rational.
We also have a third drive, which is to do things that are interesting; to direct our own lives; to get better at doing whatever we do; to be part of something larger than ourselves; and to do things for their own reward. This drive is just as much a part of being human as the other two drives.
I think there is also an economic urgency to it now because that third drive is essential for people who are engaged in creative, conceptual work.
McLaughlin: Why haven’t managers embraced motivational strategies that address people’s third drive?
Pink: The science is out there about the importance of the third drive, but I don’t think the behavioral scientists have been all that effective in getting the idea into the mainstream. Often, ideas that begin in a laboratory or in academia take time to find their way into popular use. So that’s part of it, but there are a number of other reasons too.
A fundamental reason is that the if-then motivators have worked well for a really long time. And people are reluctant to abandon any method that works unless they can see that it is demonstrably doing harm or there’s some great alternative.
Another reason carrot-stick motivators have endured for so long is that they’re easy to explain, design, implement, monitor, and measure. On the other hand, motivation for the third drive—autonomy and a sense of mastery and purpose—that’s difficult to track. You can’t just pop it on a spreadsheet and see how you’re doing.
McLaughlin: Aren’t some managers trying to motivate people on the third drive, even if that approach is not explicitly part of their organization’s strategy for managing people?
Pink: I think that’s true. I don’t buy the idea that managers are uniformly these bloodless creatures who are lashing the whip on their subordinates. In most cases, they are trying to do right by the people who are on their teams.
But the total organizational context can be antithetical to that effort because, too often, performance evaluations and remuneration are based on very short-term targets, such as quarterly earnings or even monthly performance.
McLaughlin: Do you have any suggestions for managers who want to help people satisfy that third drive?
Pink: Here’s one idea that I have become a believer in: Do-it-yourself performance reviews. People don’t have to rely only on biannual, official performance evaluations—they can do it on their own.
Tell people to lay out their learning goals at the beginning of the month: Here’s what I want to get better at, and maybe add a couple of performance goals. Write all that down. At the end of the month call yourself into your office and ask yourself how you did. Where did you fall short? What other tools do you need?
If I were a manager, I would encourage people to do that. It’s simple and free, and I think it sparks productive conversations.
Some people, especially self-employed types, are forming ad-hoc peer groups to evaluate their performance. Maybe they’re weirded out about talking to themselves in their own office once a month.
Whatever the reason, we all want to know how we’re doing so we can get better at it. We want to move toward mastery. You can’t do that unless you have regular feedback. The twice-a-year feedback people get from the ritual of formal evaluations is just not enough.
McLaughlin: Consultants often work on interim or temporary teams. When you bring people together for a limited period of time, what’s the best way to motivate them?
Pink: I don’t know if it’s all that different from motivation for a team that’s together for a longer time. One mistaken idea that leaders must get past is the notion that motivation is something you do to someone else. Instead, it’s creating the conditions for people to do it for themselves.
It’s not difficult to motivate people on the first and second drives. For example, if I pointed a gun at you, that would get you going. Or if I said I’ll give you $10,000 if this interview gets 5,000 hits in the first week. That would also probably motivate you.
But when it comes to the third drive, your desire to do something that matters, I can’t really do that to you. I can only create conditions in which it can flourish.
To that end, leaders should allow some amount of self-direction and autonomy. That is, not always try to dictate what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. Whenever possible, allow people autonomy over their time and their technique.
A leader or manager must also understand people’s need for mastery—to continually get better at what they do. And, along with autonomy and mastery, people on temporary teams (or in any other unit) want a sense of purpose. They want to know why they are doing this. Why does it matter? How does it plug into something else?
One of the reasons for the high level of disengagement in the workforce is that people don’t know why they’re doing what they’re doing. They’re willing to work hard but they want to make a contribution; they want to know why it matters. I don’t mean matters with a capital M, but that what they do has some significance and that what the broader enterprise does matters in some way.
McLaughlin: One last question: If you could give a leader just one piece of advice about managing the performance of others, what would it be?
Pink: My advice would be to remember that the individuals you’re leading are not that different from you. Managers will say to me well, I have that desire to direct my own life, master things, and to be part of something bigger, but not everybody’s like that; if you give some people autonomy, they’ll just shirk.
First of all, I don’t buy that because I don’t think people are that much different from you and me. Second, if you think the only way some people will be motivated and accountable is if you bribe them, then why do you want them working for your organization in the first place?
McLaughlin: Thanks for your time.
Find out more about Daniel Pink at www.danpink.com.
You might also be interested in our interview, Daniel Pink: A Whole New Mind.
Stay in Touch