Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Drive the surprising science of motivation


Published on

Drive the surprising science of motivation

Drive the surprising science of motivation

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Drive
  • 2. ALSO BY DANIEL H. PINK FreeAgent Nation A Whole New Mind The Adventures ofJohnny Bunko
  • 3. Drive THE SURPRISING TRUTH ABOUT WHAT MOTIVATES US Daniel H. Pink RIVERHEAD BOOKSa member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. New York 2009
  • 4. : r RIVERH EAD BOOKS Publ ished by the Penguin Group Penguin Group (USA ) Inc., 575 Hud son Str eet. New York. N ew York J()()14 . USA Penguin Group (C anad a). 90 E~linton Avenu e East , Su ire 7()(). Tor ont o . Ontar io MAP 2Y5, Canada (a divi sion of Pear son Pen guin Ca nada Inc.) Pen g uin Boo b Ltd . 80 Strand . lond on WC 2R ORL, England Pen guin Ireland , 25 Sr Step he n s G ree n. Dublin 2. Ireland (a division of Pen guin Book s Ltd) Penguin G roup (Au str al ia). 250 Camberwell Road , Ca rnbe rwell, Victori a .1 124 , Australi a (a divi sion of Pearson Au stralia Group Pry ltd ) , Penguin Book s Indi a Pvr ltd , II Co m m u n ity Centre, Pan ch sheel Park, New Delhi-I 10 01 7, Indi a Penguin G ro up (N Z). 6 7 Ap oll o Drive, Rosedale , Norrh Shor e 0 6 .12, N ew Zeal and (a divi sion of Pear son New Zealand ltd) . Penguin Books (South Afri ca) (Pry) ltd , 24 Srurdee Avenue, Rosebank, Johanne sburg 21 96, South Afri ca Penguin Books ltd , Registered Offi ces: 80 Str and , Lond on W C 2R OR l. En glan d Copyright © 2009 by Daniel H. Pink All rights reserved . No parr of this book ma y be reproduced . sca nned, or di stributed in an y printed or electronic form without permission. Plea se d o not part icip ate in or encourage piracy of copy rig h ted materials in violati on of th e au t ho rs right s. Pur chase onl y authorized editi ons. Published simultaneously in Canada The author gratefully acknowledge s permission to reprint from the following : "Sexr. " copyright © 1955 by W . H . Aud en , from Collecte Poems by W. H. Auden. d Used by permission of Random H ouse, Inc. Unless otherwise indicated, all illustrations in thi s book are by Rob Ten Pas. library of Con gress Catalog ing- in-Publi cat ion Dat a Pink . Daniel H . Drive : the surprising truth about what motivates us / Daniel H . Pink . p. em . Includes bibl iographi cal referen ces and index. ISBN 9 78- 1-594 4 8- 88 4 -9 I . Motivation (Psychology) . I. Title, BF503 .P475 200 9 200 90 40 651 15 3.I 5.14----<1c22 Printed in the U n ited Sta tes of America 9 10 8While the a ut ho r has mad e ever y effort to provide acc urate telephone numbers and Inter-net addresses at the time of publication , neither the publi sher nor the author assumesany respon sibility for erro rs , or for changes that occ ur after publi cat ion. Further, the pub -lisher does not hav e any co nt ro l over and doe s nor assume an y respon sibil it y for author orthird-parr y web sire s or their content.
  • 5. For Sophia, Eliza, and Saul-the surprising trio that motivates me
  • 6. CONTENTSI~TRODUCTION: The Puzzling Puzzles of Harry Harlowand Edward Deci 1 U scientific terms, it wasakin to rollinga steelball down an inclined In planeto measure its velocity--onlyto watchthe ballfloat into theair instead. It suggested that ourunderstanding of thegravitationalPIl//s on ourbehavior was inadequate-that what wethoughtwerefixed laws had plentyof loopholes." Part One A New Operating SystemCHAPTER 1. The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0 15 "But in thefirst tenyears of this century-a periodof tr1l1y staggering underachievement in business, technology, and social jwogms-weve
  • 7. discovered that this sturdy, old operating system doesnt work nearly as well. It crashes-s-often and unpredictably. It forces people to devise workarounds to bypass its flaws. Most of a1/, it is provingincompatible with many aspects of contemporary business."CHAPTER 2. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks(Often) Dont Work. .. 34 IIIn otherwords, rewards canperform a weirdsort of behavioral alchemy: They can transform an interesting task into a drudge. They can turn play into work."CHAPTER 2A.... and the Special CircumstancesWhen They Do 60 "While an operating system centered around rewards and punishments has outlivedits usefulness and badly needs an upgrade, that doesnt meanwe shouldscrap its every piece. "CHAPTER 3. Type I and Type X 70 "A picturemay beworth a thousandwords-but sometimes neitheris as potentas just two fetters. "
  • 8. Part Two The Three ElementsCHAPTER 4. Autonomy 85 "Perhaps its time to tossthe veryword management into the linguistic ash heapalongside icebox and horseless carriage. This eradoesnt callfor bettermanagement. It callsfor a renaissance of self-direction. "CHAPTER 5. Mastery 109 "In our offices and ourclassrooms we have way toomuchcompliance and way toolittle engagement. Theformermight getyou throughthe day, but only the latter will getyou throughthe night.".CHAPTER 6. Purpose 131 "Its in our natureto seek purpose. But that natureis now beingrevealed and expressed ona scale that is demographically unprecedented and, until recently, scarcely imaginable. The consequences couldrejuvenate our businesses and remake our world."
  • 9. Pa rt Th ree The Type I ToolkitType I forIndividuals: Nine Strategies forAwakening Your Motivation 153Type I forOrganizations: Nine Ways toImprove Your Company,Office, orGroup 162The Zen ofCompensation: Paying People the Type I Way 170Type I forParents and Educators: Nine Ideas forHelping Our Kids 174The Type I Reading List: Fifteen Essential Books 185Listen tothe Gurus: Six Business Thinkers Who Get It 195The Type I Fitness Plan: Four Tips forGetting (and Staying)Motivated toExercise 201Drive: The Recap 203Drive: The Glossary 209The Drive Discussion Guide: Twenty Conversation Starters toKeep You Thinking and Talking 212Find Out More-About Yourself and This Topic 217Acknowledgments 219N otes 221Index 231
  • 10. Drive
  • 11. I NTRODUCT I ON The Puzzling Puzzles of Harry Harlow and Edward Deci I n the middle of the last century, two young scientists conducted experiments that should have changed the world-but did not. Harry F. Harlow was a professor of psychology at the University. of Wisconsin who, in the 1940s, established one of the worlds first laboratories for studying primate behavior. One day in 1949, Harlow and two colleagues gathered eight rhesus monkeys for a two-week experiment on learning. The researchers devised a simple mechani- cal puzzle like the one pictured on the next page . Solving it required three steps: pull out the vertical pin, undo the hook, and lift the hinged cover. Pretty easy for you and me, far more challenging for a thirteen-pound lab monkey.
  • 12. DRIVEHarlows puzzle in the starting (left) and solved (right ) positions. The experimenters placed the puzzles in the monkeys cages toobserve how they reacted-and to prepare them for tests of theirproblem-solving prowess at the end of the two weeks. But almostimmediately, something strange happened. Unbidden by any outsideurging and unprompted by the experimenters, the monkeys beganplaying with the puzzles with focus, determination, and what lookedlike enjoyment. And in short order, they began figuring out how thecontraptions worked. By the time Harlow tested the monkeys ondays 13 and 14 of the experiment, the primates had become quiteadept. They solved the puzzles frequently and quickly; two-thirds ofthe time they cracked the code in less than sixty seconds. Now, this was a bit odd. Nobody had taught the monkeys howto remove the pin, slide the hook , and open the cover. Nobody hadreward ed them with food, affection, or even quiet applause whenthey succeed ed . And th at ran counter to the accepted notions of howprimates-including the bigger-brained, less hairy primates knownas human beings-behaved. Scientists then knew that two main drives powered behavior. The
  • 13. The Puzzl ing Puzzle s of Harry Harl ow and Edward Decifirst was the biological drive. Humans and other animals ate to satetheir hunger, drank to quench their thirst, and copulated to sati sfytheir carnal urges. But that wasn t happening here . "Solu tio n di d notlead to food, water, or sex gratification," Harlow repo rt ed . I But the only other known drive also failed to explain the mo n-keys peculiar behavior. If biological motivat ions came from within,this second drive came from without-the rewards and punishmentsthe environment delivered for behaving in certain ways. This wascertainly true for humans , who responded exquisitely to such exter-nal forces. If you promised to raise our pay, wed work harder. If youheld out the prospect of getting an A on the test, wed study longer.If you threatened to dock us for showing up late or for incorrectlycompleting a form , wed arrive on time and tick every box. But thatdidnt account for the monkeys actions either. As Harlow wrote , andyou can almost hear him scratching his head , "T he behavior obtainedin this investigation poses some interesting questions for motivation theory, since significant learning was attained and efficient perfor-mance maintained without resort to special or extrinsic incentives." What else could it be? To answer the question, Harlow offered a novel theory-what. amounted to a third drive: "T he performance of the task ," he said ,"p rovided intrinsic reward. " The monkeys solved the puzzles simplybecause th ey found it g ratifying to solve puzzles . The y en joyed it .Th e joy of th e task was its own reward. If th is not ion was radical, what happened next only deepened th econfusio n and contr oversy. Perh aps this newly dis covered dri ve-H arlow eventually called it "intrinsic motivation"-was real. Butsure ly it was subordi nate to th e oth er two dri ves. If th e monkeyswere reward ed-with raisins!-for solvin g th e pu zzles, th eyd nodou bt perfor m even better. Yet when H arlow tested th at ap proach,the mon keys act ually made more errors and solved the pu zzles less
  • 14. DRIVEfrequently. "Int rod uct ion of food in the present experiment, " Harlowwrote , "served to disrupt performance, a phenomenon not reportedin the literature." Now, this was really odd. In scientific terms, it was akin to roll-ing a steel ball down an inclined plane to measure its velocity-only to watch the ball float into the air instead. It suggested thatour understanding of the gravitational pulls on our behavior wasinadequate-that what we thought were fixed laws had plenty ofloopholes. Harlow emphasized the "strength and persistence" of themonkeys drive to complete the puzzles. Then he noted: It would appear that this drive ... may be as basic and strong as the [other} drives. Furthermore, there is some reason to believe that [it} can be as efficient in facilitating learning. "At the time, however, the prevailing two drives held a tight grip onscientific thinking. So Harlow sounded the alarm. He urged scien-tists to "close down large sections of our theoretical junkyard" andoffer fresher, more accurate accounts of human behavior. He warnedthat our explanation of why we did what we did was incomplete. Hesaid that to truly understand the human condition, we had to takeaccount of this third drive. Then he pretty much dropped the whole idea. Rather than battle the establishment and begin offering a morecomplete view of moti vation, Harlow abandoned this contentiousline of research and lat er became famous for studies on the scienceof affect ion." Hi s notion of this third drive bounced around the psy-chological literature, but it remained on the periphery-of behav-ioral science and of our understanding of ourselves. It would be twodecades before another scientist picked up the thread that Harlowhad so provocatively left on that Wisconsin laboratory table.
  • 15. The Pu zzl ing Puzzle s of Harry Ha r l o w and Edward Dec i In the summer of 1969, Edward Deci was a Carnegie Mellon Uni-versity psycholog y g rad uate student in search of a dissertation topi c.Deci , who had alread y earned an MBA from Whart on, was intr ig uedby motivation but suspected that scholars and busines speople hadmisunderstood it . So, tearing a page from th e H arlow pla ybook, heset out to study the topic with the help of a puzzle. Deci chose the Soma puzzle cub e, a th en popular Parker Broth-ers offerin g that , thanks to YouTube , retains something of a cultfollowing today. The puzzle, shown below , consists of seven plasticpieces-six comprising four one-inch cubes, one comprising threeone-inch cubes. Players can assemble the seven pieces into a few mil-lion possible combinations-from abstract shapes to recognizableob jects .The seven p ieces of th e Soma pu zzle unassembled (lef t) arid th en fa shion ed into one ofseveral million possibl e configuration s. For th e st udy, Deci divided participants, male and female uni-versi ty st ude nts, int o an expe rimenta l g roup (what Ill call GroupA) and a contr ol g roup (wha t Ill call Group B). Each parti cip ated int hree one- ho ur sessions held on consec ut ive days . H eres how the sessions work ed : Each parti cip ant entered a roomand sat at a tab le on top of whi ch were th e seven Soma pu zzle pie ces,
  • 16. DRIVEdraw ings of three puzzle configurati ons, and cop ies of Time, TheNewYorker, and Playboy. (Hey, it was 1969.) Deci sat on th e oppo sit e endof the table to explain the instructions and to time performance wit ha stopwatch. In the first session , members of both groups had to assem ble th eSoma pieces to replicate the configurations before them . In th e sec-ond session, they did the same thing with different draw ing s--onlythis time Deci told Group A that they d be paid $1 (the equ ivalentof nearly $6 today) for every configuration they successfull y repro-duced . Group B, meanwhile, got new drawings but no pay. Finall y,in the third session, both groups received new drawings and had toreproduce them for no compensation, just as in session one. (See th etable below.)HOW THE TWO GROUPS WERE TREATED Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Group A No reward Reward No reward Group B No reward No reward No reward The twist came midway through each session. After a participanthad assembled the Soma puzzle pieces to match two of the threedrawings , Deci halted the proceedings. He said that he was go ing togive them a fourth draw ing-but to choose the right one , he neededto feed their com pletion tim es into a computer. And-this bein g thelate 1960s, when room-stradd ling mainframes were the norm anddesktop pes were sti ll a decade away-that meant he had to leavefor a little while. On the way out, he said , "I shall be gone only a few minutes, you
  • 17. The Puzzling Puzzles of Harry Harlow and Edward Decimay do whatever you like while Im gone." But Deci wasnt reallyplugging numbers into an ancient teletype. Instead, he walked toan adjoining room connected to the experiment room by a one-waywindow. Then, for exactly eight minutes, he watched what peopledid when left alone. Did they continue fiddlin g with the puzzle,perhaps attempting to reproduce the third draw ing ? Or did th ey dosomething else-page through the magazines, check out the center-fold, stare into space, catch a quick nap? In the first session, not surprisingly, there wasnt much differencebetween what the Group A and Group B participants did duringthat secretly watched eight-minute free-choice period. Both contin-ued playing with the puzzle, on average, for between three and ahalf and four minutes, suggesting they found it at least somewhatinteresting. On the second day, during which Group A participants were paidfor each successful configuration and Group B participants were not, theunpaid group behaved mostly as they had during the first free-choiceperiod . But the paid group suddenly got really interested in Soma puz-zles. On average, the people in Group A spent more than five minutesmessing with the puzzle, perhaps getting a head start on that thirdchallenge or gearing up for the chance to earn some beer money whenDeci returned. This makes intuitive sense, right? Its consistent withwhat we believe about motivation: Reward me and Ill work harder. Yet what happened on the third day confirmed Decis own suspi-cions about the peculiar workings of motivation-and gently calledinto question a guiding premise of modern life. This time, Deci toldthe participants in Group A that there was only enough money topay them for one day and that this third session would therefore beunpaid . Then things unfolded just as before-two puzzles, followedby Deci s interruption .
  • 18. DRIVE During the ensuing eight-mi nute free-choice period , t he sub-jects in the never-be en -paid Group B actually played with th e puzzlefor a little longer than they had in pr eviou s sessions. Maybe theywere becoming ever more engaged ; mayb e it was just a statisticalquirk. But the subjects in Group A, who pr eviou sly had been paid ,responded differently. They now spent significantly less time play-ing with the puzzle-not only about two minutes less than du r-ing their paid session, but about a full minute less than in th e firstsession when they initially encountered, and obviously en joyed , th epuzzles. In an echo of what Harlow discovered two decades earlier, Decirevealed that human motivation seemed to operate by laws that rancounter to what most scientists and citizens believed. From the officeto the playing field, we knew what got people going . Rewards-especially cold, hard cash-intensified interest and enhanced per-formance. What Deci found , and then confirmed in two additionalstudies he conducted shortly thereafter, was almost the oppos ite ."W hen money is used as an external reward for some activ it y, thesubjects lose intrinsic interest for the activity," he wrote.? Rewardscan deliver a short-term boost-just as a jolt of caffeine can keepyou cranking for a few more hours. But the effect wears off-and ,worse, can reduce a persons longer-term motivation to continue theproject. Human beings, Deci said , have an "inherent tendency to seekout novelty and challen ges, to extend and exercise their capac ities,to explore, and to learn. " But this third drive was more fragile th anthe ot her two ; it needed the right environment to survi ve. "O newho is interested in developing and enhancing intrinsic rnoti va-tion in children, employees, students, et c., should not concentrate onexte rnal-control systems such as monetary rewards ," he wrote in a
  • 19. The Puzzling Puzzles of Harry Harlow and Edward Decifollow-up paper. " Thus began what for Deci became a lifelong questto rethink why we do what we do--a pursuit that sometimes puthim at odds with fellow psychologists, got him fired from a businessschool , and challenged the operating assumptions of organ izationseverywhere. "It was controversial," Deci told me one spring morning fortyyears after the Soma experiments. "Nobody was expecting rewardswould have a negative effect."THIS IS A BOOK about motivation. I will show that much of whatwe believe about the subject just isnt so--and that the insights thatHarlow and Deci began uncovering a few decades ago come muchcloser to the truth. The problem is that most businesses haventcaught up to this new understanding of what motivates us. Too manyorganizations-not just companies, but governments and nonprofitsas well-still operate from assumptions about human potential andindividual performance that are outdated, unexamined, and rootedmore in folklore than in science. They continue to pursue practicessuch as short-term incentive plans and pay-for-performance schemesin the face of mounting evidence that such measures usually dontwork and often do harm. Worse, these practices have infiltrated ourschools , where we ply our future workforce with iPods, cash, andpizza coupons to "incenrivize" them to learn. Something has gonewrong . The good news is that the solution stands before us-in thework of a band of behavioral scientists who have carried on the pio-neering effort s of Harlow and Deci and whose quiet work over thelast half-century offers us a more dynamic view of human motiva-tion. For too long, theres been a mismatch between what science
  • 20. DRIVEknows and what business does. The goal of this book is to repair thatbreach. Drive has three parts. Part One will look at the flaws in ourreward-and-punishment system and propose a new way to thinkabout motivation. Chapter 1 will examine how the prevailing viewof motivation is becoming incompatible with many aspects of con-temporary business and life. Chapter 2 will reveal the seven rea-sons why carrot-and-stick extrinsic motivators often produce theopposite of what they set out to achieve. (Following that is a shorraddendum, Chapter 2a, that shows the special circumstances whencarrots and sticks actually can be effective.) Chapter 3 will introducewhat I call "Type I" behavior, a way of thinking and an approach tobusiness grounded in the real science of human motivation and pow-ered by our third drive--our innate need to direct our own lives, tolearn and create new things, and to do better by ourselves and ourworld. Part Two will examine the three elements of Type I behavior andshow how individuals and organizations are using them to improveperformance and deepen satisfaction. Chapter 4 will explore auton-omy, our desire to be self-directed. Chapter 5 will look at mastery,our urge to get better and better at what we do. Chapter 6 willexplore purpose, our yearning to be part of something larger thanourselves. Part Three, the Type I Toolkit, is a comprehensive set of resourcesto help you create settings in which Type I behavior can flourish.Here you ll find everything from dozens of exercises to awakenmotivation in yourself and others, to discussion questions for yourbook club, to a supershort summary of Drive that will help youfake your way through a cocktail party. And while this book ismostly about business, in this section Ill offer some thoughts about 10
  • 21. The Puzzling Puzzles of Harry Harlow and Edward Decihow to apply these concepts to education and to our lives outside ofwork. But before we get down to all that, lets begin with a thoughtexperiment, one that requires going back in time-to the days whenJohn Major was Britains prime minister, Barack Obama was a skinnyyoung law professor, Internet connections were dial-up, and a black-berry was still just a fruit. 11
  • 22. Part One A Ne.wOperating System
  • 23. CHAPTER 1 The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0Imagine its 1995. You sit down with an economist-an accom- plished business school professor with a Ph.D. in economics. Yousay to her: "Ive got a crystal ball here that can peer fifteen years intothe future. Id like to test your forecasting powers." Shes skeptical, but she decides to humor you. "Im going to describe two new encyclopedias---one just out, theother to be launched in a few years. You have to predict which willbe more successful in 2010." "Bring it," she says. "The first encyclopedia comes from Microsoft. As you know,Microsoft is already a large and profitable company. And with thisyears introduction of Windows 95, its about to become an era-defining colossus. Microsoft will fund this encyclopedia. It willpay professional writers and editors to craft articles on thousands
  • 24. DRIVEof topics. Well-compensated managers will oversee the proje ct toensure it s completed on budget and on time. Then Micro soft willsell the encyclopedia on CD-ROMs and later online. "The second encyclopedia won t come from a company. It will becreated by tens of thousands of people who write and edit articles forfun. These hobbyists won t need any special qualifications to partici-pate. And nobody will be paid a dollar or a euro or a yen to writeor edit articles. Participants will have to contribute their labor-sometimes twenty and thirty hours per week-for free. The encyclo-pedia itself, which will exist online, will also be free-no charge foranyone who wants to use it. "Now," you say to the economist, "think forward fifteen years.According to my crystal ball, in 2010, one of these encyclopediaswill be the largest and most popular in the world and the other willbe defunct. Which is which?" In 1995, I doubt you could have a found a single sober econ-omist anywhere on planet Earth who would not have picked thatfirst model as the success. Any other conclusion would have beenlaughable--contrary to nearly every business principle she taughther students. It would have been like asking a zoologist who wouldwin a 200-meter footrace between a cheetah and your brother-in-law.Not even close. Sure, that ragtag band of volunteers might produce something.But there was no way its product could compete with an offeringfrom a powerful profit-driven company. The incentives were allwrong. Microsoft stood to gain from the success of itsproduct; every-one involved in the other project knew from the outset that successwould earn them nothing. Most important, Microsofts writers, edi-tors, and managers were paid . The other projects contributors werenot. In fact, it probably cost them money each time they performedfree work instead of remunerative labor. The question was such a 16
  • 25. The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0no-brainer that our economist wouldnt even h~ve considered put-ting it on an exam for her MBA class. It was too easy. But you know how things turned out . On October 31, 2009, Microsoft pulled the plug on MSN Encarta,its disc and online encyclopedia, which had been on the market forsixteen years. Meanwhile, Wikipedia-that second model-endedup becoming the largest and most popular encyclopedia in the world.Just eight years after its inception, Wikipedia had more than 13 mil-lion articles in some 260 languages, including 3 million in Englishalone. What happened? The conventional view of human motivationhas a very hard time explaining this result.THE TRIUMPH OF CARROTS AND STICKSC omputers- whether the giant mainframes in Decis experiments, the iMac on which Im writing this sentence, or the mobile phonechirping in your pocket-all have operating systems. Beneath thesurface of the hardware you touch and the programs you manipulateis a complex layer of software that contains the instructions, proto-cols, and suppositions that enable everything to function smoothly.Most of us don t think much about operating systems. We noticethem only when they start failing-when the hardware and softwarethey re supposed to manage grow too large and complicated for thecurrent operating system to handle. Then our computer starts crash-ing. We complain. And smart software developers, whove alwaysbeen tinkering with pieces of the program, sit down to write a fun-damentally better one-an upgrade. Societie s also have operating systems. The laws, social customs, 17
  • 26. DRIVEand economic arrange me nts th at we encounte r each day sit atopa layer of instructions , protocols, and suppositions about how th eworld work s. And mu ch of our societa l operating syste m consis ts ofa set of assumptions about human behavior . In our very early days-I mean very early days, say, fifty th ou-sand years ago-the underlying assumption about human behav-ior was simple and true. We were trying to survive. From roam ingthe savannah to gather food to scrambling for th e bu shes when asaber-toothed tiger approached, that drive guided most of ourbehavior. Call this early operating system Mot ivation 1.0. It wasntespecially elegant, nor was it much different from those of rhesusmonkeys, giant apes, or many other animals . But it served us nicely.It worked well. Until it didn t. As humans formed more complex societies, bumping up aga inststrangers and needing to cooperate in order to get things done , anoperating system based purely on the biological drive was inadequate.In fact , sometimes we needed ways to restrain this drive-to pre ventme from swiping your dinner and you from stealing m y spouse. Andso in a feat of remarkable cultural engineering , we slowl y repl acedwhat we had with a version more compatible with how wed begunworking and living. At the core of this new and improved operating system was arevised and more accurate assumption: Humans are more than thesum of our biolo gical urges. That first drive still mattered-nodoubt about th at-but it didn t fully account for who we are . W ealso had a second drive-to seek reward and avoid punishment morebroa d ly. And it was from this insight th at a new oper ating system-call it Motivation 2.0- arose. (Of course , other anima ls also respondto reward s and punishments , but only humans have proved ableto channel thi s drive to develop everything from contract law toconvenie nce stores.) 18
  • 27. The Ris and Fa l l of Mot ivation 2.0 H arn ssin thi s second drive has been essential to economic progressaround the world , especially during the last two centuries. Consider theIndu str ial Revolution. Technological developments -steam engines,railroads, widespread electricity-played a crucial role in fostering thegrowth of industry. But so did less tangible innovation s- in part icular,the work of an American eng ineer named Frederick Win slow Taylor.In the early 1900s , Taylor, who believed businesses were being run inan inefficient , haphazard way, invented what he called "scientific man-agement." His invention was a form of "software" expertly crafted torun atop the Motivation 2.0 platform. And it was widely and quicklyadopted. Workers , this approach held, were like parts in a complicatedmachine. If they did the right work in the right way at the righttime, th e machine would function smoothly. And to ensure that hap-pened, you simply rewarded the behavior you sought and punishedth e behavior you discouraged. People would respond rationally toth ese external forces-these extrinsic motivators-and both theyand the system itsel f would flourish. We tend to think that coal andoil have powered economic development. But in some sense, theengine of commerce has been fueled equally by carrots and sticks. T he Mot ivat ion 2.0 operating system has endured for a very longtime. Indeed , it is so deeply embedded in our lives that most of usscarcely recogn ize th at it exists. For as long as any of us can remem-ber, weve configured our organizations and constructed our livesaround its bedro ck assumpt ion: The way to improve performance,increase product ivity, and encourage excellence is to reward the goodand punis h th e bad . Despite its g reate r sophistication and high er aspirations, Motiva-tion 2.0 still wasnt exactly ennobling. It suggested that, in the end,human beings arent mu ch di fferent from horses-that the way toge t us movin g in the righ t di rection is by dangling a crunchier carrot 19
  • 28. DRIVEor wielding a sharper stick. But what this operating system lackedin enlightenment, it made up for in effectiveness. It worked well-extremely well. Until it didnt. As the twentieth century progressed, as economies grew stillmore complex, and as the people in them had to deploy new, moresophisticated skills, the Motivation 2.0 approach encountered someresistance. In the 1950s, Abraham Maslow, a former student ofHarry Harlows at the University of Wisconsin, developed the fieldof humanistic psychology, which questioned the idea that humanbehavior was purely the ratlike seeking of positive stimuli andavoidance of negative stimuli. In 1960, MIT management professorDouglas McGregor imported some of Maslows ideas to the businessworld. McGregor challenged the presumption that humans are fun-damentally inert-that absent external rewards and punishments,we wouldnt do much. People have other, higher drives, he said. Andthese drives could benefit businesses if managers and business leadersrespected them. Thanks in part to McGregors writing, companiesevolved a bit. Dress codes relaxed, schedules became more flexible.Many organizations looked for ways to grant employees greaterautonomy and to help them grow. These refinements repaired someweaknesses, but they amounted to a modest improvement ratherthan a thorough upgrade-Motivation 2.1. And so this general approach remained intact-because it was,after all, easy to understand, simple to monitor, and straightforwardto enforce. But in the first ten years of this century-a period oftruly staggering underachievement in business, technology, andsocial progress-weve discovered that this sturdy, old operating sys-tem doesn t work nearly as well. It crashes--often and unpredictably.It forces peopl e to devise workarounds to bypass its flaws. Most ofall, it is proving incompatible with many aspects of contemporary 20
  • 29. The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0business. And if we examine those incompatibility problems closely,well realize that modest updates-a patch here or there -will notsolve the problem. What we need is a full-scale upgrade.THREE INCOMPATIBILITY PROBLEMS otivation 2.0 still serves some purposes well. Its just deeply unreliable. Sometimes it works; many times it doesnt. Andunderstanding its defects will help determine which parts to keepand which to discard as we fashion an upgrade. The glitches fall intothree broad categories. Our current o~erating system has become farless compatible with, and at times downright antagonistic to: howwe organize what we do; how we think about what we do; and how wedo what we do.How We Organize What We DoGo back to that encyclopedic showdown between Microsoft andWikipedia. The assumptions at the heart of Motivation 2.0 suggestthat such a result shouldnt even be possible. Wikipedias triumphseems to defy the laws of behavioral physics . Now, if this all-volunteer, all-amateur encyclopedia were the onlyinstance of its kind, we might dismiss it as an aberration, an excep-tion that proves the rule. But its not. Instead, Wikipedia representsthe most powerful new business model of the twenty-first century:open source. 21
  • 30. DRIVE Fire up your hom e computer, for exam ple. When you visit theWeb to check th e weath er forecast or ord er some sneakers, you mightbe usin g Firefox, a free open -sour ce W eb browser created almostexclusiv ely by volunteers around th e world . U npaid labo rers wh og ive away their product ? Th at could n t be susta inable. Th e incentivesare all wrong. Yet Firefox now has mor e than 150 milli on users. Or walk into the IT department of a large company an ywherein the world and ask for a tour. That companys corpo rate com puterservers could well run on Linux , software devised by an arm y ofunpaid programmers and available for free. Linu x now powers onein four corporate servers. Then ask an employee to exp lain how thecompanys website works. Humming beneath the site is pr obab lyApache, free open-source Web server software created and ma in-tained by a far-flung global group of volunteers . Apaches share of th ecorporate Web server marker: 52 percent. In other words , com paniesthat typically rely on external rewards to manage their employeesrun some of their most important systems with products created bynonemployees who dont seem to need such rewards. And its not just the tens of thousands of software pro jects acrossthe globe. Today you can find: open-source cookbooks ; open-sour cetextbooks; open-source car design; open-source medical research ;open-source legal briefs; open-source stock photogr aph y; open-s ourceprosthetics; open-source credit unions; open-source cola; and forthose for whom soft drinks won t suffice, open-source beer. This new way of org anizing what we do doesn t banish extrins icreward s. Peopl e in the ope n-source movement haven t taken vowsof povert y. For many, pa rt icipa tion in these projects can burnishtheir repu tat ions and sharpen th eir sk ills, wh ich can enha nce the irearning pow er. Entrepr eneurs have laun ched new, and som et im eslucrative, com panies to help organ izations implement and maintainop en -sourc e software app licat ions. 22
  • 31. The Rise and Fall of Motiv ation 2.0 But ultimately, open source depends on intrinsic motivationwith the sam e ferocity that older business models rely on extrin-sic motivation, as several scholars have shown. MIT managementprofessor Kar im Lakh ani and Boston Consulting Group consultantBob Wol f surve yed 684 open-source developers, mostl y in No rthAmerica and Europe, about why they part icipated in these proje cts.Lakhan i and Wolf uncovered a range of mot ives, but th ey found"t hat enjo yment-based intrinsic motivation , namely how creative aperson feels when working on the project, is the strongest and mostpervasiv e dr iver.? A large majority of programmers, the research-ers di scovered, reported that they frequently reached the state ofopti ma l challenge called "flow." Likewise , three German economistswho studied open-source projects around the world found that whatdr ives participants is -"a set of predominantly intrinsic motives"-in part icular, "t he fun .. . of mastering the challenge of a givensoftwa re problem" and the "desire to give a gift to the program-mer cornrnuniry" Motivation 2.0 has little room for these sorts ofimpulses. Whats more , open source is only one way people are restructur-ing what the y do along new organ izational lines and atop differentmo tiv atio nal ground. Let s move from software code to the legal code.T he laws in most developed countries permit essentially two typesof business organ izations-profit and nonprofit. One makes money,the ot her does good. And the most prominent member of that firstcategory is the publicly held corporation--owned by shareholdersand run by managers who are overseen by a board of directors . Themanagers and di rectors bear one overr idin g responsibility: to maxi-mi ze share holde r gai n. Other typ es of business organizations steer bythe same rules of the road . In th e United Stat es, for instance, partner-ships, S corpo ratio ns, C corporations, limited liability corporations,and other business configuratio ns all aim toward a com mon end . Th e 23
  • 32. DRIVEobje ctive of those who run th em-practi call y, legall y, in some waysmorally-is to maximize profit . Let me g ive a rousing , heartfelt, and grateful cheer for th ese busi -ness forms and the farsighted count ries that enable th eir citi zens tocreate them. Without them , our lives would be in finit ely less p ros-perous, less healthy, and less happy. But in th e last few years, severalpeople around the world have been changing the recipe and cookingup new varieties of business organizations. For example, in April 2008, Vermont became the first U .S. stateto allow a new type of business called the "low-p rofit lim ite d lia-bility corporation. " Dubbed an L3C, this entity is a corporation-but not as we typically think of it. As one report expla ined , an L3C"operatejs] like a for-profit business generating at least modest pro f-its, but its primary aim [is} to offer significant social benefits. " Threeother U.S. states have followed Vermonts lead ." An L3C in N orthCarolina, for instance, is buying abandoned furniture factor ies in thestate, updating them with green technology, and leasin g them backto beleaguered furniture manufacturers at a low rate. The venturehopes to make money, but its real purpose is to help revit alize astruggling region. Meanwhile, Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus hasbegun creating what he calls "social businesses. " These are compa-nies that raise capital, develop products , and sell them in an openmarket but do so in th e service of a larger social mission-s-or as heputs it , "with the pro fit-max im izat ion principle repl aced by thesocial-b enefit princip le." The Fourth Sector N etwork in the U nitedStates and Denmark is promoting "the for-b enefit organi zation"-ahybrid th at it says represents a new category of organi zation th at isboth economically self-sustaining and ani ma ted by a public purpose.One exam ple: Mozilla, the entity that gave us Firefox, is organi zed 24
  • 33. The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0as a "for-benefit" organization. And three U.S. entrepreneurs haveinvented the CCB Corporation," a designation that requires companiesto amend their bylaws so that the incentives favor long-term valueand social impact instead of short-term economic gain. Neither open-source production nor previously unimagined "notonly for profit" businesses are yet the norm, of course. And theywont consign the public corporation to the trash heap. But theiremergence tells us something important about where were head-ing. "Theres a big movement out there that is not yet recognized asa movement," a lawyer who specializes in for-benefit organizationstold The New York Times. 6 One reason could be that traditional busi-nesses are profit maximizers, which square perfectly with Motivation2.0. These new entities are purpose maximizers-which are unsuited tothis older operating system because they Bout its very principles.How We Think About What We DoWhen I took my first economics course back in the early 1980s, ourprofessor-a brilliant lecturer with a Patton-like stage presence-offered an important clarification before shed chalked her first indif-ference curve on the blackboard. Economics, she explained, wasntthe study of money. It was the study of behavior. In the course ofa day, each of us was constantly figuring the cost and benefits ofour actions and then deciding how to act. Economists studied whatpeople did, rather than what we said, because we did what was bestfor us. We were rational calculators of our economic self-interest. When I studied law a few years later, a similar idea reappeared.The newly ascendant field of "law and economics" held that precisely 25
  • 34. DRIVEbecause we were such awesome self-interest calculators, laws andregulations often impeded, rather than permitted, sensible and justoutcomes. I survived law school in no small part because I discoveredthe talismanic phrase and offered it on exams: "In a world of perfectinformation and low transaction costs, the parties will bargain to awealth-maximizing result." Then, about a decade later, came a curious turn of events thatmade me question much of what Id worked hard, and taken on enor-mous debt, to learn. In 2002, the Nobel Foundation awarded itsprize in economics to a guy who wasnt even an economist. Andthey gave him the fields highest honor largely for revealing that wewerent always rational calculators of our economic self-interest andthat the parties often didnt bargain to a wealth-maximizing result.Daniel Kahneman, an American psychologist who won the NobelPrize in economics that year for work hed done with Israeli AmosTversky, helped force a change in how we think about what we do .And one of the implications of this new way of thinking is that itcalls into question many of the assumptions of Motivation 2.0. Kahneman and others in the field of behavioral economics agreedwith my professor that economics was the study of human economicbehavior. They just believed that wed placed too much emphasison the economic and not enough on the human. That hyperrationalcalculator-brained person wasn t real. He was a convenient fiction. Playa game with me and Ill try to illustrate the point. Supposesomebody gives me ten dollars and tells me to share it-some, all ,or none-with you. If you accept my offer, we both get to keep themoney. If you reject it, neither of us gets anything. If I offered yousix dollars (keeping four for myself), would you take it? Almost cer-tainly. If I offered you five, youd probably take that, too. But what ifI offered you two dollars? Would you take it ? In an experiment rep- 26
  • 35. The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0Iicated around the world, most people rejected offers of two dollarsand below." That makes no sense in terms of wealth maximization.If you take my offer of two dollars, youre two dollars richer. If youreject it, you get nothing. Your cognitive calculator knows two isgreater than zero-but because youre a human being, your notionsof fair play or your desire for revenge or your simple irritation over-rides it. In real life our behavior is far more complex than the textbookallows and often confounds the idea that were purely rational.We dont save enough for retirement even though its to our cleareconomic advantage to do so. We hang on to bad investments lon-ger than we should, because we feel far sharper pain from losingmoney than we do from gaining the exact same amount. Give usa choice of two television sets, well pick one; toss in an irrelevantthird choice, and well pick the other. In short, we are irrational-and predictably so, says economist Dan Ariely, author of PredictablyIrrational, a book that offers an entertaining and engaging overviewof behavioral economics. The trouble for our purposes is that Motivation 2.0 assumes werethe same robotic wealth-maximizers I was taught we were a couple ofdecades ago. Indeed , the very premise of extrinsic incentives is thatwell always respond rationally to them. But even most economistsdon t believe that anymore. Sometimes these motivators work. Oftenthey don t. And many times, they inflict collateral damage. In short,the new way economists think about what we do is hard to reconcilewith Motivation 2.0. Whats more , if people do things for lunk-headed, backward-looking reasons, why wouldnt we also do things for significance-seeking , self-actualizing reasons? If were predictably irrational-andwe clearly are-why couldn t we also be predictably transcendent? 27
  • 36. DRIVE If that seems far-fetched, consider some of our other bizarre behav-iors. We leave lucrative jobs to take low-paying ones that provide aclearer sense of purpose. We work to master the clarinet on week-ends although we have little hope of making a dime (Motivation 2.0)or acquiring a mate (Motivation 1.0) from doing so. We play withpuzzles even when we dont get a few raisins or dollars for solvingthem. Some scholars are already widening the reach of behavioral eco-nomics to encompass these ideas. The most prominent is BrunoFrey, an economist at the University of Zurich. Like the behavioraleconomists, he has argued that we need to move beyond the idea ofHomo Oeconomicus (Economic Man, that fictional wealth-maximizingrobot). But his extension goes in a slightly different direction-towhat he calls Homo Oeconomicus Maturus (or Mature Economic Man ).This figure, he says, "is more mature in the sense that he is endowedwith a more refined motivational structure. " In other words, to fullyunderstand human economic behavior, we have to come to termswith an idea at odds with Motivation 2.0. As Frey writes, "Intr in-sic motivation is of great importance for all economic activities. It isinconceivable that people are motivated solely or even mainly byexternal incentives. :"How We Do What We DoIf you manage other people, take a quick glance over your shoul-der. Theres a ghost hovering there. His name is Frederick WinslowTaylor-remember him from earlier in the chapter?-and hes whis-pering in your ear. "W ork ," Taylor is murmuring, "consists mainly 28
  • 37. The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0of simple not particularly interesting, tasks. The only way to getpeople to do them is to incentivize them properly and monitor themcar fully." In the early 1900s, Taylor had a point. Today, in much of the world, thats less true. Yes, for some people work remains routine, unchallenging, and directed by others. But for a surprisingly large number of people, jobs have become more complex, more interest- ing, and more self-directed. And that type of work presents a direct challenge to the assumptions of Motivation 2.0. Begin with complexity. Behavioral scientists often divide what we do on the job or learn in school into two categories: "algorith- mic" and "heuristic." An algorithmic task is one in which you fol- low a set of established instructions down a single pathway to one conclusion. That is, theres an algorithm for solving it. A heuristic task is the opposite. Precisely because no algorithm exists for it, you have to experiment with possibilities and devise a novel solution. Working as a grocery checkout clerk is mostly algorithmic. You do pretty much the same thing over and over in a certain way. Creat- ing an ad campaign is mostly heuristic. You have to come up with something new. During the twentieth century, most work was algorithmic-and. not just jobs where you turned the same screw the same way all day long. Even when we traded blue collars for white, the tasks we car- ried out were often routine. That is, we could reduce much of what we did-in accounting, law, computer programming, and other fields-to a script, a spec sheet, a formula, or a series of steps that produced a right answer. But today, in much of North America, West- ern Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, routine white-collar work is disappearing. It s racing offshore to wherever it can be done the cheapest. In India, Bulgaria, the Philippines, and other coun- tries , lower-paid workers essentially run the algorithm, figure out 29
  • 38. DRIVEthe correct answer , and deliver it instantaneously from th eir com -puter to someone six thousand miles away. But offshoring is just one pressure on rule-based , left-brain work .Just as oxen and then forklifts replaced simple physical labor , com -puters are replacing simple intellectual labor. So while outsourcingis just beginning to pick up speed, software can already performmany rule-based, professional functions better, more quickly, andmore cheaply than we can. That means that your cousin the CPA ,if he s doing mostly routine work, faces competition not just fromfive-hundred-dollar-a-month accountants in Manila, but from taxpreparation programs anyone can download for thirty dollars. Theconsulting firm McKinsey & Co. estimates that in the United States ,only 30 percent of job growth now comes from algorithmic work ,while 70 percent comes from heuristic work. ? A key reason: Routinework can be outsourced or automated; artistic, empathic , nonroutinework generally cannot. 10 The implications for motivation are vast. Researchers such asHarvard Business Schools Teresa Amabile have found that externalrewards and punishments-both carrots and sticks-can work nicel yfor algorithmic tasks. But they can be devastating for heuristic ones .Those sorts of challenges-solving novel problems or creating some-thing the world didnt know it was missing-depend heavil y onHarlows third drive. Amabile calls it the intrinsic motivation prin-ciple of creativity, which holds, in part: "Int rinsic motivation is con-ducive to creativity; cont rolling extrinsic motivation is detrimentalto creat ivity. "! In other words, the central tenets of Motivation 2.0may actually impair performance of the heuristic, right-brain workon which modern economies depend. Partly because work has become more creative and less routine,it has also become more enjoyable. That, too, scrambles Motivation2.0 s assumptions. This operating system rests on the belief that 30
  • 39. - - - - - - - 1 lie rrt e IIl1 reill UI IVIUl:IVCJl:IUII L.U ork is not inherently enjoyable-which is precisely why we must coax people with external rewards and threaten them with outside punishment. One unexpected finding of the psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, whom well encounter in Chapter 5, is that peo- ple are much more likely to report having "optimal experiences" on the job than during leisure. But if work is inherently enjoyable for more and more people, then the external inducements at the heart of Motivation 2.0 become less necessary. Worse, as Deci began dis- covering forty years ago, adding certain kinds of extrinsic rewards on top of inherently interesting tasks can often dampen motivation and diminish performance. Once again, certain bedrock notions suddenly seem less sturdy. Take the curious example of Vocation Vacations. This is a business in which people pay their hard-earned money ... to work at another job. They use their vacation time to test-drive being a chef, running a bike shop, or operating an animal shelter. The emergence of this and similar ventures suggests that work, which economists have always considered a "disutility" (something wed avoid unless we received a payment in return), is becoming a "utility" (something wed pursue even in the absence of a tangible return). Finally, because work is supposed to be dreary, Motivation 2.0 holds that people need to be carefully monitored so they dont shirk. This idea, too, is becoming less relevant and, in many ways, less pos- sible. Consider, for instance, that America alone now has more than 18 million of what the U.S. Census Bureau calls "non-employer businesses"-businesses without any paid employees. Since people in these businesses dont have any underlings, they dont have anybody to manage or motivate. But since they dont have bosses themselves, theres nobody to manage or motivate them. They have to be self- directed. So do people who arent technically working for themselves. In 31
  • 40. DRIVEthe United States , 33 .7 million people telecornmute at least one daya month, and 14.7 million do so every day-placing a sub stantialportion of the workforce beyond the gaze of a manager, forcing themto direct their own work. ? And even if many organizations haven topted for measures like these, they re generally becoming leanerand less hierarchical. In an effort to reduce costs, they trim the fatt ymiddle. That means managers oversee larger numbers of people andtherefore scrutinize each one less closely. As organizations flatten, companies need people who are self-motivated. That forces many organizations to become more like , er,Wikipedia. Nobody "manages" the Wikipedians. Nobody sits aroundtrying to figure out how to "motivate" them. Thats why W ikipediaworks. Routine, not-so-interesting jobs require direction; non-routine, more interesting work depends on self-direction. One busi-ness leader, who didnt want to be identified, said it plainly. When heconducts job interviews, he tells prospective employees: "If you needme to motivate you, I probably dont want to hire you. "To RECAP, Motivation 2.0 suffers from three compatibility prob-lems. It doesnt mesh with the way many new business models areorganizing what we do--because were intrinsically motivated pur-pose maximizers, not only extrinsically motivated profit maximizers.It doesnt comport with the way that twenty-first-century economicsthinks about wh at we do--because economists are finally realizingthat were full- fledge d human beings, not single-minded economicrobo ts. And perhaps most important, its hard to reconcile withmuch of what we actually do at work-because for growing num-bers of people, work is often creative, interesting, and self-directedrather than unrelentingly routine, boring, and other-direct d. Taken
  • 41. The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0together, these compatibility problems warn us that somethingsgone awry in our motivational operating system. But in order to figure out exactly what, and as an essentialstep in fashioning a new one, we need to take a look at the bugsthemselves. 33
  • 42. CHAPTER 2 Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work ...A n object in motion will stay in motion, and an object at restwill stay at rest unless actedon by an outside force. , Thats Newtons first law of motion. Like Newtons other laws,this one is elegant and simple-which is part of its power. Even peo-ple like me, who bumbled through high school physics, can under-stand it and can use it to interpret the world. Motivation 2.0 is similar. At its heart are two elegant and simpleideas: Rewardingan activity will getyou more of it. Punishingan activity will getyou less of it.And just as Newtons principles can help us explain our physicalenvironment or chart the path of a thrown ball, Motivation 2.0 s
  • 43. Seven Reasons Carrot s and Stick s (Often) Dont Work . . .principles can help us comprehend our social surroundings and pre-di ct th e traje ctory of human behavior. But Newtonian physics runs into problems at the subatomiclevel. Down th ere-in the land of hadrons , quarks, and Schro d ing -ers cat-things get freaky. The cool rationality of Isaac Newtong ives way to the bizarre unpredictabil it y of Lewis Carro ll. Moti-vation 2.0 is similar in this regard, too . When rewards and pun-ishments encounter our third drive, something akin to behavioralqu antum mechanics seems to take over and strange things begin tohappen. O f course, the starting point for any discussion of motivation inthe workplace is a simple fact of life: People have to earn a living.Salary, contr act payments , some benefits, a few perks are what I call"baseline rewards. " If sorneone s baseline rewards arent adequate oreq ui table, her focus will be on the unfairness of her situation and theanxiety of her circumstance. Youll get neither the predictability ofextrinsic motivation nor the weirdness of intrinsic motivation. Youllget very little motivation at all. But once were past that threshold , carrots and sticks can achieveprecisely the opposite of their intended aims. Mechanisms designedto inc rease motivation can dampen it. Tactics aimed at boosting cre-ativity can redu ce it. Programs to promote good deeds can makethem disappear. Meanwhile, instead of restr aining negative beha vior ,rewards and punishments can often set it loose-and g ive rise tocheating, add ict ion, and dangerou sly myopic thinking . This is wei rd. An d it doesn t hold in all circumsta nces (aboutwhi ch mo re afte r t his chap te r). But as Edw ard Decis Soma pu zzleexperiment de mo nstrates, many pract ices whose effectiveness wetake for gra nted prod uce counte rint uit ive results: Th ey can g ive usless of what we want-and more of what we don t want. Th ese arethe bugs in Motivati on 2.0 . And th ey rise to th e surface whether 35
  • 44. DRIVEwere promising rupees in India, charging shekels in Israel , drawingblood in Sweden, or painting portraits in Chicago.LESS OF WHAT WE WANTO ne of the most enduring scenes in American literature offers an important lesson in human motivation. In Chapter 2 of MarkTwain s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Tom faces the dreary task ofwhitewashing Aunt Polly s 810-square-foot fence. He s not exactlythrilled with the assignment. "Life to him seemed hollow, and exis-tence but a burden," Twain writes . But just when Tom has nearly lost hope, "not hing less than agreat, magnificent inspiration" bursts upon him. When his friendBen ambles by and mocks Tom for his sorry lot, Tom acts confused.Slapping paint on a fence isnt a grim chore, he says. It s a fantasticprivilege-a source of, ahem, intrinsic motivation. The job is so cap-tivating that when Ben asks to try a few brushstrokes himself, Tomrefuses. He doesnt relent until Ben gives up his apple in exchangefor the opportunity. Soon more boys arrive, all of whom tumble into Tom s trap andend up whitewashing the fence-several times over---on his behalf.From this episode, Twain extracts a key motivational principle,namely "that Work consists of whatever a body is OBLIGED to do ,and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. " Hegoes on to write: There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger-coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line , in the summer, because the privilege costs them considerable money; 36
  • 45. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work ... but if they were offered wages for the service, that would turn it into work and then they would resign. 1In other words, rewards can perform a weird sort of behavioralalchemy: They can transform an interesting task into a drudge. Theycan turn play into work. And by diminishing intrinsic motivation,they can send performance, creativity, and even upstanding behaviortoppling like dominoes. Lets call this the Sawyer Effect. * A sam-pling of intriguing experiments around the world reveals the fourrealms where this effect kicks in-and shows yet again the mismatchbetween what science knows and what business does.Intrinsic MotivationBehavioral scientists like Deci began discovering the Sawyer Effectnearly forty years ago, although they didnt use that term. Instead,they referred to the counterintuitive consequences of extrinsic incen-tives as "the hidden costs of rewards." That, in fact, was the titleof the first book on the subject-a 1978 research volume that wasedited by psychologists Mark Lepper and David Greene. One of Lepper and Greenes early studies (which they carried outwith a third colleague, Robert Nisbett) has become a classic in thefield and among the most cited articles in the motivation literature.The three researchers watched a classroom of preschoolers for severaldays and identified the children who chose to spend their "free play"time draw ing. Then they fashioned an experiment to test the effectof rewarding an activity these children clearly enjoyed.*Here the two-sided definition of the Sawyer Effect: practices that can either turn play into work or tu rn work into play. 37
  • 46. DRIVE The researchers divided the children into three groups. The firstwas the "expected-award" group. They showed each of the se child rena "G ood Player " certificate-adorned with a blue ribbon and featur-ing the childs name-and asked if the child wanted to draw in orderto receive the award. The second group was the "unexpected-award "group. Researchers asked these children simply if they wanted todraw. If they decided to, when the session ended , the researchershanded each child one of the "Good Player " certificates. The thirdgroup was the "no-award" group. Researchers asked these children ifthey wanted to draw, but neither promised them a certificate at thebeginning nor gave them one at the end. Two weeks later, back in the classroom, teachers set out paperand markers during the preschools free play period while theresearchers secretly observed the students. Children previously in the"unexpected-award" and "no-award" groups drew just as much, andwith the same relish, as they had before the experiment. But childrenin the first group-the ones who d expected and then received anaward-showed much less interest and spent much less time draw-ing.? The Sawyer Effect had taken"hold. Even two weeks later, thosealluring prizes-so common in classrooms and cubicles-had turnedplay into work. To be clear, it wasnt necessarily the rewards themselves thatdampened the childrens interest. Remember: When children didn texpect a reward, receiving one had little impact on their intrinsicmotivation. Only contingent rewards-if you do this, then youll getthat-had th e negat ive effect. Why? "If-t hen" rewards require peo-ple to forfeit some of their autonomy. Like the gentlemen drivingcarriages for money instead of fun, they re no longer fully controllingtheir lives. And that can spring a hole in the bottom of their motiva-tional bucket, draining an activity of its enjoyment. Lepper and Greene replicated these results in several subsequent 38
  • 47. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work .. . experiments with children. As time went on, other researchers found similar results with adults. Over and over again, they discovered that extrinsic rewards-in particular, contingent, expected, "if-then" rewards-snuffed out the third drive. These insights proved so controversial-after all , they called into question a standard practice of most companies and schools-that in 1999 Deci and two colleagues reanalyzed nearly three decades of studies on the subject to confirm the findings. "Careful consideration of reward effects reported in 128 experiments lead to the conclu- sion that tangible rewards tend to have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation," they determined. "When institutions- families, schools, businesses, and athletic teams, for example-focus on the short-term and opt for controlling peoples behavior," they do considerable long-term damage. " Try to encourage a kid to learn math by paying her for each work- book page she completes-and shell almost certainly become more diligent in the short term and lose interest in math in the long term. Take an industrial designer who loves his work and try to get him to do better by making his pay contingent on a hit product-and hell almost certainly work like a maniac in the short term, but become. less interested in his job in the long term. As one leading behavioral science textbook puts it, "People use rewards expecting to gain the benefit of increasing another persons motivation and behavior, but in so doing, they often incur the unintentional and hidden cost of under- mining that persons intrinsic motivation toward the activity.": This is one of the most robust findings in social science-andalso one of the most ignored. Despite the work of a few skilled andpassionate popularizers-in particular, Alfie Kohn, whose prescient 199 3 book, Punished by Rewards, lays out a devastating indictmentof extrinsic incentives-we persist in trying to motivate people thisway. Perhaps were scared to let go of Motivation 2.0, despite its 39
  • 48. DRIVEobvious downsides. Perh aps we cant ge t our minds around th e pecu-liar quantum mechanics of intrinsic motivati on. Or perhaps th eres a better reason . Even if th ose contr olling"if-then" rewards activate th e Sawyer Effect and suffocate the thi rddrive, maybe they actually get peopl e to perform better. If th at s th ecase, perhaps they re not so bad. So let s ask: Do extr insic rewardsboost performance ? Four economists went to Indi a to find out.High PerformanceOne of the difficulties of laboratory experiments th at test th e im pactof extrinsic motivators like cash is the cost. If you re going to paypeople to perform, you have to pay them a meaningful amount. Andin the United States or Europe, where standards of livin g are high ,an individually meaningful amount multiplied by dozens of parti ci-pants can rack up unsustainably large bills for behavioral scient ists. In part to circumvent this problem, a quartet of economists-including Dan Ariely, whom I mentioned in the last chap ter- set upshop in Madurai, India, to gauge the effects of extrinsic incenti ves onperformance. Because the cost of livin g in rur al India is mu ch lowerthan in North America, the researchers could offer large reward swithout breaking their own banks. They recruited eighty-seven participants and asked th em topla y several games-for example, tossing tennis balls at a target ,unscrambling anag rams, recalling a string of digits-that requiredmotor skills, creativity, or concentration. To test th e power of incen-tives, the experimenters offered three typ es of reward s for reachincertain performance levels. One-third of the participants could earn a small reward-4 fUP(at the time worth around 50 U .S. cents and eq ual to about a d y s 40
  • 49. Seven Reasons Carrot s and Sti ck s (Often) Dont Wor k . in Madurai) for reaching their performance tar gets. One-thirdcould earn a medium reward-40 rupees (about $5, or two weeks pa y). And one-third could earn a very large reward-400 rupees(about 50 , or nearly five months pay) . What happened ? Did the size of the reward predict the q uality ofthe performance ? Yes. But not in the way you might expect . As it turned out , thepeople offered the medium-sized bonus didn t perform any betterth an those offered the small one. And those in the 4 00-rupee super-incentivized group ? They fared worst of all. By nearly every measure,the y lagged behind both the low-reward and medium-reward partic-ipants. Reporting the results for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston,the researchers wrote, "In eight of the nine tasks we examined acrossthe three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance. "? Let s circle back to this conclusion for a moment. Foureconomists-two from MIT, one from Carnegie Mellon, and one fromthe U niversity ofChicago--undertake research for the Federal ReserveSystem, one of the most powerful economic actors in the world . Butinstead of affirming a simple business principle-higher rewards leadto hig her performance-they seem to refute it. And it s not just Amer-ican researchers reaching these counterintuitive conclusions. In 2009,scholars at th e London School of Economics-alma mater of elevenNobel laureates in econom ics- analyzed fifty-one studies of corporatepay-fo r-pe rformance plans. Thes e economists conclusion: "We findthat financial ince ntives . . . can result in a negative impact on overallperfo rrnance. :" On both sides of th e Atlantic, the gap betwe en whatscience is learning and wha t bu sin ess is doing is wid e. "Many exis ti ng inst it ut ions provide very large in centives forexactly th e type of tas ks we used here," Ari ely and his colleag ueswrote. "O ur resul ts challe nge [that] assum p t ion. Our expe rime ntsuggests .. . that one cannot assume th at introducin g or rais ing 41
  • 50. DRIVEincentives always improves perform ance." Ind eed , in many instan ces,contingent incentives-that cornerstone of how bu sin esses attemptto motivate employees-may be "a losin g proposition ." Of course, procrastinating writers notwithstand ing , few of usspend our working hours flinging tenni s balls or doing anagrams.How about the more creative tasks that are mor e ak in to what weactually do on the job ?CreativityFor a quick test of problem-solving prowess, few exercises are moreuseful than the "candle problem." Devised by psychologist KarlDuncker in the 1930s, the candle problem is used in a wide variety ofexperiments in behavioral science. Follow along and see how you do. You sit at a table next to a wooden wall and the experimentergives you the materials shown below: a candle, some tacks , and abook of matches . T he candl e problem presented. 42
  • 51. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work . . . Your job is to attach the candle to the wall so that the wax doesn tdrip on the table. Think for a moment about how youd solve theproblem . Many people begin by trying to tack the candle to thewall. But that doesnt work. Some light a match, melt the side ofthe candle, and try to adhere it to the wall . That doesn t work either.But after five or ten minutes, most people stumble onto the solution,which you can see below . The candle problem soloed. The key is to overcome whats called "fu nct ional fixedness. " Youlook at the box and see only one function-as a container for thetacks. But by thinking afresh, you eventually see that the box canhave another function-as a platform for the candle. To reprise lan-guage from the previous chapter, the solution isnt algorithmic (fol-lowing a set path) but heuristic (breaking from the path to discovera novel strategy). What happens when you give people a conceptual challenge likethis and offer them rewards for speedy solutions? Sam Glucksberg, a 43
  • 52. DRIV Epsychologist now at Princeton Universit y, tes ted th is a few decadesago by timing how qui ckl y two g roups of pa rt icipants solved thecandle problem. H e told th e first g roup th at he was t im ing theirwork merely to esta blish norms for how long it typically took some-one to complete this sort of puzzle. To th e second g roup he offeredincentives. If a participant s t ime was am ong th e fastest 25 pe rcentof all the people bein g test ed , th at parti cip ant would receive $5.If the participant s time was the fastest of all, the reward would be$2 0. Adjusted for inflation , those are decent sums of m oney for a fewminutes of effort-a nice motivator. How much faster did the incentivized group com e up wi t h a solu -tion ? On average, it took them nearly three and a half minutes longer.Yes, three and a half minutes longer. (W henever I ve relayed theseresults to a group of businesspeople, the reaction is almost always aloud , pained , involuntary gasp.) In direct contravention to the coretenets of Motivation 2.0, an incentive designed to clarify think-ing and sharpen creativity ended up clouding thinking and dullingcreativity. Why? Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus.Thats helpful when there s a clear path to a solution . They help usstare ahead and race faster . But "if-then" motivators are terrible forchallenges like the candle problem. As this experiment shows , therewards narrowed peoples focus and blinkered the wide view th atmight have allowed them to see new uses for old ob jects . Something similar seems to occur for challenges that aren t somuch about cracking an exist ing problem but about iterat ingsomething new. Teresa Am abile , the Harvard Business School pro -fessor and one of th e worlds leading researchers on creativity, hasfrequentl y tested the effects of cont inge nt rewards on th e creat iveprocess. In one study, she and two colle agues recruited twenty-threeprofe ssional art ists from th e United Stat es who had produced both 44
  • 53. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work . . .commissioned and noncommissioned artwork. They asked the artiststo randomly select ten commissioned works and ten noncommis-sioned works. Then Amabile and her team gave the works to a panelof accomplished artists and curators, who knew nothing about thestudy, and asked the experts to rate the pieces on creativity and tech-nical skill. "Our results were quite startling," the researchers wrote. "Thecommissioned works were rated as significantly less creative thanthe non-commissioned works, yet they were not rated as differentin technical quality. Moreover, the artists reported feeling signifi-cantly more constrained when doing commissioned works than whendoing non-commissioned works ." One artist whom they intervieweddescribes the Sawyer Effect in action: Not always, but a lot of the time, when you are doing a piece for someone else it becomes more "work" than joy. When I work for myself there is the pure joy of creating and I can work through the night and not even know it. On a commis- sioned piece you have to check yourself-be careful to do what the client wants." Another study of artists over a longer period shows that a con-cern for outside rewards might actually hinder eventual success. Inthe early 1960s, researchers surveyed sophomores and juniors at theSchool of the Art Institute of Chicago about their attitudes towardwork and whether they were more intrinsically or extrinsically moti-vated. Using these data as a benchmark, another researcher followedup with these students in the early 1980s to see how their careerswere progressing. Among the starkest findings, especially for men:"T he less evidence of extrinsic motivation during art school, the more 45
  • 54. DRIVEsuccess in professional art both several years after gra d uatio n andnearly twenty years later ." Painters and sculptors who were in trin si-cally motivated , those for whom th e joy of di scovery and th e chal-lenge of creation were their own reward s, were able to weath er thetough times-and the lack of remuneration and recognition-thatinevitably accompany artistic careers . And that led to yet anoth erparadox in the Alice in Wonderland world of the third dr ive. "T hoseartists who pursued their painting and sculpture more for th e plea-sure of the activity itself than for extrinsic rewards have produced artthat has been socially recognized as superior," the study said. "It isthose who are least motivated to pursue extrinsic reward s who even- .tually receive them. " 9 This result is not true across all tasks, of course. Amabile and oth-ers have found that extrinsic rewards can be effective for algorithmictasks-those that depend on following an existing formula to itslogical conclusion. But for more right-brain undertakings-thosethat demand flexible problem-solving, inventiveness, or conceptualunderstanding-eontingent rewards can be dangerous. Rewardedsubjects often have a harder time seeing the periphery and craftingoriginal solutions. This, too, is one of the sturdiest findings in socialscience--especially as Amabile and others have refined it over theyears. !" For artists, scientists, inventors, schoolchildren, and the restof us, intrinsic motivation-the drive do something because it isinteresting, challenging, and absorbing-is essential for high lev-els of creativity. But the "if-then" motivators that are the staple ofmost bus inesses often stifle, rather than stir, creative thinking . Asthe economy moves toward more right-brain, conceptual work-asmor e of us deal with our own versions of the candle problem-thismight be the most alarming gap between what science knows andwhat business does. 46
  • 55. S v n Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work . . .Good BehaviorPhilosophers and medical professionals have long debated whetherblood donors should be paid. Some claim th at blood, like humantissu e or organs , is special-that we shouldn t be able to buy and sellit like a barrel of crude oil or a crate of ball bearings. Others argueth at we should shelve our squeamishness, because paying for thissubsta nce will ensure an ample supply. But in 1970 , British sociologist Richard Titmuss, who had stud-ied blood donation in the United Kingdom, offered a bolder specu-lat ion . Paying for blood wasn t just immoral, he said. It was alsoinefficient . If Britain decided to pay citizens to donate, that would crual ly reduce the countrys blood supply. It was an oddball notion,to be sure . Economists snickered. And Titrnuss never tested the idea;it was merel y a philosophical hunch. 11 But a qu arter-century later , two Swedish economists decided tosee if Tirrnuss was right. In an intriguing field experiment, they vis-ited a reg ional blood center in Gothenburg and found 153 women ho ere in te rested in g iving blood . Then-as seems to be the cus-tom among mot ivat ion researchers-they divided the women intothree roups. 12 Experimenters told those in the first group that blooddon tion as voluntary. Th ese participants could g ive blood , butthe ouldn r receive a payment. The experimenters offered the sec-ond roup differen t arrange me nt. If these participants gave blood ,th eyd each recei e 50 wedis h kronor (about ). The th ird g roupre ei ed v ri rion on th t second offer: a 50-kronor payment ithn immed i re op t ion to dona te t he amount to a chil dren s cancerh rir . f th e first roup , 5_ percent of the omen decided to go ahead
  • 56. DRIVEand donate blood . Th ey were altruistic citizens app arently, will ingto do a good deed for th eir fellow Swedes even in the absence ofcompensation. And the second group ? Motivation 2.0 would sugges t that thi sgroup might be a bit more motivated to donate. They d shown up ,which indi cated intrinsic motivation. Getting a few kronor on topmight give that impulse a boost . But-as you might have g uessedby now-thats not what happened . In this group, only 30 percentof the women decided to give blood. Instead of increasing th e num-ber of blood donors, offering to pay people decreased the number bynearly half. Meanwhile, the third group-which had the option of donatingthe fee ·directly to charity-responded much the same as the firstgroup. Fifty-three percent became blood donors .* Titrnusss hunch might have been right, after all. Adding a mon-etary incentive didn t lead to more of the desired behavior. It led toless. The reason: It tainted an altruistic act and "crowded out " theintrinsic desire to do something good ." Doing good is what blooddonation is all about. It provides ·w hat the Amer ican Red Cross bro-chures say is "a feeling that money cant buy." Thats why volun-tary blood donations invariably increase during natural disasters andother calamities. " But if governments were to pay people to helpthe ir neighbors during these crises, donations might decline. Th at said, in th e Swedish example, the reward itself wasn t inher-ently destructi ve. Th e immediate option to donate the 50-kronorpay ment rat her than pocke t it seemed to negate the effect . This , too ,is extremely im port ant. It s not that all rewards at all times are bad.For instan ce, when the Italian government gave blood donors paid*The results for the 119 men in the experiment were somewhat different . The payment had no statistically significant effect, positive or negative, on the decision co give blood . 48
  • 57. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work . . .time off work, donations increased." The law removed an obstacleto altruism. So while a few advocates would have you believe in thebasic evil of extrinsic incentives, thats just not empirically true.What is true is that mixing rewards with inherently interesting, cre-ative, or noble tasks----deploying them without understanding thepeculiar science of motivation-is a very dangerous game. Whenused in these situations, "if-then" rewards usually do more harmthan good. By neglecting the ingredients of genuine motivation-autonomy, mastery, and purpose-they limit what each of us canachieve.MORE OF WHAT WE DONT WANTIn the upside-down universe of the third drive, rewards can often produce less of the very things theyre trying to encourage. Butthats not the end of the story. When used improperly, extrinsic moti-vators can have another unintended collateral consequence: They cangive us more of what we dont want. Here, again, what businessdoes hasn t caught up with what science knows. And what science isreveali ng is that carrots and sticks can promote bad behavior, createaddiction, and encourage short-term thinking at the expense of thelong view.Unethical BehaviorWhat could be more valuable than having a goal? From our earliestdays, teachers , coaches, and parents advise us to set goals and to work 49
  • 58. DRIVEmi ghtily to achieve th em - and with good reason . G oals wor k. Theacadem ic lit erature shows that by helping us tune out di stract ion s,goals can ge t us to try harder, work lon ger, and achi eve more. But recently a g roup of scholars from th e Harvard BusinessSchool, Northwestern Universitys K ello gg School of Manag em en t ,the University of Arizonas Eller Coll ege of Manag em ent, and th eUniversity of Pennsylvanias Wharton School questioned th e effi-cacy of this broad prescription. "Rather than bein g offered as anover-the-counter salve for boosting performance, goal setting shouldbe prescribed selectively, presented with a warning label , and closelymonitored, " they wrote.! " Goals that people set for themselves and that are devoted to attaining mastery are usually healthy. But goalsimposed by others-sales targets, quarterly returns , standardizedtest scores , and so on-can sometimes have dangerous side effects . Like all extrinsic motivators, goals narrow our focus. Thats onereason they can be effective; they concentrate the mind. But as we veseen, a narrowed focus exacts a cost. For complex or conceptual tasks ,offering a reward can blinker the wide-ranging thinking necessa ryto come up with an innovative solution. Likewise , when an extrins icgoal is paramount-particularly a short-term , measurable one whoseachievement delivers a big payoff-its presence can restrict our viewof the broader dimensions of our behavior. As the cadre of bus inessschool professors write, "Substantial evidence demonstrates that inaddition to motivating constructive effort , goal setting can induceunethical behavior ." The examples are legion, the researchers note . Sears im poses asales quota on it s auto repair staff-and workers respond by over-charg in g customers and completing unnecessary rep airs . Enron setslofty revenue goals-and the race to m eet them by any means pos-sible catalyzes th e com panys collapse. Ford is so intent on producin g 50
  • 59. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work . ..a certain car at a certain weight at a certain price by a certain datethat it omits safety checks and unleashes the dangerous Ford Pinto. The problem with making an extrinsic reward the only destina-tion that matters is that some people will choose the quickest routethere , even if it means taking the low road . Indeed , most of the scandals and misbehavior that have seemedendemic to modern life involve shortcuts. Executives game theirqu arterly earnings so they can snag a performance bonus. Secondaryschool counselors doctor student transcripts so their seniors can get into college. 17 Athletes inject themselves with steroids to post better numbers and trigger lucrative performance bonuses. Contrast that approach with behavior sparked by intrinsic moti-vat ion. When the reward is the activity itself-deepening learning,del ighting customers, doing one s best-there are no shortcuts. Theonly route to the destination is the high road. In some sense, its impossible to act unethically because the person who s disadvantaged isnt a competitor but yourself. Of course , all goals are not created equal. And-let me emphasizeth is point-goals and extrinsic rewards aren t inherently corrupting., But goals are more toxic th an Motivation 2.0 recognizes. In fact, thebusiness school professors suggest they should come with their ownwarning label: Goals may causesystematic problems for organizations dueto narrowed focus, unethical behav increased risk taking, decreased coop- ior,eration, and decreased intrinsic motivation. Use carewhen applying goalsinyour organization. If carrots-as-g oals somet imes encourage unworthy behavior, thensticks-as-punishme nt should be able to halt it , right ? Not so fast.T he third d rive is less mechani sti c and mor e surprising than that, astwo Israeli econom ists discovered at some day care centers. In 2000, economists U ri G neezy and Aldo Rustichini studied a 51
  • 60. DRIVEg roup of child care facilities in H aifa, Israel, for twe nty weeks. IS T hecenters opened at 7:3 0 A.M. and closed at 4:00 P.M . Parent s had toretrieve th eir child ren by th e closin g tim e or a teacher woul d haveto sta y late . During the first four weeks of th e experime nt, th e economistsrecorded how many parents arrived lat e each week. Th en , before thefifth week , with the permission of the day care centers, th ey postedthe following sign: ANNOUNCEMENT: FINE FOR COMI NG LAT E As Y Oft all know, the official dosing time of the day care center is 1600 every day. Sincesome parentshave been coming late, we (with theapproval of the A uthority f orPrivate Day-CareCenters in Israel) have decidedto impose a fine on parents who come late topick up their children. As of next Sunday a fine of NS 10* will becharged every time a child is collected after 1610. This fine will becalculated monthly, it is to bepaid together with the regular monthly payment. Sincer ely, The manager of the day-care ce nterThe theory underlying the fine, said Gneezy and Rustichini , wasstraightforward : "W hen negative consequences are imposed on abehav ior, th ey will pro d uce a reduction of that particular response. "In other words, thwack the parents with a fine, and they ll stop show-ing up lat e.*The fine was per child, so a parent with two child ren would have to pay twe nty Israeli shekels (N S 20) for each instance of tard iness. Wh en th e experiment was cond ucted, ten Israeli shekels was equ ivalent to about three U .S. do llars. 52
  • 61. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work ... But thats not what happened. "After the introduction of the finewe observed a steady increase in the number of parents coming late,"the economists wrote. "The rate finally settled, at a level that washigher, and almosttwiceas large as the initial one."!" And in languagereminiscent of Harry Harlows head scratching, they write thatthe existing literature didnt account for such a result. Indeed, the"possibility of an increase in the behavior being punished was noteven considered." Up pops another bug in Motivation 2.0. One reason most par-ents showed up on time is that they had a relationship with theteachers-who, after all, were caring for their precious sons anddaughters-and wanted to treat them fairly. Parents had an intrinsicdesire to be scrupulous about punctuality. But the threat of a fine-like the promise of the kronor in the blood experiment-edged asidethat third drive. The fine shifted the parents decision from a partlymoral obligation (be fair to my kids teachers) to a pure transaction(I can buy extra time). There wasn t room for both. The punishmentdidn t promote good behavior; it crowded it out.AddictionIf some scientists believe that "if-then" motivators and other extrin-sic rewards resemble prescription drugs that carry potentially dan-gerous side effects, others believe theyre more like illegal drugs thatfoster a deeper and more pernicious dependency. According to thesescholars, cash rewards and shiny trophies can provide a delicious joltof pleasure at first, but the feeling soon dissipates-and to keep italive, the recipient requires ever larger and more frequent doses. The Russian economist Anton Suvorov has constructed an 53
  • 62. DRIVEelaborate econome tr ic mod el to demonstrat e thi s effect, configu redaround wh at s called "principal-age nt th eory." Think of th e principalas the motivator-the employer, the teacher, th e par ent. Think ofthe agent as the motivatee-the emp loyee, th e st ude nt , th e chi ld. Aprincipal essentially tri es to get the agent to do what th e pr incipalwants , while the agent balance s his own interests with whateve r t heprincipal is offering. Using a blizzard of comp licated equation s tha ttest a variety of scenarios between principal and agent , Suvorov hasreached conclusions that make intuitive sense to any parent who stried to get her kids to empty the garbage. By offering a reward, a principal signals to the agent th at the tas kis undesirable . (If the task were desirable , the agent wouldn t need aprod.) But that initial signal, and the reward that goes with it , forcesthe principal onto a path that s difficult to leave. Offer too small areward and the agent won t comply. But offer a reward thats enticingenough to get the agent to act the first time, and the principal "isdoomed to give it again in the second. " Theres no going back. Payyour son to take out the trash-and you ve pretty much guaranteedthe kid will never do it again for free. Whats more , once the initialmoney buzz tapers off, you ll likely have to increase the payment tocontinue compliance. As Suvorov explains, "Rewards are addictive in that once offered ,a contingent reward makes an agent expect it whenever a similartask is faced , which in turn compels the principal to use rewardsover and over aga in." And before long, the existing reward may nolonger suffice. It will qui ckl y feel less like a bonus and more like thestatus quo-which t hen forces the principal to offer larger rewards toachi eve the same effect .20 This addictive pattern is not merely blackboard theory. BrianKnutson, then a neurosci entist at the N ational Institute on Alcohol 54
  • 63. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work . . .Abuse and Alcoholism, demonstrated as much in an experimentusing the brain scanning technique known as functional magneticresonance imaging (fMRI). He placed healthy volunteers into a giantscanner to watch how their brains responded during a game thatinvolved the prospect of either winning or losing money. When par- ticipants knew they had a chance to win cash , activation occurred in the part of the brain called the nucleus accumbens . That is, when theparticipants anticipated getting a reward (but not when they antici-pated losing one), a burst of the brain chemical dopamine surged to this part of the brain. Knutson, who is now at Stanford U niver-sity , has found similar results in subsequent studies where peopleanticipated rewards. What makes this response interesting for ourpurposes is that the same basic physiological process-this particular brain chemical surging to this particular part of the brain-is what happens in addiction. The mechanism of most addictive drugs is tosend a fusillade of dopamine to the nucleus accumbens. The feelingdelights, then dissipates, then demands another dose. In other words, if we watch how peoples brains respond, promising them monetary rewards and giving them cocaine, nicotine, or amphetamines lookdisturbingly similar." This could be one reason that paying people to stop smoking often works in the short run. It replaces one (dan-, gerous) addiction with another (more benign) one. Rewards addictive qualities can also distort decision-making.Knutson has found that activation in the nucleus accumbens seemsto predict "bot h risky choices and risk-seeking mistakes. " Get peo-ple fired up with the prospect of rewards, and instead of makingbetter decision s, as Motivation 2.0 hopes, they can actually makewor se ones . As Knutson writes , "This may explain why casinos sur-round their guests with reward cues (e.g., inexpensive food, freeliquor, surp rise gifts, pot ential jackpot prizes)-anticipation of 55
  • 64. DRIVErewards activat es th e [n ucleus accum bens], whi ch may lead to anincrease in the likelihood of individuals swi tc hi ng from risk-averseto risk -seeking behavior. " 22 In short , while th at dan gl ed carrot isn t all bad in all circum -stances , in some instances it operates similar to a rock of crack cocaineand can induce beh avior sim ilar to th at found around th e craps tableor roulette wheel -not exactly what we hop e to ach ieve when we"mot ivate" our teammates and coworkers.Short-Term ThinkingThink back to the candle problem again. The incentivized partici-pants performed worse than their counterparts because the y wereso focused on the prize that they failed to glimpse a novel solutionon the periphery. Rewards, weve seen, can limit the breadth of ourthinking. But extrinsic motivators--especially tangible, "if-t hen"ones---can also reduce the depth of our thinking. They can focus oursights on only what s immediately before us rather than what s off inthe distance. Many times a concentrated focus makes sense. If your officebuilding is on fire, you want to find an exit immediately rather thanponder how to rewrite the zonin g regulations. But in less dramaticcircumstances, fixatin g on an immediate reward can damage per-formance over t im e. Ind eed , what our earlier examples-unethicalacti ons and addictive behavior -have in common, perhaps more thananyth ing else, is that they re ent irely short-t erm. Addicts want thequick fix regardless of the eventual harm . Cheaters want the quickwin- regardless of th e lasting conseq uences. 56
  • 65. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work ... Yet even when the behavior doesnt devolve into shortcuts oraddiction, the near-term allure of rewards can be harmful in the longrun. Consider publicly held companies. Many such companies haveexisted for decades and hope to exist for decades more. But muchof what their executives and middle managers do each day is aimedsingle-mindedly at the corporations performance over the next threemonths. At these companies, quarterly earnings are an obsession.Executives devote substantial resources to making sure the earningscome out just right. And they spend considerable time and brain-power offering guidance to stock analysts so that the market knowswhat to expect and therefore responds favorably. This laser focus ona narrow, near-term slice of corporate performance is understand-able . It s a rational response to stock markets that reward or pun-ish tiny blips in those numbers, which, in turn, affect executivescompensation. But companies pay a steep price for not extending their gazebeyond the next quarter. Several researchers have found that com-panies that spend the most time offering guidance on quarterlyearnings deliver significantly lower long-term growth rates thancompanies that offer guidance less frequently. (One reason: Theearnings-obsessed companies typically invest less in research anddeveloprnent .)" They successfully achieve their short-term goals, butthreaten the health of the company two or three years hence. As thescholars who warned about goals gone wild put it, "The very pres-ence of goals may lead employees to focus myopically on short-termgains and to lose sight of the potential devastating long-term effectson the organization. Y" Perhaps nowhere is this clearer than in the economic calamitythat gripped the world economy in 2008 and 2009. Each player inth e system focused only on the short-term reward-the buyer who 57
  • 66. DRIVEwanted a house, the mortgage broker who wanted a commission, th eWall Street trader who wanted new securities to sell, the politicianwho wanted a buoyant economy during reelection-and ignoredthe long-term effects of their actions on themselves or others . Whenthe music stopped, the entire system nearly collapsed. Thi s is thenature of economic bubbles: What seems to be irrational exuberanceis ultimately a bad case of extrinsically motivated myopia. By contrast, the elements of genuine motivation that well explorelater, by their very nature, defy a short-term view. Take mastery. Th eobjective itself is inherently long-term because complete mastery,in a sense, is unattainable. Even Roger Federer, for instance, willnever fully "master" the game of tennis. But introducing an "if-then"reward to help develop mastery usually backfires. Thats why school-children who are paid to solve problems typically choose easier prob-lems and therefore learn less." The short-term prize crowds out thelong-term learning. In environments where extrinsic rewards are most salient, manypeople work only to the point that triggers the reward-and no fur-ther. So if students get a prize for reading three books, many won tpick up a fourth, let alone embark on a lifetime of reading-just asexecutives who hit their quarterly numbers often won t boost earn-ings a penny more, let alone contemplate the long-term health oftheir company. Likewise, several studies show that paying peopleto exercise, stop smoking, or take their medicines produces ter-rific results at first-but the healthy behavior disappears once theincentives are removed. However, when contingent rewards aren tinvolved, or when incentives are used with the proper deftness , per-formance improves and understanding deepens. Greatness and near-sightedness are incompatible. Meaningful achievement depends onlifting ones sights and pushing toward the horizon. 58
  • 67. Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Dont Work .•.CARROTS ANDSTICKS: The Seven Deadly Flaws1. They can extinguish intrinsic motivation.2. They can diminish performance.3. They can crush creativity.4. They can crowd out good behavior.5. They can encourage cheating, shortcuts, and unethical behavior.6. They can become addictive.7. They can foster short-term thinking. 59
  • 68. CHAPTER 2A and the Special Circumstances When They DoC arrots and sticks aren t all bad . If they were, Motivat ion 2.0 would never have flourished so long or accomplished so much.While an operating system centered around rewards and punish-ments has outlived its usefulness and badly needs an up grade, th atdoesn t mean we should scrap its every piece . Indeed, doing so wouldrun counter to the science. The scholars exploring human motivat ionhave revealed not only the many glitches in the traditional app roach,but also the nar row band of circumstances in which carrots and stic ksdo th eir jobs reasonably well . T he start ing po int, of course , is to ensure that the baselinerewards- wag es, salaries, benefits, and so on-are adequate and fair.Without a healthy baseline, motivation of any sort is difficult andoften impossibl e. But once that s established , there are cir cumstances where it s oka y
  • 69. · .. and the Special Circumst ances Wh en They Doto fall back on ex t ri ns ic m oti vat ors. To under st and w ha t th ose cir-cu ms ta nce s are, let s return to th e ca nd le p ro b lem. In hi s st udy, SamGluck sb erg fou nd th at th e pa rticipa n ts w ho we re offered a cash prizetook lon g er to so lve th e p ro b lem th an th ose working in a reward-freeenvi ro n me n t. The reason , you ll recall , is th at th e p rospec t of a p rizenarr owed pa rtic ipa n ts focu s and lim it ed their ab ili ty to see an inven -t ive, non obv ious solu t io n. In th e same expe ri me nt, G lucksbe rg p resen ted a sepa rate set ofpart icipa n ts with a slig h tly different version of the problem . Onceagain, he told half of th em he was t im ing th eir performance to colleerda ta- and th e ot her half th at th ose who post ed th e faste st times couldwin cash. But he alte red thing s just a bit. In st ead of gi vi ng participantsa box full of tack s, he empt ied th e tacks onto th e desk as show n belo w. Th e ca nd le !Jmh/em !J1"l5(1l1 dijft: ,· ·ell/~). l(/ Can you g ues s wh at happen ed ~ This tim e, th e parti cip ants vy ing for t he reward so lved t he p rob -lem [a ster than th eir co u n terparts . Why ? By rem ovin g th e tack sand di splayin g th e em p ty box, Glu ck sberg esse n t ia lly revealed th e 61
  • 70. DRIVEsolution. He transformed a challengi ng right-br ain task into a rou-tine left-brain one. Since participants simp ly had to race down anobvious path, the carrot waiting for th em at th e finish line encou r-aged th em to gallop faster. Glucksbergs experirnent provides the first qu estion you shouldask when contemplating external motivators: Is the task at hand rou-tine? That is, does accomplishing it require following a pr escribedset of rules to a specified end ? For routine tasks, which aren t very interesting and don t dema ndmuch creative thinking, rewards can provide a small mot ivat ionalbooster shot without the harmful side effects. In some ways, that sjust common sense. As Edward Deci , Richard Ryan , and RichardKoestner explain, "Rewards do not undermine peoples intrinsicmotivation for dull tasks because there is little or no intrins ic moti-vation to be undermined. "! Likewise , when Dan Ariely and his col-leagues conducted their Madurai, India, performance study with agroup of MIT students, they found that when the task called for"even rudimentary cognitive skill, " a larger reward "led to poorerperformance. " But "as long as the task involved onl y mechanicalskill, bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay,the better the performance. "? This is extremely important. Although advanced economies nowrevolve less around those algorithmic, rule-based functions , some ofwhat we do each day-especially on the job-still isn t all that inter-esting . We have TP S reports to fill out and boring e-m ail to answerand all manner of drudge work that doesn t necessarily fire our soul.What s more, for some people , much of what the y do all day consistsof the se routine, not terribly captivating, tasks. In these situations ,it s best to try to unleash the positive side of the Sawyer Effect byattempting to turn work into play-to increase th e tasks variety,to make it mor e like a game, or to use it to help master other skills. 62
  • 71. · .. and the Special Circumstances When They DoAlas, thats not always possible. And this means that sometimes,even "if-then" rewards are an option. Lets put this insight about rewards and routines into practice.Suppose youre a manager at a small nonprofit organization. Yourdesign team created a terrific poster promoting your groups nextbig event. And now you need to send the poster to twenty thousandmembers of your organization. Since the costs of outsourcing thejob to a professional mailing firm are too steep for your budget, youdecide to do the work in-house. Trouble is, the posters came backfrom the printer much later than you expected and they need to getin the mail this weekend. Whats the best way to enlist your staff of ten, and maybe a fewothers, in a massive weekend poster mailing session? The task is thevery definition of routine: The people participating must roll upthe posters, slide them into the mailing tubes, cap those tubes, andapply a mailing label and the proper postage. Four steps-none ofthem notably interesting. One managerial option is coercion. If youre the boss, youcould force people to spend their Saturday and Sunday on thismind-numbing project. They might comply, but the damage to theirmorale and long-term commitment could be substantial. Anotheroption is to ask for volunteers. But face it: Most people can think offar better ways to spend a weekend. So in this case, an "if-then" reward might be effective. For instance,you could promise a big office-wide party if everybody pitches in onthe project. You could offer a gift certificate to everyone who par-ticipates. Or you could go further and pay people a small sum forevery poster they insert, enclose, and send-in the hope that thepiecework fee will boost their productivity. While such tangible, contingent rewards can often undermineintrinsic motivation and creativity, those drawbacks matter less 63
  • 72. DRIVEhere. The assig nment neither inspires deep passion nor requ iresdeep thinking . Carrots , in thi s case, won t hurt and mi ght help .And you ll increase your chances of success by suppleme nt ing th eposter-packing rewards with three important pract ices: • Offer a rationale for why the task is necessary. A job that s not inherently interesting can become mor e meaningful , and therefore more engaging, if it s part of a larger purpose. Explain why this poster is so important and why sending it out now is critical to your organiza- tion s mission. • Acknowledge that the task is boring. This is an act of empathy, of course. And the acknowledgment will help people understand why this is the rare instance when "if-t hen" rewards are part of how your organiza- tion operates. • Allow people to complete the task their own way. Think autonomy, not control. State the outcome you need. But instead of specifying precisely the way to reach it-how each poster must be rolled and how each mailing label must be affixed-give them freedom over how they do the job.Thats the approach for routine tasks. What about for other sorts ofund ert akings? For work that requi res more than just climbing , rung by run g , upa ladder of ins truct ions, rewards are more perilous. The best way toavoid the seven deadly flaws of extrinsic motivators is to avoid themaltogether or to downplay them significantly and instead empha-size the elements of deeper motivation-autonomy, mastery, andpurpose-that well explore later in the book. But in the workplace, 64
  • 73. · . . and the Special Circum stance s When They Doa rigid adherence to this approach bumps up against a fact of life:Even people who do groovy, creative, right-brain work still want tobe paid . And here Teresa Amabile has shed some light on how to userewards in a way that reckons with lifes realities but reduces extrin-sic motivators hidden costs. Go back to the study in which Amabile and two colleag ues com -pared the quality of commissioned and noncommissioned paintingsfrom a g roup of artists. A panel of experts, blind to what the investi-gators were exploring , consistently rated the noncommissioned art-work as more creative. One reason is that several artists said theircommissions were "const raining"- that they found themselvesworking toward a goal they didn t endorse in a manner they didn tcont rol. However, in the same study, Amabile also discovered thatwhen th e artists considered their commissions "enabling "- that is,"the com m ission enabled the artist to do something interesting orexci ti ng v t he creativity ranking of what they produced shot back -s-up . The same was true for commissions the artists felt provided themwi t h useful information and feedback about their ability. Th is is a cruc ial research insight. The science shows that it isposs ible- t houg h tricky-to incorporate rewards into nonroutine,more creativ e settings without causing a cascade of damage. So suppose were back at your nonprofit nine months later. Themai ling went ou t flawlessly. The poster was a hit. The event was asmash. You re planning another for later this year. Youve settled onthe date and found your venu e. Now you need an inspiring poster tocap tivate imagi natio ns and dr aw a crowd . W hat sho uld you do ? H eres what you shouldnt do: Offer an "if-t hen" reward to thedesign staff. Do not st ride int o th eir offices and announce: "If youcome up wit h a poster that rocks my world or th at boosts atten-dance over last year, th en you ll get a ten-percent bonu s." Although 65
  • 74. DRIVEthat motivational approach is com mon in organizations all over theworld , it s a recipe for redu ced performa nce. Creating a poste r isn troutine. It requires conceptual, breakthrough , artistic thinking. Andas weve learned, "if-then" rewards are an ideal way to squash thissort of thinking. Your best approach is to have already esta blished t he conditions ofa genuinely motivating environment. Th e baselin e rewards m ust besufficient. That is, the team s basic compensation mu st be adequateand fair-particularly compared with peopl e doing similar work forsimilar organizations. Your nonprofit must be a congenial place towork. And the people on your team must have autonomy, they m usthave ample opportunity to pursue mastery, and th eir daily d utiesmust relate to a larger purpose. If these elements are in place, thebest strategy is to provide a sense of urgenc y and sign ificance-andthen get out of the talents way. But you may still be able to boost performance a bit-more forfuture tasks than for this one-through the del icate use of rewards .Just be careful. Your efforts will backfire unless the rewards you offermeet one essential requirement. And you ll be on firmer motivat ionalfooting if you follow two additional principles. The essential requirement: Any extrinsic rewardshouldbe unexpectedand offered only after the task is complete. Holding out a prize at the beginning of a pro ject- and offering itas a contingency-will inevitably focus peopl es attent ion on obtai n-ing the reward rath er than on att acking the problem. But int rod uc-ing the subject of rewards after the job is don e is less risk y. In otherwords, where "if-then" rewards area mistake, shift to "nouithat"rewards-as in "N ow that you ve finished t he post er and it turnedout so well, Id like to celebrate by takin g you out to lun ch ." As Deci and his colleagues explain, "If tangible reward s are give nunexpectedly to peopl e after th ey have finished a task , th e reward s 66
  • 75. . .. and the Special Circumstances When They Doare less likely to be experienced as the reason for doing the task andare thus less likely to be detrimental to intrinsic rnotivation.?" Likewise, Amabile has found in some studies "that the highestlevels of creativity were produced by subjects who received a rewardas a kind of a bonus.? So when the poster turns out great, you couldbuy the design team a case of beer or even hand them a cash bonuswithout snuffing their creativity. The team didnt expect any extrasand getting them didnt hinge on a particular outcome. Youresimply offering your appreciation for their stellar work. But keepin mind one ginormous caveat: Repeated "now that" bonuses canquickly become expected "if-then" entitlements-which can ulti-mately crater effective performance. At this point, by limiting rewards for nonroutine, creative work tothe unexpected, "now that" variety, youre in less dangerous waters.But you ll do even better if you follow two more guidelines. First, consider nontangible rewards. Praise and positive feedback aremuch less corrosive than cash and trophies. In fact, in Decis origi-nal experiments, and in his subsequent analysis of other studies, hefound that "positive feedback can have an enhancing effect on intrin-sic rnorivarion.?" So if the folks on the design team turn out a show-.stopping poster, maybe just walk into their offices and say, "Wow.You really did an amazing job on that poster. Its going to have ahuge impact on getting people to come to this event. Thank you." Itsounds small and simple, but it can have an enormous effect. Second, provide usefu! information. Amabile has found that whilecontrolling extrinsic motivators can clobber creativity, "informationalor enabling motivators can be conducive" to ir. ? In the workplace,people are thirsting to learn about how theyre doing, but only if theinformation isn t a tacit effort to manipulate their behavior. So donttell the design team: "That poster was perfect. You did it exactlythe way I asked. " Instead, give people meaningful information about 67
  • 76. DRIVEtheir work. The more feedback focuses on specifics ("great use ofcolor")-and the more the praise is about effort and strategy ratherthan about achieving a particular outcome-the more effective itcan be. In brief, for creative, right-brain, heuristic tasks, youre on shakyground offering "if-then" rewards. Youre better off using "now that"rewards. And youre best off if your "now that" rewards providepraise, feedback, and useful information. (For a visual depiction of this approach, see the flowchart on thenext page.) 68
  • 77. When to Use Rewards: A Simple Flowchart
  • 78. CHAPTER 3 Type I and Type XR ochester, New York, is an unlikely epicenter for a social earth- quake. The companies that.built this stolid city, just sixty-twomiles from the Canadian border, were titans of the industrial econ-omy. Eastman Kodak made film. Western Union delivered telegrams.Xerox produced photocopiers. And they piloted their enterprises bythe precepts of Motivation 2.0: If you offer people steady employ-ment and carefully calibrated rewards, theyll do what executives andshareholders want, and everyone will prosper. But starting in the 1970s, on the campus of the University ofRochester, a motivational revolution was brewing. It began in 1971 ,when Edward Deci, fresh from his Soma puzzle experiments, arrivedon campus for a joint appointment in the psychology departmentand the business school. It intensified in 1973, when the businessschool unceremoniously booted Deci because of his heretical findings
  • 79. Type I and Type Xabout rewards, and the psychology department hired him full-time.It gathered more steam in 1975, when Deci published a book calledIntrinsic Motivation. And it launched in earnest in 1977, when a stu-dent named Richard Ryan showed up for graduate school. Ryan, a philosophy major in college, had just missed being draftedinto the military. Nursing a bit of survivors guilt, hed been workingwith Vietnam War veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress dis-order. And hed come to the University of Rochester to learn how tobecome a better clinician. One day, in a seminar, a professor broughtup the subject of intrinsic motivation-and then denounced it withtable-pounding ferocity. "I figured that if there was that much resis-tance, this must be something interesting," Ryan told me. He pickedup a copy of Decis book, found it compelling, and asked its authorto lunch. So commenced a remarkable research collaboration thatcontinues to this day. When I met them not long ago, in U of Rs blocky Meliora Hall,the two were a study in both contrast and similarity. Deci is tall andreedy, with a pale complexion and thin, wispy hair. He speaks in aquiet, soothing voice that reminded me of the late American chil-drens television host Mr. Rogers. Ryan, who has straight white hairparted down the middle, is ruddier and more intense. He presses hispoint like a skilled litigator. Deci, meanwhile, waits patiently foryou to reach his point-then he agrees with you and praises yourinsight. Deci is the classical music station on your FM dial; Ryan ismore cable TV. And yet they talk to each other in a cryptic academicshorthand , their ideas smoothly in sync. The combination has beenpowerful enough to make them among the most influential behav-ioral scientists of their generation. Together Deci and Ryan have fashioned what they call "self-determination theory. " Many theories of behavior pivot around a particular human 71
  • 80. DRIVEtendency: We re keen respond ers to positive and negat ive reinfor ce-ments, or zippy calculators of our self-interest, or lumpy duffel bagsof psychosexual conflicts. SDT, by cont rast, beg ins with a notionof universal human needs. It argues that we have three innate psy-chological needs-competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Whenthose needs are satisfied, were motivated, productive, and happy.When theyre thwarted, our motivation, productivity, and happi-ness plummet. 1 "If theres anything [fundamental} about our nature,it s the capacity for interest. Some things facilitate it. Some th ingsundermine it, " Ryan explained during one of our conversatio ns.Put another way, weve all got that third drive. It s part of whatit means to be human. But whether that aspect of our humanityemerges in our lives depends on whether the conditions around ussupport it. And the main mechanisms of Motivation 2.0 are more stiflingthan supportive. "This is a really big thing in management," saysRyan. When people arent producing , companies typically resort torewards or punishment. "W hat you havent done is the hard work ofdiagnosing what the problem is. Youre trying to run over the prob-lem with a carrot or a stick," Ryan explains. That doesn t mean thatSDT unequivocally opposes rewards . "Of course , the yre necessaryin workplaces and other settings ," says Dec i. "But the less salientthey are made, the better. When people use rewards to motivate,thats when they re most demotivating ." Instead , Deci and Ryan saywe should focus our efforts on creating environments for our innatepsychol og ical needs to flourish. Ov er the last thirty years, through both their scholarship andmentorship, Deci and Ryan have established a network of sev-eral dozen SDT scholars conducting research in the United States ,Canada, Israel, Singapore, and throughout Western Europe. Thesescientists have explored self-d et ermination and intrinsic motivation 72
  • 81. Type I and Type Xin laboratory experiments and field studies that encompass justabout every realm-business, educ ation , medicine, sports , exercise ,personal productivity, environmentalism , relationships, and physicaland mental health. They have produced hundreds of research pap ers,most of whi ch point to the same conclusion. Human beings have aninn at e inner drive to be autonomous, self-d et erm in ed , and con necte dto one anot her. And when th at drive is lib erat ed , peopl e achieve moreand live richer lives . SDT is an important part of a broad swirl of new thinking aboutthe human condition. This constellation includes, perhaps mostpr omi nently, the positive psychology movement , which has reori-ented the study of psychological science away from its previous focuson malad y and dysfunction and toward well-being and effectivefunct ioning . Under the leadership of the University of Pennsylva-nias Mart in Seligman, positive psycholo gy has been minting legionsof new scholars and leaving a deep imprint on how scientists, econo-m ist s, th erap ists , and everyday people think about human behavior.O ne of pos it ive psycholo g ys most influential figures is Mihaly Csik-szen tmihalyi, whom I mentioned earlier. Csikszentrnihalyi s firstbook abou t "flow" and Seligmans first book on his theories (whichargued tha t helpl essness was learned, rather than innate, behavior)appeared in the same year as Deci s book on intrinsic motivation .Clearly, some thing big was in the air in 1975 . It s just taken us ageneration to reckon wit h it . T he broad assort me nt of new th ink ers includes Carol Dweckof Stanford University and H arvard s Am abil e. It includes a fewecono mists-most promi nentl y, Rol and Benabou of Princeton Uni-versity and Bruno Frey of the U niversity of Z urich-who are app ly-ing some of these concep ts to th e d ism al science. And it includessome scholars who do nt study mot ivati on pe r se-in part icul ar,Harvard U nive rsitys H oward Ga rd ner and Tuft s University s Rob ert 73
  • 82. DRIVESternberg-who have change d our view of intelligence and creativ-ity and offered a br ighter view of hum an pot ential. This collection of scholars -not in concert , not intentionally, andperh aps not even knowing th eyve been doin g so--has been creatingthe foundation for a new, mor e effective, ope rating system . At longlast , the times may be catching up to th eir work .THE POWER OF THE ALPHABETW ords matter, of course, but so do letters. Case in point: Meyer Friedman. Youve probably never heard of him, but you almostcertainly know his legacy. Friedman , who died in 2001 at the ripeold age of ninety, was a cardiologist who for decades ran a bustlingoffice in San Francisco. In the late 1950s, he and fellow physicianRay Rosenman began noticing similarities in their patients whowere prone to heart disease. It wasn t onl y wh at these patients ate orwhat genes they inherited that affected their susceptibility to coro-nary trouble. It was also how the y led their lives. These patients,Friedman noted, demonstrated : a particular complex of per sonality traits, including excessive competition drive, aggressiveness, impatience, and a harry- ing sense of time urgency . Individuals displayin g this pattern seem to be engaged in a chronic , ceaseless, and often fruitless struggle-with th emselves , with oth ers, with circum stances, with time, som etimes with life it self."The se people were significa ntly mor e likely to develop heart diseasethan oth er pati ent s-s-ev en those who shared similar ph ysical attributes, 74
  • 83. Type I and Type Xexercise regimens, diets, and family histories. Looking for a convenientand memorable way to explain this insight to their medical colleaguesand the wider world, Friedman and Rosenman found inspiration inthe alphabet. They dubbed this behavioral pattern "Type A." Type A behavior stood in contrast to-natch-Type B behavior.Unlike their horn-honking, foot-tapping counterparts, who sufferedfrom "hurry sickness, " people displaying Type B behavior were rarelyharried by life or made hostile by its demands. In their research,Friedman and Rosenman found that Type B people were just as intel-ligent, and frequently just as ambitious, as Type As. But they woretheir ambition differently. Writing about the Type B person (andusing the male-centered language common in the day), the cardiolo-gists explained, "H e may also have a considerable amount of drive,but its character is such that it seems -to steady him , give confidenceand security to him, rather than to goad, irritate, and infuriate, aswith the Type A man .": One key to reducing deaths from heart dis-ease and improving public health, therefore, was to help Type Aslearn to become a little more like Type Bs, Nearly fifty years later, this nomenclature remains. The two let-ters help us understand a complex web of behaviors-and guide ustoward a better and more effective way to live. Around the same time that Friedman and Rosenman were mak-ing their discovery, another American was pushing frontiers of hisown. Douglas McGregor was a management professor at MIT whobrought to the job an interesting combination of experiences. Hedearned a Ph .D. from Harvard in psychology (rather than in econom-ics or engineering). And in contrast to most of his colleagues, hedactually run an institution. From 1948 to 1954, he was president ofAntioch College. Drawing on his und erstanding of the human psyche, as well as hisexperience as a leader , McGr egor began rethinking the conventions 75
  • 84. DRIVEof mod ern mana gem ent . H e th ought th at th e p roblem wi th corpo-rate leadership wasnt so mu ch it s exec ut ion as it s p rem ises. Begin-nin g with a speech in 195 7 , and lat er in a g ro und break ing bookcalled The Human Side 01Enterprise in 1960 , McGreg or arg ued thatthose running companies were operating from faulty assum p tio nsabout human behavior. Most leaders beli eved that th e peopl e in th eir org anizati ons fun-dam entally disliked work and would avoid it if it th ey could. Th esefaceless minions feared taking respon sibility, craved secu ri ty, andbadly needed direction . As a result, "most people mu st be coerced,controlled , directed , and threatened with punishment to ge t th emto put forth adequate effort tow ard the achievement of organiza-tional objectives ." But McGregor said there was an alterna tiv e viewof employees--one that offered a more accurate assessment of thehuman condition and a more effective starting point for runningcompanies. This perspective held that taking an interest in work is"as natural as play or rest, " that creativity and ing enuity wer e widel ydistributed in the population, and that under the proper cond iti ons,people will accept, and even seek, responsibility." To explain these contrasting outlooks , McGregor mined the backend of the alphabet. He called the first view Theory X and the sec-ond Theory Y. If your starting point was Theory X , he said , yourmanagerial techniques would inevitably produce limited results ,or even go awry entirely. If you believed in the "med iocrity of themasses," as he put it, then mediocrity became the ceiling on whatyou could achieve. But if your starting point was Theory Y, the pos-sibilities were vast-not simply for the individuals potential , but forthe companys bottom line as well. The way to make business orga-nizations work better, th erefor e, was to shift manag em ent thinkingaway from Theory X and toward Theory Y. Once aga in, th e nom enclature stuck- and McGregors app roach 76
  • 85. Type I and Type Xsoon became a staple of management education. * A picture may beworth a thousand words-but sometimes neither is as potent as justtwo letters. So with a hoist from Meyer Friedman onto the shoulders of Doug-las McGregor, I d like to introduce my own alphabetic way to thinkabout human motivation.TYPE I AND TYPE XT he Motivation 2.0 operating system depended on, and fostered, what I call Type X behavior. Type X behavior is fueled moreby extrinsic desires than intrinsic ones. It concerns itself less withthe inherent satisfaction of an activity and more with the externalrewards to which that activity leads. The Motivation 3.0 operatingsystem-the upgrade that s needed to meet the new realities of howwe organize, think about, and do what we do--depends on whatI call Type I behavior. Type I behavior is fueled more by intrinsicdesires than extrinsic ones. It concerns itself less with the externalrewards to which an activity leads and more with the inherent satis-fact ion of the activity itself. At the center of Type X behavior is thesecond drive . At the center of Type I behavior is the third drive . If we want to strengthen our organizations, get beyond ourdecade of underachievement, and address the inchoate sense thatsomet hings gone wrong in our businesses, our lives, and our world,we need to move from Type X to Type I. (I use these two letters*Alas, irs impact was g reate r in the classroom chan in the boardro om . Many companies did move their practi ces mor e in the direction of T heory y. But calk co many managers even today and-in privace-cheyll ofcen voice the same assumptions of Th eory X that McGr egor arti culated in 1960. 77
  • 86. DRIVElargel y to signi fy "ext rinsic" and "intrins ic," but also to pay hom ageto Douglas McGregor.) To be sure , redu cing human behavior to two catego ries sacrificesa certain amount of nuance . And nobody exhibi ts p urely Type X orType I behavior every waking minute of every livin g day withoutexception. But we do have cert ain, often very clear, di sposit ions. You probably know what I mean . Think about yourself. Doeswhat energizes you-what gets you up in th e morni ng and p ropelsyou through the day-eome from the inside or from th e outsi de?What about your spouse , your partner, or your chi ld ren? H ow abou tthe men and women around you at work ? If you re lik e most peopleIve talked to, you instantly have a sense into which category some-one belongs. * I don t mean to say that Type X people always neglect the inher -ent enjoyment of what they do--or that Type I people resist outs idegoodies of any kind. But for Type X s, the main motivator is externalrewards; any deeper satisfaction is welcome , but secondary. For TypeIs, the main motivator is the freedom , challenge , and purpose ofthe undertaking itself; any other gains are welcome, but ma inl y asa bonus. A few more distinctions to keep in mind before we go further:Type I behavior is made, not born. These behavioral patternsaren t fixed traits. They are proclivities that emerge from circum-stance, experience, and context. Type I behavior, because it arises in*You can even try with th is people you don t know. See if you agree . Enrons Jeff Skilling was Type X ; Berkshire H ath aways Warren Bufferr is Type 1. Anton io Salieri was Type X; Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was Type 1. Th e very wealt hy Donald Trum p is Type X; the even wealthier Opr ah W infrey is Type 1. Former CEO of GE J ack Welc h is Type X ; Int erface Global founder Ray And erson is Type 1. Simon Cowell is Type X; Bruce Springstee n is Type 1. For a more nuan ced view, check out th e Type I Toolk it at th e end of th e book co find a free online assessment of the category co which you belong . 78
  • 87. Type I and Type Xpart from universal human needs, does not depend on age, gender,or nat ionality. The science demonstrates that once people learn thefundamental pr actices and attitudes-and can exercise them in sup-portive settings-their motivation, and their ultimate performance,soars . An y Type X can become a Type 1.Type Is almost always outperform Type X s in the long run.Int rinsically motivated people usually achieve more than theirrewa rd -seeking counterparts. Alas , that s not always true in the shortterm. An intense focus on extrinsic rewards can indeed deliver fastresults. The trouble is, this approach is difficult to sustain. And itdoesnt assist in mastery-which is the source of achievement overthe long haul. The most successful people, the evidence shows, oftenaren t di rectly pursuing conventional notions of success. Theyreworking hard and pers isting through difficulties because of theirin ternal des ire to control the ir lives, learn about their world, andaccomplish somet hing that endures .Type I behavior does not disdain money or recognition. BothType X s and Type Is care about money. If an employees compensa-tion doesn t hi t th e baseline that I described in Chapter 2- if herorganization doesnt pay her an adequate amount, or if her pay isn tequitable com pared to others doing sim ilar work-that personsmotivation wi ll crate r, regardless of whether she leans toward Xor toward 1. H owever, once compensation meets that level , moneyplays a different role for Type Is th an for Type X s, Type Is don tturn down raises or refuse to cash pa ychecks . But one reason fair andadequate pay is so essentia l is th at it takes th e issue of mon ey off thetable so they can focus on th e work itself. By contra st, for many TypeX s, money is the table. It s why they do what th ey do . Recognition issimilar. Type Is like bei ng recogni zed for th eir accomplishments- 79
  • 88. DRIVEbecause recognition is a form of feedback. But for th em , unl ike forType X s, recognition is not a goal in itse lf.Type I behavior is a renewable resource. Think of Type X behav-ior as coal and Type I behavior as th e sun. For most of recent history,coal has been the cheapest, easiest , most efficient resource. But coalhas two downsides. First , it produces nasty things like air pollutionand greenhouse gases. Second , it s finit e; ge t ti ng more of it becomesincreasingly difficult and expensive each year. Type X behavior is sim -ilar. An emphasis on rewards and punishments spews its own exter-nalities (as enumerated in Chapter 2). And "if-then" motivators alwaysgrow more expensive. But Type I behavior, which is bu ilt aroundintrinsic motivation , draws on resources that are easily replenishedand inflict little damage. It is the motivational equivalent of cleanenergy: inexpensive, safe to use, and endlessly renewable.Type I behavior promotes greater physical and mentalwell-being. According to a raft of studies from SDT researcher s, peo-ple oriented toward autonomy and intrinsic motivation have high erself-esteem, better interpersonal relationships , and g reater ge neralwell-being than those who are extrinsically motivated . By contrast ,people whose core aspirations are Type X validations such as money,fame, or beauty tend to have poorer psycholo gical health. Thereseven a connection between Type X and Type A. De ci found th atthose oriented toward control and extrinsic rewards showed g reate rpublic self-consciousness, acted more defens ively, and were mo relikely to exhibit the Type A behavior pattern."Ultimately, Type I beh avior dep ends on three nutrients: autonomy,mastery, and purpose . Type I behavior is self-directed . It is devoted 80
  • 89. Type I and Type Xto becoming better and better at something that matters. And itconnects that quest for excellence to a larger purpose. Some might dismiss notions like these as gooey and idealistic,but the science says otherwise. The science confirms that this sortof behavior is essential to being human-and that now, in a rapidlychanging economy, it is also critical for professional, personal, andorganizational success of any kind. So we have a choice. We can cling to a view of human motivationthat is grounded more in old habits than in modern science. Or wecan listen to the research, drag our business and personal practicesinto the twenty-first century, and craft a new operating system tohelp ourselves , our companies, and our world work a little better. It won t be easy. It won t happen overnight. So lets get started. 81
  • 90. Pa rt TwoThe Three Elements
  • 91. CHAPTER 4 AutonomyIve seen the future-and it works. It works in around-the-clock bursts in Sydney, Australia. It works on guerrilla-style side proj-ects in Mountain View, California. And it works whenever it damnwell pleases in Charlottesville, Virginia. The reason why it works isbecause of how it works. On the edges of the economy-slowly, butinexorably--old-fashioned ideas of management are giving way to anewfang led emphasis on self-direction. Th at s why, a little past noon on a rainy Friday in Charlottesville,only a th ird of CEO Jeff Gunthers employees have shown up forwork. But Gunther--entrepreneur, manager, capitalist-is neitherworried nor annoy ed . In fact, he s as calm and focused as a monk.Maybe that s because he didn t roll into th e office himself until aboutan hour ago . Or maybe th at s because he knows his crew isn t shirk-ing. Th eyre worki ng-just on th eir own term s.
  • 92. DRIVE At th e beginning of th e year, Gunther laun ched an expe riment inautonom y at Meddius , one of a tri o of companies he run s. H e t urnedthe company, whi ch creates comp uter soft ware and hardw are to he lphospitals int egrate th eir information syste ms, in to a ROWE- aresults-only work environment. ROWEs are the brain ch ild of Cali Ressler and J od y Th om pson ,two former human resources executives at th e Am erican ret ailer BestBuy. ROWEs principles marry the commonsense pr agm ati sm of BenFranklin to the cage-rattling radicalism of Saul Al insky. In a RO W Eworkplace, people don t have sched ules. They show up whe n theywant. They don t have to be in the office at a cert ain tim e--or anytime, for that matter. They just have to get their work do ne. H owthey do it , when they do it, and where they do it is up to th em . That appealed to Gunther, who s in his early thirties. "Ma nag e-ment isn t about walking around and seeing if people are in t heiroffices," he told me . It s about creat ing cond itions for people todo their best work. Thats why hed alwa ys tried to gi ve employ-ees a long leash . But as Meddius expanded , and as Gunther beganexploring new office space, he started wondering whether talented ,grown-up employees doing sophisticated work needed a leash of anylength. So at the companys holiday dinner in December 2008, hemade an announcement: For the first ninety days of the new year,the entire twenty-two-person oper ation would try an experiment. Itwould become a ROWE. "In the beginning, people didn t take to it ," Gunther says. Theoffice filled up around nine A.M. and emptied out in the earl y eve-ning, just as before . A few staffers had come out of extremely con-trolling environments and weren t accustomed to this kind of leeway.(At one employees pr evious company, staff had to arrive each day byeight A.M . If someo ne was late , even by a few minutes, the employeehad to write an explanation for everyone else to read.) But afte r a 86
  • 93. Autonomyfew weeks, most people found their groove. Productivity rose. Stressdeclined. And although two employees struggled with the freedomand left , by the end of the test period Gunther decid ed to go withROWE permanently. "Some people (outside of the company) thought I was crazy," hesays. "T hey wondered, How can you know what your employees aredoing if theyre not here ? But in his view, the team was accom-plishing more under this new arrangement . One reason: They werefocused on the work itself rather than on whether someone wouldcall them a slacker for leaving at three P.M. to watch a daughters soc-cer game. And since the bulk of his staff consists of software devel-opers , designers , and others doing high-level creative work, that wasessential. "For them, it s all about craftsmanship. And they need alot of autonomy. " People still had specific goals they had to reach-for example,completing a project by a certain time or ringing up a particularnumber of sales. And if they needed help, Gunther was there to assist.But he decided against tying those goals to compensation. "T hatcreates a culture that says it s all about the money and not enoughabout the work. " Money , he believes , is only "a threshold motivator. "People must be paid well and be able to take care of their families, hesays. But once a company meets this baseline, dollars and cents don tmuch affect performance and motivation. Indeed, Gunther thinksthat in a ROWE environment, employees are far less likely to jumpto another job for a $ 10, 000 or even $20,000 increase in salary. Thefreedom they have to do great work is more valuable, and harder tomatch , than a pay raise-and employees spouses, partners, and fami-lies are among ROWE s staunchest advocates. "More com panies will migrate to this as more business ownersm y age come up. My dad s generat ion views human beings as humanresour ces. Th eyre th e two -by-fours you need to build your house ," 87
  • 94. DRIVEhe says. "For m e, it s a partnership betw een m e and the em p loyees.Theyre not resources . They re partners. " And partners, like all of us,need to direct their own lives.PLAYERS OR PAWNS?W e forget sometimes that "managem ent" does not em anat e from nature. It s not like a tree or a river . It s like a tele vision or abicycle. Its something that humans invented. As the strateg y g uruGary Hamel has observed , management is a technology. And likeMotivation 2.0 , it s a technology that has g rown creaky. While somecompanies have oiled the gears a bit, and plenty more have paid lipservice to the same, at its core management hasn t changed muchin a hundred years. Its central ethic remains control ; its chief toolsremain extrinsic motivators. That leaves it largely out of sync withthe nonroutine, right-brain abilities on wh ich many of the world seconomies now depend. But could its most glaring weakness rundeeper? Is management, as it s currently constituted , out of syncwith human nature itself? The idea of management (that is, management of people ratherthan management of, say, supply chains) is built on cert ain assump-tions about the basic natures of those being managed. It presumesthat to take action or move forward, we need a prod-that absent areward or punishment , we d remain happily and inertly in place. Italso presumes that once people do get moving, they need direction-that without a firm and reliable g u ide, theyd wander. But is that really our fundamental nature ? Or, to use yet anot hercomputer me tap hor, is th at our "default setting "? When we enter 88
  • 95. Autonomythe world, are we wired to be passive and inert? Or are we wired tobe active and engaged? Im convinced its the latter-that our basic nature is to be curi-ous and self-directed. And I say that not because Im a dewy-eyedidealist, but because Ive been around young children and becausemy wife and I have three kids of our own. Have you ever seen asix-month-old or a one-year-old whos not curious and self-directed?I haven t. Thats how we are out of the box. If, at age fourteen orforty-three, were passive and inert, thats not because it s our nature.It s because something flipped our default setting. That something could well be management-not merely howbosses treat us at work, but also how the broader ethos has leechedinto schools, families, and many other aspects of our lives. Perhapsmanagement isnt responding to our supposedly natural state of pas-sive inertia. Perhaps management is one of the forces thats switchingour default setting and producing that state. Now, thats not as insidious as it sounds. Submerging part of ournature in the name of economic survival can be a sensible move. Myancestors did it; so did yours. And there are times, even now, whenwe have no other choice. But today economic accomplishment, not to mention personalfulfillment , more often swings on a different hinge. It depends noton keeping our nature submerged but on allowing it to surface. Itrequires resisrmg the temptation to control people-and insteaddoing everything we can to reawaken their deep-seated sense ofautonomy. This innate capacity for self-direction is at the heart ofMotivation 3.0 and Type I behavior. The fundamentally autonomous quality of human nature is centralto self-determ ination theory (SDT). As I explained in the previouschap ter, Deci and Ryan cite autonomy as one of three basic human 89
  • 96. DRIVE needs. And of th e three, it s"The ultimate freedom for creativegroups the most important-theis the freedom to experiment with new sun around wh ich SDT sideas. Some skeptics insist that innovation planets orbit. In the 1980 s,is expensive. In the long run, innovation as they progressed in the iris cheap. Mediocrityis expensive-and work, Deci and Ryan movedautonomycan be the antidote. If away from categorizing be- TOM KELLEY havior as either extrinsically General Manager, IDEO motivated or intrinsically motivated to categorizing it as either controlled orautonomous. "Autonomous motivation involves behaving with afull sense of volition and choice," they write, "whereas controlledmotivation involves behaving with the experience of pressure anddemand toward specific outcomes that comes from forces perceivedto be external to the self." 1 Autonomy, as they see it, is different from independence. It snot the rugged, go-it-alone, rely-on-nobody individualism of theAmerican cowboy. It means acting with choice-which means wecan be both autonomous and happily interdependent with others.And while the idea of independence has national and political rever-berations, autonomy appears to be a human concept rather than awestern one..Researchers have found a link between autonomy andoverall well-being not only in North America and Western Europe,but also in Russia, Turkey, and South Korea . Even in high-povertynon- Western locales like Bangladesh, social scientists have foundthat autonomy is something that people seek and that improves the irlives. 2 A sense of autonomy has a powerful effect on individual perfor-mance and attitude. According to a cluster of recent behavioral sci-ence studies, autonomous motivation promotes greater conceptual 90
  • 97. Au tonomyunderstanding, better grades, enhanced persistence at school and insporting activities, higher productivity, less burnout, and greaterlevels of psychological well-being," Those effects carry over to theworkplace. In 2004, Deci and Ryan, along with Paul Baard ofFordham University, carried out a study of workers at an Americaninvestment bank. The three researchers found greater job satisfactionamong employees whose bosses offered "autonomy support." Thesebosses saw issues from the employees point of view, gave meaningfulfeedback and information, provided ample choice over what to doand how to do it, and encouraged employees to take on new projects.The resulting enhancement in job satisfaction, in turn, led to higherperformance on the job. Whats more, the benefits that autonomyconfers on individuals extend to their organizations. For example,researchers at Cornell University studied 320 small businesses,half of which granted workers autonomy, the other half relying ontop-down direction. The businesses that offered autonomy grew atfour times the rate of the control-oriented firms and had one-thirdthe turnover." Yet too many businesses remain woefully behind the science.Most twenty-first-century notions of management presume that,in the end , people are pawns rather than players. British economistFrancis Green, to cite just one example, points to the lack of indi-vidual discretion at work as the main explanation for declining pro-ductivity and job satisfaction in the UK. s Management still revolveslargely around supervision, "if-then" rewards, and other formsof control. That s true even of the kinder, gentler Motivation 2.1approach that whispers sweetly about things like "empowerment"and "flexibility." Indeed, just consider the very notion of "empowerment." It pre-sumes that the organization has the power and benevolently ladlessome of it into the waiting bowls of grateful employees. But thats 91
  • 98. DRIVEnot autonomy. Thats just a slightly more civilized form of control. O rtake management s em brace of "flex time ." Ressler and Thompson callit a "con game," and they re right. Flexibility simply widens th e fencesand occasionally opens the gates . It , too, is littl e more th an control insheeps clothing. The words themselves reflect presumptions that runagainst both the texture of the times and th e nature of th e human con-dition. In short, management isnt the solution; it s th e problem. Perhaps it s time to toss the very word "management" onto thelinguistic ash heap alongside "icebox" and "horseless carr iage ." Thisera doesn t call for better management. It calls for a renaissance ofself-direction.THE FOUR ESSENTIALSIn 2002, Scott Farquhar and Mike Carmon-Brookes, two wet-behind- the-ears Australians just out of university, borrowed $ 10, 000 ontheir credit cards to start a software company. They anointed the irventure with a bold name-Atlassian, after the Greek titan Atlas,who bore the world on his shoulders. And they set about creat inga company to compete against some of the big names in enterprisesoftware. At the time, their venture seemed loony. Today, it seemsinspired. Through its combination of great computer code and smartbusiness practices, Atlassian now rakes in about $3 5 m ill ion peryear-and employs nearly two hundred people in offices in Sydne y,Amsterdam, and San Francisco . But like any good entrepreneur, Carmon-Brookes walk s throughlife beneath a cloud of perpetual dissatisfaction. He d seen successfulcompanies stag nate and wished to avoid th at fate for his . So to sparkeven greater creativity among his team, and to make sure Atlassians 92
  • 99. Autonomyprogrammers were having fun at work, he decided to encourage themto spend a day working on an y problem th ey wanted , even if it wasn tpart of their regular job. This offbeat off-d ay gave birth to several ideas for new productsand plenty of rep airs and patches on existing ones. So Carmon-Brookesdecided to make the practice a permanent part of the Atlassian cul-ture. Now, once a quarter, the company sets aside an entire day whenits eng ineers can work on any software problem they want-onlyth is time, "to get them out of the day to day," it must be somethingthat s not part of their regular job . At two P.M. on a Thursday, the day begins . Engineers, includingCarmon-Brookes himself, crash out new code or an elegant hack-any way the y want, with anyone they want. Many work throughthe night. Then, at four P.M. on Friday, the y show the results to therest of th e com pany in a wild-and-woolly all-hands meeting stockedwit h am p le quantities of cold beer and chocolate cake. Atlassiancalls t hese twenty-four-hour bursts of freedom and creativity "FedExDa ys"-because people have to deliver something overnight. Anddeliver Atlassians have. O ver the years, this odd little exercise hasp rod uced an array of soft ware fixes that mi ght otherwise never haveem erg ed . Says one eng ineer, "Som e of the coolest stuff we have in ourp roduct today has come from FedE x Days." This isn t a pay-for-pe rformance plan , g rounded in the mechanisticassumptions of Motivat ion 2.0 . It s an autonom y plan , nicely tuned tothe alternate strai ns of Mo ti vati on 3.0. "Weve always taken th e posi-t ion that money is only somethi ng you can lose on ," Cannon-Brookestold me . "If you do nt pay eno ug h, you can lose peopl e. But beyondthat , money is not a mot ivat or. What matters are th ese other fea-tures. " And what a few future-faci ng bu sin esses are d iscovering is th atone of these essential feat ures is autonom y-in parti cul ar, autonom yover four aspects of work: what peop le do, whe n th ey do it , how th ey 93
  • 100. DRIV Edo it , and whom th ey do it with . As Atl assian s experience shows,Type I behavior emerges wh en peopl e have auto nomy over the fourT s: their task, th eir time, th eir technique, and th eir team.TaskCarmon-Brookes was still dissatisfied. FedEx Days were working fine,but they had an inherent weakness . "You built something in twent y-four hours , but you didn t get any more time to work on it, " he says.So he and cofounder Farquhar decided to double-down the ir bet onemployee autonomy. In the spring of 2008 , the y announced that for thenext six months, Atlassian developers could spend 20 percent of theirtime-rather than just one intense day-working on any pro ject the ywanted. As Carmon-Brookes explained in a blog post to employees: A startup engineer must be all things-he (or she ) is a full time software developer and a part time product manager / customer support guru/internal systems maven . As a com- pany grows, an engineer spends less time building the th ings he personally wants in the product. Our hope is that 20 % time gives engineers back dedicated stack time--of their own direction-to spend on product innovation, features , plug ins , fixes or additions that they think are the most important." This practice has a sturdy tradition and a well-known modernexpression. Its pioneer was the American company 3M. In the 19 30sand 1940s, 3M s pr esident and chairman was William McKnight,a fellow who was as unassuming in his manner as he was visionaryin his th inking . McKnight believed in a simple, and at the time, 94
  • 101. Autonomysubversive , credo: "H ire goodpeople , and leave them alone." ~s an entrepreneur, Im blessed with 100%Well before it was fashionable autonomy over task, time, technique andfor manag ers to flap on about team. Heres the thing : If I maintain that"empowerment," he made a autonomy, I fail . I fail to ship. I fail to excel.more vigorous case for auton- I fail to focus. I inevitably end up eitheromy. "T hose men and women with no product or a product the marketto whom we delegate author- rejects. The art of the art is picking yourity and responsibility, if they limits. Thats the autonomy I most cherish.are good people , are going The freedom to pick my boundaries."to want to do their jobs in SETH GODIN , Author of Tribes,their own way," he wrote Purple Cow, and the world s most popular marketing blogin 1948. 7 McKnight evenencouraged employees toengage in what he called"experimental doodling. " W ith these unorthodox ideas percolating in his mind, thisunlikely corporate heretic established a new policy: 3M s technicalstaff could spend up to 15 percent of their time on projects of theirchoosing . The initiative felt so counter to the mores of Motivation2.0 , so seemi ng ly illicit, that inside the company, it was known asthe "bootlegg ing policy." And yet it worked. These walled gardensof au to nomy soon became fertile fields for a harvest of innovations-includi ng Post- it notes . Scientist Art Fry came up with his idea forthe ubiq uit ous srickie not in one of his regular assignments, butdu ring his 15 percent tim e. Today, Post-its are a monumental busi-ness: 3M offers mor e than six hundred Post-it products in more thanone hundred cou ntries. (And th eir cultural impact might be evengreater. Cons ide r: But for McKn ights early push for autonomy, wedbe living in a world wi thout any sma ll yellow sq uares stu ck to ourcomputer mo nito rs. A chilling thought ind eed .) According to 3Ms 95
  • 102. DRIVEformer head of research and development, mo st of th e inv entionsth at the compa ny relies on even tod ay eme rged from t hose periods ofbootlegging and experimental doodling ." McKnights innovation remains in pl ace at 3M. But only a su r-prisingly small number of other companies have moved in th is d irec-tion , despite its proven results . The best-known com pa ny to embraceit is Goo gle , which has long encouraged eng ineers to spe nd one day aweek working on a side project. Some Goo glers use th eir "20 percenttime" to fix an existing product , but most use it to develop some -thing entirely new. Of course , Goo gle doesn t sign away the in tellec -tual property rights to what s created during that 20 per cent-wh ichis wise. In a typical year, more than half of Google s new offerings arebirthed during this period of pure autonomy. For example, scientistKrishna Bharat, frustrated by how difficult it was to find news sto riesonline, created Google News in his 20 percent time. The site nowreceives millions of visitors every day. Former Google eng ineer Pau lBucheit created Gmail , now one of the world s most popular e-m ailprograms, as his 20 percent project. Man y other Goo gle productsshare similar creation stories-among them Orkut (G oog les socialnetworking software), Google Talk (its instant message application),Google Sky (which allows astronomically inclined users to bro wsepictures of the universe), and Google Translate (its translation soft-ware for mobile devices) . As Google engineer Alec Proudfoot , whoseown 20 percent project aimed at boosting the efficiency of hybr idcars, put it in a television interview: "J ust about all the good ideashere at Google have bubbled up from 20 percent time. "? Back at Adassian , the experiment in 20 per cent tim e seemed towork. In what turned out to be a yearlong tri al, develop ers laun chedforty-eight new proje cts . So in 2009, Carmon-Brookes decided tomake this dose of task autonomy a permanent feature of Adassian worklife. Th e deci sion didn t sit well with everyone. By Carmon-Brookess 96
  • 103. Autonomyback-of-the-blog calculations, seventy engineers, spending 20 percentof their time over just a six-month period, amounted to an invest-ment of 1 million. The companys chief financial officer was aghast.Some project managers-----despite Atlassians forward-thinking ways,the company still uses the m-word-werent happy, because it meantceding some of their control over employees. When a few wantedto track employees time to make sure they didnt abuse the privi-lege , Carmon-Brookes said no. "That was too controlling. 1 wanted toback our engineers and take it on faith that theyll do good things. "Besides , he says, "People are way more efficient about 20 percent timethan regular work time. They say, Im not going to [expletivejing doanything like read newsfeeds or do Facebook. " These days , when a finance guy, pearls of sweat rolling from hisgreen eyeshades, objects to the price tag, Cannon-Brookes has a readyresponse: "I show him a long list of things weve delivered. 1 showhim that we have zero turnover in engineering. And 1 show him thatwe have highly motivated engineers who are always trying to perfectand imp rove our product. " Autonomy over task is one of the essential aspects of the Motiva-tio n 3.0 approach to work. And it isnt reserved only for technol-ogy companies. At Georgetown University Hospital in Washington,D .C., for instance, many nurses have the freedom to conduct their ownresearch proje cts, which in turn have changed a number of the hos-pi tals pro grams and policies. " Autonomy measures can work in arange of field s-and offer a promising source for innovations andeven institutional reform s. In itiati ves lik e FedEx Days and sanctioned side projects aren talwa ys easy to execute in the day-to-day maw of serving customers,shipping p rod ucts, and solving problems. But theyre becomingurge nt in an econom y that demands nonroutine, creative, conceptualabilities-as any arti st or designer would agree . Autonomy over task 97
  • 104. DRIVEhas long been critical to their ability to create. And good leader s (asopposed to competent "managers") understand thi s in th eir bone s. Case in point: George Nelson, who was the design dire ctor at H er-man Miller, the iconic American furniture maker, for a few decades.He once laid down five simple tenets that he believed led to g reatdesign. One of these principles could serve as a rallying cry for TypeIs ethic of autonomy over task: "You decide what you will make ."TimeEver wonder why lawyers, as a group, are so miserable ? Some socialscientists have-and they ve offered three explanations. One involvespessimism. Being pessimistic is almost always a recipe for low levels ofwhat psychologists call "subjective well-being." It s also a detrimentin most professions. But as Martin Seligman has wri tten, "There is oneglaring exception: pessimists do better at law." In other words , an atti-tude that makes someone less happy as a human being actually makesher more effective as a lawyer. 11 A second reason: Most other enter-prises are positive-sum. If I sell you something you want and en joy,were both better off. Law, by contrast, is often (though not always)a zero-sum game: Because somebody wins, somebody else must lose. But the third reason might offer the best explanation of all-andhelp us understand why so few attorneys exemplify Type I behavior.Lawyers often face intense demands but have relatively little "decisionlatitude." Behavioral scientists use this term to describe the choices ,and perceived choices, a person has. In a sense, it s another way ofdescribing autonomy-and lawyers are glum and cranky becausethey dont have much of it. The deprivation starts early. A 200 7 studyof two American law schools found that over the three-year period inschool, students overall well-being plummeted-in large part because 98
  • 105. Autonomytheir need for autonomy wasthwarted. But students who "Nothing is more important to my successhad greater autonomy over than controlling my schedule Im most .their course selection, their creative from five to nine A.M . If I had aassignments, and their rela- boss or co-workers, they would ruin mytions with professors showed best hours one way or another."far less steep declines and SCOTT ADAMSactually posted better grades Dilbertcreatorand bar exam scores. " Alas, at the heart of pri-vate legal practice is perhaps the most autonomy-crushing mechanismimaginable: the billable hour . Most lawyers-and nearly all lawyersin large, prestigious firms-must keep scrupulous track , often insix-minute increments, of their time. If they fail to bill enough hours,their jobs are in jeopardy. As a result, their focus inevitably veers fromthe output of their work (solving a clients problem) to its input (pilingup as many hours as possible). If the rewards come from time, thentime is what firms will get. These sorts of high-stakes, measurablegoals can drain intrinsic motivation, sap individual initiative, and evenencourage unethical behavior. "If one is expected to bill more than twothousand hours per year," former U.S. Supreme Court Chief JusticeWilliam Rehnquist once said, "there are bound to be temptations toexaggerate the hours actually put in. "! Th e billable hour is a relic of Motivation 2.0. It makes some sensefor routine tasks-whether fitting doors onto the body of a Ford Tau-rus or adding up deductions on a simple tax form-because theres atight connection between how mu ch time goes in and how mu ch workcomes out. And if your starting assumption is that workers default set-ting is to shirk, monitoring their time can keep them on their toes. But the billable hour has little place in Motivation 3.0. Fornonroutine tasks, including law, the link betw een how much time 99
  • 106. DRIVEsomebody spends and what that som ebody produces is irr egular an dunpredictable. Imagine requiring inv entor Dean Kamen or actressHelen Mirren to bill for their time. If we begin from an altern a-tive, and more accurate, presumption-that people want to do go odwork-then we ought to let them focus on the work it self rather thanthe time it takes them to do it . Alr eady, a few law firm s are m ovin gin this new, more Type I direction-charging a flat rat e rather thana time-based fee-with the presiding partner of one of New York sleading law firms recently decl arin g , "T his is th e time to ge t rid ofthe billable hour."!" If the billable hour has an antithesis, it s the results-only workenvironment of the kind that Jeff Gunther has introduced at hiscompanies. The first large company to go ROWE was Best Bu y-not in its stores, but in its corporate offices. Like 3M s 15 per centt ime, Best Buys ROW E experiment began as something of a rogueproject launched by Ressler and Thompson, whom I mentioned ear-lier and who have since become ROWE gurus, taking the ir messageof autonomy around the world . Best Buy s headquarters in Richfield,Minnesota, are airy, modern, and replete with a concierge, cafes, anddry cleaner. But the company had a reputation for punishing hoursand intrusive bosses-and it was paying the price in lost talent.Best Buys then CEO Brad Anderson quietly agreed to Ressler andThompsons weird proposal , because it encouraged "people to con-tribute rather than just show up and grind out their da ys."I) Today, Best Buy s headquarters has fewer people working a regu-lar schedule than it has tho se working a ROWE un-schedule. Andeven though ret ail electroni cs is a brutally com pet it ive industry, BestBuy has held it s own both in the marketplace and in its quest fortalent . Reporting on th e companys ROWE results in the HarvardBusiness Review, Tamara Erickson writes: 100
  • 107. Autonomy Salaried people put in as much time as it takes to do their work. Hourly employees in the program work a set number of hours to comply with federal labor regulations, but they get to choose when. Those employees report better relationships with family and friends, more company loyalty, and more focus and energy. Productivity has increased by 35%, and voluntary turnover is 320 basis points lower than in teams that have not made the change. Employees say they dont know whether they work fewer hours-theyve stopped counting;" Without sovereignty over our time, its nearly impossible to haveautonomy over our lives. A few Type I organizations have begun torecognize this truth about the human condition and to realign theirpractices. More, no doubt, will follow. "In the past, work was definedprimarily by putting in time, and secondarily on getting results. Weneed to flip that model," Ressler told me. "No matter what kindof business youre in, it s time to throwaway the tardy slips, timeclocks, and outdated industrial-age thinking."TechniqueWhen you call a customer service line to complain about your cabletelevision bill or to check the whereabouts of that blender youordered, the phone usually rings in a colorless cavern known as a callcenter. The person who answers the call, a customer service represen-tative, has a tough job. He typically sits for hours among a warrenof cramped cubicles-headset strapped on, a diet soda by his side.The pay is paltry. And the people the rep encounters on the phone-one after another after another-generally arent ringing up to offer 101
  • 108. DRIVEkudos or to ask about the rep s weekend plans . They ve got a gripe, afrustration, or a problem that needs solving. Right . Now. If that weren t trying enough, call center reps have little decisionlatitude and their jobs are often the very definition of routine. Whena call comes in, they listen to the caller-and then , in most cases, tapa few buttons on their computer to retrieve a script. Then they followthat script, sometimes word for word, in the hope of getting th e calleroff the line as quickly as possible. It can be deadening work , madedrearier still because managers in many call centers, in an effort toboost productivity, listen in on reps conversations and monitor howlong each call lasts. Little wonder, then, that call centers in the Un itedStates and the UK have annual turnover rates that average about 35percent, double the rate for other jobs. In some call centers the annualturnover rate exceeds 100 percent, meaning that, on average , none ofthe people working there today will be there a year from now. Tony Hsieh, founder of the online shoe retailer (nowpart of, thought there was a better way to recruit,prepare, and challenge such employees. So new hires at Zappos gothrough a week of training. Then, at the end of those seven days,Hsieh makes them an offer. If they feel Zappos isn t for them andwant to leave, hell pay them $2,000-no hard feelings. Hsieh ishacking the Motivation 2.0 operating system like a brilliant andbenevolent teenage computer whiz. Hes using an "if-then" rewardnot to motivate people to perform better, but to weed out thosewho arent fit for a Motivation 3.0-style workplace. The people whoremain receive decent pay, and just as important, they have auton-omy over technique. Zappos doesn t monitor its customer serviceemployees call times or require them to use scripts. The reps handlecalls the way they want. Their job is to serve the customer well; howthey do it is up to them. The results of this emphasis on autonomy over technique? Turn- 102
  • 109. Autonomyover at Zappos is minimal. And although it s still young, Zapposconsistently ranks as one of the best companies for customer servicein the United States-ahead of better-known names like Cadillac,BMW, and Apple and roughly equal to ritzy brands like Jaguar andthe Ritz-Carlton. " Not bad for a shoe company based in the Nevadadesert. What Zappos is doing is part of a small but growing move torestore some measure of individual freedom in jobs usually knownfor the lack of it. For instance, while many enterprises are offshoringwork to low-cost providers overseas, some companies are reversingthe trend by beginning whats known as "homeshoring." Instead ofrequiring customer service reps to report to a single large call center,they re routing the calls to the employees homes. This cuts com-muting time for staff, removes them from physical monitoring, andprovides far greater autonomy over how they do their jobs. The American airline JetBlue was one of the first to try thisapproach. From its launch in 2000, JetBlue has relied on telephonecustomer service employees who work at home. And from its launch,JetBlue has earned customer service rankings far ahead of its com-petitors. Productivity and job satisfaction are generally higher inhomeshoring than in conventional arrangements-in part becauseemployees are more comfortable and less monitored at home. But itsalso because this autonomy-centered approach draws from a deeperpool of talent. Many homeshore employees are parents, students, retir-ees, and people with disabilities-those who want to work, but needto do it their own way. According to one report, between 70 and 80percent of home-based customer service agents have college degrees-double the percentage among people working in traditional call cen-ters. Ventures like Alpine Access, PHH Arval, and LiveOps, whichrun customer service departments for a range of companies, report thatafter adopting this method, their recruiting costs fall to almost zero. 103
  • 110. DRIVEProspective employees come to them. And now these home-basedcustomer service reps are working for a number of U .S. companie s--including I-BOO-Flowers, J. Crew, Office Depot, even the InternalRevenue Service-handling customer inquiries the way they choose."As in any effective Motivation 3.0 workplace, it s their call.TeamWhatever your place in the birth order, consider what its like to bethe third child in a family. You dont get a say in choosing the peoplearound you. They re there when you arrive. Worse, one or two of themmight not be so glad to see you. And getting rid of even just one of them is usually impossible. Taking a new job and"Autonomy over what we do is most holding most jobs are simi-important. The biggestdifference between lar. Enterprising souls mightworking forother studios and running be able to scratch out somemy own has been the fact that I can autonomy over task, time, andchoose whatjob we take on and what technique-but autonomyproduct, service, or institution we promote. over team is a taller order.This I find the singlemost important Thats one reason people arequestion:When Im close to the content, drawn to entrepreneurship--research becomeseasy, meetings become the chance to build a team ofinteresting(people who produce interesting their own. But even in moreproductsor services aremostly interesting traditional settings, althoughthemselves), and I dont have to be far from typical yet, a fewinvolvedin false advertising." organizations are discovering STEFAN SAGMEISTER the virtues of offering people Designer some amount of freedom over those with whom they work. 704
  • 111. Autonomy For example, at the organic g rocery chain Whole Foods , th e peo-ple who are nominally in charge of each department don t do thehiring . That task falls to a departments employees. Aft er a job can-d id ate has worked a thirty-day trial period on a team , th e prospectiveteammates vote on wh ether to hire th at pe rson full-time. At W. L.Gore & Assoc iat es, the makers of the GORE-TEX fabric and anotherexample of Motivation 3.0 in action , anybody who wants to rise inthe ranks and lead a team must assemble people willing to workwi th her. 19 The abi lity to put together a pick-up basketball team of com-pany talent is anot her attraction of 20 percent time. These initiativesusu all y slice across the organization chart, connecting people whosha re an int erest, if not a department. As Google engineer BharatMedi rat ta told T he New York Times, "If your 20 percent idea is anew p rod uct, it s usually pretty easy to just find a few like-mindedpeople and st art cod ing away. " And when pushing for a more sys-tem ic cha nge in th e organization, Mediratta says autonomy overteam is eve n more important. Those efforts require what he calls a"g roup let "- a sma ll, self-organized team that has almost no budgetand even less aut horit y, but that tries to change something withinthe company. For instance, Mediratta formed a testing grouplet toencourage engi nee rs throughout the com pany to implement a moreefficient way to test com p ute r code. This informal band of coders , ateam built autonomo usly wit hout direction from the top , "slowlyturned the orga nizat ion on its axis.":" Still , the desire for au to no m y can often collide with other obliga-tions. O ne surprise as Atl assian ran th e numbers on its task autonomyexperiment was that m ost emp loyees came in su bsta nt ially under th e20 percent figu re. T he m ain reason ? Th ey didn t want to let downtheir current team mates by aba ndo ni ng ongo ing pro ject s. Althoug h autonom y over team is th e least develop ed of th e four 105
  • 112. DRIVEupdate the environments were in-not only at work, but also atschool and at home-and if leaders recognize both the truth of thehuman condition and the science that supports it, we can return our-selves and our colleagues to our natural state. "The course of human history has always moved in the direc-tion of greater freedom. And theres a reason for that-because it sin our nature to push for it," Ryan told me. "If we were just plasticlike [some} people think, this wouldnt be happening. But some-body stands in front of a tank in China. Women, whove been deniedautonomy, keep advocating for rights. This is the course of history.This is why ultimately human nature, if it ever realizes itself, will doso by becoming more autonomous." 108
  • 113. CHAPTER 5 Mastery You neednot see what someone is doing to know if it is his vocation, you have only to watch his eyes: a cook mixing a sauce, a surgeon making a primary incision, a clerkcompleting a bill of lading, wear the samerapt expression, forgetting themselves in a function. How beautiful it is, that eye -on-the-object look. -w H. AudenO ne summer morning in 1944, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, age ten , stood on a train platform in Budapest, Hungary, with hismother, two brothers, and about seventy relatives whod come tosee them off. World War II was raging, and Hungary, an ambiva-lent member of the Axis, was being squeezed from every politicaland geographic corner. Nazi soldiers were occupying the country inretaliation for Hungary s secret peace negotiations with the United
  • 114. DRIVEStates and Gre at Britain. Meanwhile, Soviet troops were advancingon the capital city. It was time to leave. So the four som e board ed a train for Venice,Italy, where Csiksz entmihalyi s fath er, a diplomat , was working . Asthe train rumbled southwest , bombs exploded in th e d ist ance. Bul-lets ripped through the train s windows, whil e a rifle-t ot ing soldieron board fired back at the attackers. The ten-year-old crouched underhis seat , terrified but also a little annoyed . "It struck me at that point that grown-ups had really no idea howto live, " Csikszentmihalyi told me some sixty-five years lat er. His train would turn out to be the last to cross th e Danube Riverfor many years. Shortly after its departure, air strikes destroyed H un-gary s major bridges. The Csikszentmihalyis were well edu cat ed andwell connected, but the war flattened their lives. O f the relat iveson the train platform that morning, more than hal f would be deadfive months later. One of Csikszentrnihalyi s brothers spent six yearsdoing hard labor in the Ural Mountains . Another was killed fighti ngthe Soviets. "T he whole experience got me thinking ," Csikszentmihalyi said,recalling his ten-year-old self. "T here has got to be a better way tolive than this."FROM COMPLIANCE TO ENGAGEMENTT he opposite of autonomy is control. And since the y sit at differ- ent poles of the behavioral compass , they point us tow ard dif-ferent desti nat ions. Control leads to compliance; autonomy leadsto enga gem ent . And this distinction lead s to the second element 110
  • 115. Masteryof Type I behavior: mastery-the desire to get better and better atsomething that matters. As I explained in Part One, Motivation 2.0s goal was to encouragepeople to do particular things in particular ways-that is, to get themto comply. And for that objective, few motivators are more effectivethan a nice bunch of carrots and the threat of an occasional stick.This was rarely a promising route to self-actualization, of course.But as an economic strategy, it had a certain logic. For routine tasks,the sort of work that defined most of the twentieth century, gainingcompliance usually worked just fine. But that was then. For the definitional tasks of the twenty-firstcentury, such a strategy falls short, often woefully short. Solvingcomplex problems requires an inquiring mind and the willingnessto experiment ones way to a fresh solution. Where Motivation 2.0sought compliance, Motivation 3.0 seeks engagement. Only engage-ment can produce mastery. And the pursuit of mastery, an importantbut often dormant part of our third drive, has become essential inmaking one s way in rodays economy. Unfortunately, despite sweet-smelling words like "empower-ment" that waft through corporate corridors, the modern workplacesmost notable feature may be its lack of engagement and its disregardfor mastery. Gallups extensive research on the subject shows thatin the United States, more than 50 percent of employees are notengaged at work-and nearly 20 percent are actively disengaged.The cost of all this disengagement: about $300 billion a year in lostproductivity-a sum larger than the GDP of Portugal, Singapore, orIsrael. Yet in comparative terms, the United States looks like a veri-table haven of Type I behavior at work. According to the consultingfirm McKinsey & Co., in some countries as little as 2 to 3 percent ofthe workforce is highly engaged in their work. 111
  • 116. DRIVE Equ ally importa nt, engage me nt as a rou te to mastery is a powe r-ful force in our personal lives. While comp lying can be an effectivestrategy for physical survival , it s a lousy one for personal fulfill-ment. Living a satisfying life requires mor e than simp ly mee ting thedemands of those in control. Yet in our offices and our classrooms wehave way too much compliance and way too little engage men t. T heformer might get you through the day, but only th e latter willget you through the night. And that brin gs us back to Csikszent-rnihalyi s story. In his early teens, after witnessing th e atrocities of Na zi Germanyand the Soviet takeover of his country, Csikszentmihalyi was under-standably weary of compliance and looking for engagement . But hewouldnt find it at school. He dropped out of high school at thi rteen .For nearly a decade, he worked in various Western European coun -tries at a series of jobs, some odder than others , to support him self.And hoping to answer his youthful question about a better way tolive, he read everything he could get his hands on in relig ion andphilosophy. What he learned didn t satisfy him. It wasn t until heinadvertently stumbled into a lecture by none other th an Carl J ungthat he heard about the field of psychology and decid ed th at it m ighthold the secrets he sought. So in 1956, at the age of twenty-two, Csikszentmihalyi set off forthe United States to study psychology. He arrived in Chi cago, a highschool dropout with $ 1.2 5 in his pocket whose onl y familiari tywith the English language came from readin g Pogo comic st rips.Hungarian contacts in Ch icago help ed him find a job and a placeto live. His knowledge of Latin, German , and Pogo help ed him passthe Illinois high school equivalency test in a langu age he neitherspoke nor read . He enrolled in th e Uni versity of Illinois-Chicago,took classes during th e day, work ed as a hotel aud itor at night, 112
  • 117. Masteryand eventually wound up at the University of Chicago psychologydepartment, where-just nine years after setting foot in America-he earned a Ph.D. But Csikszentmihalyi resisted rafting down the main currents ofhis field. As he told me one spring morning not long ago, he wantedto explore "the positive, innovative, creative approach to life insteadof the remedial, pathological view that Sigmund Freud had or themechanistic work " of B. F. Skinner and others who reduced behaviorto simple stimulus and response. He began by writing about creativ-ity. Creativity took him into the study of play. And his explorationof play unlocked an insight about the human experience that wouldmake him famous . In the midst of play, many people enjoyed what Csikszent-mihalyi called "autotelic experiences"-from the Greek auto (self)and te/os (goal or purpose). In an autotelic experience, the goal isself-fulfilling; the activity is its own reward. Painters he observedduring his Ph .D. research, Csikszentmihalyi said, were so enthralledin what they were doing that they seemed to be in a trance. For them,time passed quickly and self-consciousness dissolved. He sought outother people who gravitated to these sorts of pursuits-rock climb-ers, soccer players, swimmers, spelunkers-and interviewed them todiscover what made an activity autotelic. It was frustrating. "W henpeople try to recall how it felt to climb a mountain or playa greatmusical piece ," Csikszentmihalyi later wrote, "their stories areusually quite stereotyped and uninsightful. " 3 He needed a way toprobe peoples experiences in the moment. And in the mid-1970s,a bold new technology--one that any twelve-year-old now wouldfind laughingly retro grad e-came to the rescue: the electronicpager. Csikszentmihalyi, who by th en was teaching at the University of 113
  • 118. DRIVE Chicago and running his own"Throughout my athletics career, the psychology lab, clipp ed on aoverall goal was always to be a better pager and asked his gradu-athlete than I was at that moment- ate students to beep himwhether next week, next month or next randomly several times eachyear. The improvement was the goal. The day. Whenever the pagermedal was simply the ultimate reward for sounded , he recorded whatachieving that goal. " he was doing and how he SEBASTIAN COE was feeling. "It was so much Middle-distance runner fun, " he recalled in his office and two-time Olympic gold medal winner at the Claremont Graduate University in southern Cali- fornia, where he now teaches. "You got such a detailed pic-ture of how people lived." On the basis of this test run, he developeda methodology called the Experience Sampling Method . Csikszent-mihalyi would page people eight times a day at random intervalsand ask them to write in a booklet their answers to several shortquestions about what they were doing, who they were with, andhow theyd describe their state of mind. Put the findings togetherfor seven days and you had a flip book , a mini-movie, of sorneone sweek. Assemble the individual findings and you had an entire libraryof human experiences. From these results, Csikszentmihalyi began to peel back the lay-ers of those autotelic experiences. Perhaps equ ally significant) hereplaced that wonky Greek-derived adjective with a word he foundpeople usin g to describe these optimal moments: flow. Th e highest)most satisfying experiences in people s lives were when the y werein flow. And this previously unacknowledged mental state) whichseemed so inscrutable and transcendent) was actually fairly easy to 114
  • 119. Mast eryunpack. In flow, goals are clear. You have to reach the top of themountain , hit the ball across the net , or mold the clay just right.Feedb ack is immediat e. The mountaintop gets closer or farther, theball sails in or out of bounds, the pot you re throwing comes outsmooth or une ven . Most important , in flow, the relationship between what a personhad to do and what he could do was perfect. The challenge wasn t tooeasy. Nor was it too difficult. It was a not ch or two beyond his cur-rent abilities, which stretched the body and mind in a way that madethe effort itsel f the most delicious reward. That balance produced adegr ee of focus and satisfaction that easily surpassed other, more quo-t id ian , experiences. In flow, people lived so deeply in the moment,and felt so utterly in control , that their sense of time, place , and evenself melted away. Th ey were autonomous, of course . But more thant hat , t hey were engaged . They were , as the poet W. H . Auden wrote,"forgetting themselves in a function. " Maybe th is state of mind was what that ten-year-old boy wasseeking as that train rolled through Europe. Maybe reaching flow,not for a single moment but as an ethic for living-maintainingt hat beaut iful "eye-on-the-object look " to achieve mastery as a cook,a surgeon , or a clerk-was the answer. Maybe this was the way tolive.GOLDI LOCKS ON A CARGO SH I PS everal years ago-he can t recall exactl y when-Csikszentmihalyi was invited to Davos, Swit zerland , by Klaus Schwab , whoruns an ann ual conclave of th e global power elite in th at city. 115
  • 120. DRIVE J oining him on th e tr ip were"The desireto do something because you three oth er Universit y offindit deeplysatisfying and personally Chicago faculty members-challenging inspires the highest levels of Gary Becker, G eorge Stigler,creativity, whetherits in the arts, sciences , and Milton Friedm an-allor business." of them economis ts, all of TERESA AMABILE them winners of the Nobel Professor, HarvardUniversity Prize. The five men ga thered for dinner one night and at the end of the meal , Schwabasked the academics what they considered the most important issuein modern economics. "To my incredulous surprise ," Csikszentrnihalyi recounted ,"Becker, Stigler, and Friedman all ended up saying a variation ofT heres something missing ," that for all its explanatory power,economics still failed to offer a rich enough account of beh avior, evenin business settings. Csikszentmihalyi smiled and complimented his colleagues ontheir perspicacity. The concept of flow, which he introduced in themid-1970s, was not an immediate game-changer. It gained some trac-tion in 1990 when Csikszentmihalyi wrote his first book on th~ topicfor a wide audience and gained a small band of followers in the businessworld. However, putting this notion into place in the real operationsof real organizations has been slower going. After all, Motivation 2.0has little room for a concept like flow. The Type X operating systemdoesn t oppose people takin g on optimal challenges on the job, but itsugge sts that such moments are happy accidents rather than necessaryconditions for people to do great work. But ever so slowly the ground might be shifting. As the data onworker disengagement earlier in the chapter reveal, the costs-inboth human satisfaction and organizational health-are high when a 116
  • 121. Masteryworkplace is a no-flow zone. Thats why a few enterprises are trying todo things differently. As FastCompany magazine has noted, a numberof companies, including Microsoft, Patagonia, and Toyota, have real-ized that creating flow-friendly environments that help people movetoward mastery can increase productivity and satisfaction at work. " For example, Stefan Falk, a vice president at Ericsson, the Swedishtelecommunications concern, used the principles of flow to smooth amerger of the companys business units. He persuaded managers toconfigure work assignments so that employees had clear objectivesand a way to get quick feedback. And instead of meeting with theircharges for once-a-year performance reviews, managers sat down withemployees one-on-one six times a year, often for as long as ninetyminutes, to discuss their level of engagement and path toward mas-tery. The flow-centered strategy worked well enough that Ericssonbegan using it in offices around the world. After that, Falk moved toGreen Cargo, an enormous logistics and shipping company in Swe-den. There, he developed a method of training managers in how flowworked. Then he required them to meet with staff once a month toget a sense of whether people were overwhelmed or underwhelmedwith their work-and to adjust assignments to help them find flow.After two years of managerial revamping, state-owned Green Cargobecame profitable for the first time in 125 years-and executives citeits newfound flowcentricity as a key reason. ? In addition, a study of 11,000 industrial scientists and engineersworking at companies in the United States found that the desire forintellectual challenge-that is, the urge to master something newand engaging-was the best predictor of productivity. Scientistsmotivated by this intrinsic desire filed significantly more patentsthan those whose main motivation was money, even controlling forthe amount of effort each group expended." (That is, the extrinsicallymotivated group worked as long and as hard as their more Type I 117
  • 122. DRIVEcolleag ues. Th ey just accomplished less-perh aps because they spe ntless of their work time in flow.) And then th eres ]enova Ch en , a youn g ga me design er who, in2006, wrote his MFA the sis on Csikszenrrn ihal yis th eory. Chenbelieved that video games held the promise to deliv er q ui ntessen -tial flow experiences, but that too many games requ ired an alm ostobsessive level of commitment. Why not , he thought , design a gameto bring the flow sensation to more casual garners? Using his th e-sis project as his laboratory, Chen created a game in wh ich pla yersuse a computer mouse to guide an on-screen amoeba-l ike organismthrough a surreal ocean landscape as it gobbles other creatures andslowly evolves into a higher form. While most games requ ire play-ers to proceed through a fixed and predetermined series of ski ll lev-els, Chen s allows them to advance and explore any way the y desire.And unlike games in which failure ends the session , in Chen s gamefailure merely pushes the player to a level better matched to her abil-ity. Chen calls his game flOw. And it s been a huge hit. People haveplayed the free online version of the game more than three milliontimes. (You can find it at /).The paid version, designed for the PlayStation game console, hasgenerated more than 350 ,000 downloads and collected a shelf fullof awards. Chen used the game to launch his own firm , thargame-company, built around both flow and flOw, that quickly won athree-game development deal from Sony, something almost unheardof for an unknown start-up run by a couple of twenty-six- year-oldCalifornia game design ers. Green Cargo , th atgamecompany, and the companies employingthe patent-cranking scientists typically use two tactics that theirless savvy competitors do not. First, they provide employees withwhat I call "G oldilocks tasks "-challenges that are not too hot andnot too cold , neither overly difficult nor overly simple. One source 118
  • 123. Ma steryof frustration in the workplace is the frequent mismatch betweenwhat people must do and what people can do. When what theymust do exceeds their capabilities, the result is anxiety. When whatthey must do falls short of their capabilities, the result is boredom.(Indeed, Csikszentmihalyi titled his first book on autotelic experi-ences Beyond Boredom and Anxiety.) But when the match is just right,the results can be glorious . This is the essence of flow. Goldilockstasks offer us the powerful experience of inhabiting the zone, of liv-ing on the knife s edge between order and disorder, of-as painterFritz Scholder once described it-"walking the tightrope betweenaccident and discipline." The second tactic that smart organizations use to increase theirflow-friendliness and their employees opportunities for mastery is totrigger the positive side of the Sawyer Effect. Recall from Chapter 2that extrinsic rewards can turn play into work. But its also possibleto run the current in the other direction-and turn work into play.Some tasks at work dont automatically provide surges of flow, yetstill need to get done. So the shrewdest enterprises afford employ-ees the freedom to sculpt their jobs in ways that bring a little bitof flow to otherwise mundane duties. Amy Wrzesniewski and JaneDutton, two business school professors, have studied this phenom-enon among hospital cleaners, nurses, and hairdressers. They found,for instance, that some members of the cleaning staff at hospitals,instead of doing the minimum the job required, took on new tasks-from chatt ing with patients to helping make nurses jobs go moresm oothly. Adding these more absorb ing challenges increased thesecleaners satisfaction and boosted their own views of their skills.By reframing aspects of their duties, they helped make work moreplayful and more fully their own . "Even in low-autonomy jobs,"Wrz esniewski and Dutton write, "employees can create new domainsfor mastery."? 119
  • 124. DRIVETHE THREE LAWS OF MASTERYF low is essential to mastery. But flow doesnt guarantee mastery- because the two concepts operate on different horizons of time.One happens in a moment; the other unfolds over months, years,sometimes decades. You and I each might reach flow tomorrowmorning-but neither one of us will achieve mastery overnight. So how can we enlist flow in the quest for something that goesdeeper and endures longer? What can we do to move toward mas-tery, one of the key elements of Type I behavior, in our organizationsand our lives? A few behavioral scientists have offered some initialanswers to those questions, and their findings suggest that masteryabides by three, somewhat peculiar, laws.Mastery Is a MindsetAs with so many things in life, the pursuit of mastery is all in ourhead. At least thats what Carol Dweck has discovered . Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford University, has beenstudying motivation and achievement in children and young adults fornearly forty years, amassing a body of rigorous empirical research thathas made her a superstar in contemporary behavioral science. Dweckssignature insight is that what people believe shapes what peopleachieve . Our beliefs about ourselves and the nature of our abilities-what she calls our "self-rheoriest-s-derermine how we interpr tourexperiences and can set the boundaries on what we accomplish.Although her research looks mostly at notions of "intelligence, n her 120
  • 125. Mast e ryfindings apply with equ alforce to most human capa- "Figure out for yourself what you want tobilities. And the y yield the be really good at, know that youll neverfirst law of mastery: Mastery really satisfy yourself that youve made it,is a mindset. and accept that thats okay." According to Dweck, ROBERT B. REICHpeople can hold two differ- FormerIl.S. Secretary of Laborent view s of their own intel-ligence. Those who have an"enti ty theory" believe th at intelligence is just that-an entity. Itexists within us , in a finite supply that we cannot increase. Thosewho subscribe to an "increm ental theory" take a different view. Theybel ieve that wh ile intelligence may vary slightly from person to per-son , it is ultimately something that , with effort , we can increase. Toanalog ize to ph ysical qualities , incremental theorists consider intel-ligence as some thing like strength . (W ant to g et stronger and morem uscul ar ? Start pumping iron. ) Entity theorists view it as somethingm ore like height. (W ant to get taller ? You re out of luck. )* If youbelieve in tell ige nce is a fixed qu antity, then every educational andprofessional encounter becomes a me asure of how much you have. Ifyou believe in telligence is some th ing you can incre ase, then th e sameencounters become opportunities for g rowth . In one view, intelli-gence is some thi ng you demonstrate; in th e other, it s something youdevelop. The two self-theories lead down two very di fferent pa ths-onethat heads toward mas tery and one th at doesnt . For insta nce, conside rgoal s. D weck says they come in two vari eti es- performan ce goalsand learning goa ls. Getting an A in French class is a pe rforma nce*In her 2006 book , MindIet: The New Psychology of Success, wh ich I recommend in th e Type I Too lk it , Dwe ck refers co t hese cwo view s as t he "fixed rnind ser " and th e "g rowt h rnind ser ." 121
  • 126. DRIVEgoal. Being able to speak French is a learning goal. "Both goals areentirely normal and pretty much universal," Dweck says, "and bothcan fuel achievernenr.?" But only one leads to mastery. In severalstudies, Dweck found that giving children a performance goal (say,getting a high mark on a test) was effective for relatively straight-forward problems but often inhibited childrens ability to apply theconcepts to new situations. For example, in one study, Dweck anda colleague asked junior high students to learn a set of scientificprinciples, giving half of the students a performance goal and half alearning goal. After both groups demonstrated they had grasped thematerial, researchers asked the students to apply their knowledge toa new set of problems, related but not identical to what they d juststudied. Students with learning goals scored significantly higher onthese novel challenges. They also worked longer and tried more solu-tions. As Dweck writes, "With a learning goal, students don t haveto feel that theyre already good at something in order to hang inand keep trying. After all, their goal is to learn, not to prove they resmart. "9 Indeed, the two self-theories .take very different views of effort . Toincremental theorists, exertion is positive. Since incremental theo-rists believe that ability is malleable, they see working harder as away to get better. By contrast, says Dweck, "the entity theory . . .is a system that requires a diet of easy successes." In this schema ,if you have to work hard, it means youre not very good. Peopletherefore choose easy targets that, when hit, affirm their existingabilities but do little to expand them. In a sense, entity theoristswant to look like masters without expending the effort to attainmastery. Finally, the two types of thinking trigger contrasting responsesto adversity-s-ene that Dweck calls "helpless," the other, "mastery-oriented." In a study of American fifth- and sixth-graders, Dweck 122
  • 127. Masterygave students eight conceptual problems they could solve, followedby four they could not (because the questions were too advanced forchildren that age). Students who subscribed to the idea that brain-power is fixed gave up quickly on the tough problems and blamedtheir (lack of) intelligence for their difficulties. Students with amore expansive mindset kept working in spite of the difficulty anddeployed far more inventive strategies to find a solution. What didthese students blame for their inability to conquer the toughest prob-lems ? "T he answer, which surprised us, was that they didnt blameanything," Dweck says. The young people recognized that setbackswere inevitable on the road to mastery and that they could even beguideposts for the journey. Dwecks insights map nicely to the behavioral distinctions under-lying Motivation 2.0 and Motivation 3.0. Type X behavior oftenholds an entity theory of intelligence, prefers performance goalsto learning goals, and disdains effort as a sign of weakness. TypeI behavior has an incremental theory of intelligence, prizes learn-ing goals over performance goals, and welcomes effort as a wayto improve at something that matters. Begin with one mindset,and mastery is impossible. Begin with the other, and it can beinevitable.Mastery Is a PainEach sum mer, about twelve hundred young American men andwome n arriv e at the United States Military Academy at West Pointto beg in four years of study and to take their place in the fabled"long g ray line ." But before any of them sees a classroom, they gothrough seven weeks of Cadet Basic Training--otherwise known 72 3
  • 128. DRIVE as "Beast Barra cks." By the"Try to pick a profession in which you enjoy time the summer end s, oneeven the most mundane, tedious parts. in twenty of these talented ,Then you will always be happy." dedicated young adults has WILL SHORTZ dropped out . A group of Puzzleguru scholars-two from West Point, another from the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania, anda fourth from the University of Michigan-wanted to understandwhy some students continued on the road toward military masteryand others got off at the first exit. Was it physical strength and athleticism? Intellect? Leadershipability? Well-roundedness? None of the above. The best predictor of success, the researchersfound, was the prospective cadets ratings on a noncognitive, non-physical trait known as "grit"--defined as "perseverance and passion forlong-term goals."! " The experience of these army officers-in-trainingconfirms the second law of mastery: Mastery is a pain. As wonderful as flow is, the path to mastery-becoming everbetter at something you care about-is not lined with daisies andspanned by a rainbow. If it were, more of us would make the trip.Mastery hurts. Sometimes-many times-it s not much fun. Thatis one lesson of the work of psychologist Anders Ericsson, whosegroundbreaking research on expert performance has provided a newtheory of what fosters mastery. As he puts it, "Many characteris-tics once believed to reflect innate talent are actually the results ofintense practice for a minimum of 10 years ."! Masrery-s-of sports,music, business-requires effort (difficult, painful, excruciating,all-consuming effort) over a long time (not a week or a month, buta decade). 12 Sociologist Daniel Chambliss has referred to this as "the 124
  • 129. Masterymundanity of excellence." Like Ericsson, Chambliss found-in athree-year study of Olympic swimmers-that those who did the besttypically spent the most time and effort on the mundane activitiesthat readied them for races. U Its the same reason that, in anotherstudy, the West Point grit researchers found that grittiness-ratherthan IQ or standardized test scores-is the most accurate predictor ofcollege grades. As they explained, "Whereas the importance of work-ing harder is easily apprehended, the importance of working longerwithout switching objectives may be less perceptible ... in everyfield, grit may be as essential as talent to high accomplishment. "!" Flow enters the picture here in two ways. If people are consciousof what puts them in flow, theyll have a clearer idea of what theyshould devote the time and dedication to master. And those momentsof flow in the course of pursuing excellence can help people throughthe rough parts. But in the end, mastery often involves workingand working and showing little improvement, perhaps with a fewmoments of flow pulling you along, then making a little progress,and then working and working on that new, slightly higher plateauagain. It s grueling, to be sure. But thats not the problem; thats thesolution. As Carol Dweck says, "Effort is one of the things that gives mean-ing to life. Effort means you care about something, that something isimportant to you and you are willing to work for it. It would be animpoverished existence if you were not willing to value things andcommit yourself to working toward them."l s Another doctor, one who lacks a Ph.D. but has a plaque in theBasketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Massachusetts, put it simi-larly. "Being a professional, " Julius Erving once said, "is doingthe things you love to do, on the days you dont feel like doingthem ."!" 12 5
  • 130. DRIVEMastery Is an AsymptoteTo understand the final law of mastery, you need to know a littlealgebra and a little art history. From algebra, you might remember the concept of an asymptote.If not, maybe youll recognize it below. An asymptote (in this case,a horizontal asymptote) is a straight line that a curve approaches butnever quite reaches. y ..... ...... ..... .... ...... ..... ...... ..... ..... ~ ~ .-.-- ~ ~ ./ x / / v J / I From art history, you might remember Paul Cezanne, thenineteenth-century French painter. You neednt remember much-just that he was significant enough to have art critics and scholarswrite about him. Cezannes most enduring paintings came late in hislife. And one reason for this, according to University of Chicago econ-omist David Galenson, whos studied the careers of artists, is that hewas endlessly trying to realize his best work. For Cezanne, one criticwrote, 126
  • 131. Mastery the ultimate synthesis of a design was never revealed in a Bash; rather he approached it with infinite precautions, stalking it , as it were , now from one point of view, now from another. . . . For him the synthesi was an asym s ptote toward which he wasfor ever approaching without ever quite reaching it. 17This is the nature of mastery: Mastery is an asymptote. You can approach it. You can home in on it. You can get really,really, really close to it . But like Cezanne, you can never touch it . Mas-tery is impossible to realize fully. Tiger Woods, perhaps the greatestgolfer of all time, has said flatly that he can-that he must-becomebetter. He said it when he was an amateur. He ll say it after his bestouting or at the end of his finest season. Hes pursuing mastery.Thats well -known. Whats less well-known is that he understandsthat he ll never get it. It will always hover beyond his grasp. The mastery asymptote is a source of frustration. Why reachfor something you can never fully attain? But it s also a source ofallure. Why not reach for it? The joy is in the pursuit more than therealization. In the end, mastery attracts precisely because masteryeludes.THE OXYGEN OF THE SOULT he subjec ts were di splaying th e warning signs of "generalized anxiety d isord er," a mental illnes s th at afflicts roughly 3 percentof the adul t populat ion. According to th e Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV ), the pr esence of any three of thefollowi ng six symptoms indi cates what could be a serious problem: 127
  • 132. DRIVE • Restlessness or feeling keyed up or on edge • Being easily fatigued • Difficulty concentrating or mind going blank • Irri tabili ty • Muscle tension • Sleep disturbanceThese men and women seemed textbook cases. One person, whohad previously glided through life with equanimity, now felt "tense,more hostile, angry, and irritated." Another reported being "moreirritable, restless," and suffering from "shorter concentration. " Yetanother scribbled this self-description: "Slept badly, listless, morenervous, more guarded." Some people feared they were having a ner-vous breakdown. One persons mind was so muddied that he inad-vertently walked into a wall and broke his glasses. Time for a trip to the psychiatrist or a prescription for antianxietymedicine? No. It was time for people to let flow back into their lives. In theearly 1970s, Csikszentmihalyi conducted an experiment in which heasked people to record all the things they did in their lives that were"noninstrumental"-that is, small activities they undertook not outof obligation or to achieve a particular objective, but because theyenjoyed them. Then he issued the following set of instructions: Beginning [morning of target date}, when you wake up and until 9:00 PM, we would like you to act in a normal way, doing all the things you have to do, but not doing anything that is "play" or "noninsrrurnental." In other words, he and his research team directed participantsto scrub their lives of flow. People who liked aspects of their work 128
  • 133. Masteryhad to avoid situations that might trigger enjoyment. People whorelished demanding physical exercise had to remain sedentary. Onewoman enjoyed washing dishes because it gave her something con-structive to do, along with time to fantasize free of guilt, but couldwash dishes only when absolutely necessary . The results were almost immediate. Even at the end of the firstday, participants "not iced an increased sluggishness about theirbehavior." They began complaining of headaches. Most reported dif-ficulty concentrating, with "thoughts [that} wander round in circleswithout getting anywhere." Some felt sleepy, while others were tooagitated to sleep. As Csikszentmihalyi wrote, "After just two days ofdeprivation . .. the general deterioration in mood was so advancedthat prolonging the experiment would have been unadvisable.t " Two days. Forty-eight hours without flow plunged people into astate eerily similar to a serious psychiatric disorder. The experimentsuggests that flow, the deep sense of engagement that Motivation 3.0calls for, isnt a nicety. Its a necessity. We need it to survive. It is theoxygen of the soul . And one of Csikszenrrnihalyis more surprising findings is thatpeople are much more likely to reach that flow state at work than inleisure. Work can often have the structure of other autotelic expe-riences: clear goals, immediate feedback, challenges well matchedto our abilities. And when it does, we dont just enjoy it more, wedo it better. Thats why it s so odd that organizations tolerate workenvironments that deprive large numbers of people of these experi-ences . By offering a few more Goldilocks tasks, by looking for waysto unleash the positive side of the Sawyer Effect, organizations canhelp their own cause and enrich peoples lives. Csikszentmihalyi grasped this essential reality more than thirtyyears ago, when he wrote, "There is no reason to believe any longerthat only irrelevant play can be enjoyed, while the serious business 129
  • 134. DRIVEof life must be borne as a burdensome cross. Once we realize that theboundaries between work and play are artificial, we can take mattersin hand and begin the difficult task of making life more livable.?" But if were looking for guidance on how to do this right--onhow to make mastery an ethic for living--our best role models areprobably not sitting around a boardroom table or working in theoffice down the hall. Over lunch, Csikszentmihalyi and I talked about children. A littlekids life bursts with autotelic experiences. Children careen from oneflow moment to another, animated by a sense of joy, equipped witha mindset of possibility, and working with the dedication of a WestPoint cadet. They use their brains and their bodies to probe and drawfeedback from the environment in an endless pursuit of mastery. Then-at some point in their lives-they don t. What happens ? "You start to get ashamed that what youre doing is childish,"Csikszentmihalyi explained. What a mistake. Perhaps you and I-and all the other adultsin charge of things-are the ones who are immature. It goes backto Csikszentrnihalyis experience on the train, wondering howgrown-ups could have gotten things so wrong. Our circumstancesmay be less dire, but the observation is no less acute. Left to theirown devices, Csikszentmihalyi says, children seek out flow with theinevitability of a natural law. So should we all. 130
  • 135. CHAPTER 6 PurposeW e know from statisticians that demographics is destiny. And we know from the Rolling Stones that you cant always getwhat you want. What we dont know is what happens when thesetwo indomitable principles sit down, pour themselves a drink, andget to know each other better. But were about to find out. In 2006, the first members of the baby-boom generation beganturning sixty. On birthdays with big round numbers, people usuallystop, reflect, and take stock of their lives. And Ive found that whenboomers, in the United States and elsewhere, reach this milestone,they typically move through a three-stage reaction. In the first stage, they ask: "How the heck did I get to be sixty?"When their odometer flips to 6-0, people often are surprised andslightl y alarmed. Sixty, they think, is old. They tally their regrets
  • 136. DRIVEand confront the reality that Mick Ja gger and crew were right , thatthey didnt always get what they wanted . But then the second stage kicks in. In th e not- so-di stant past ,turning sixty meant that you were somewhat, ahem , long in th etooth. But at the beginning of the twenty-first century, anyon e who shealthy enough to have made it six decades is probably healthyenough to hang on a fair bit longer. According to United Nationsdata, a sixty-year-old American man can expect to live for anothertwenty-plus years; a sixty-year-old American woman will be aroundfor another quarter of a century. In Japan, a sixty-year-old mancan expect to live past his eighty-second birthday, a sixty-year-oldwoman to nearly eighty-eight. The pattern is the same in man y otherprosperous countries. In France, Israel , Italy, Switzerland, Canada,and elsewhere, if you ve reached the age of sixty, you re more thanlikely to live into your eighties. And this realization brings with ita certain relief. "W hew," the boomer in Toronto or Osaka sighs. "Iv egot a couple more decades." But the relief quickly dissipates-because almost as soon as thesigh fades, people enter the third stage. Upon comprehending thatthey could have another twenty-five years, sixty- year-old boomerslook back twenty-five years-to when they were thirty-five-and asudden thought clonks them on the side of the head. "W ow. Thatsure happened fast," they say. "W ill the next twenty-five years raceby like that? If so, when am I going to do something that matters?When am I going to live my best life ? When am I going to make adifference in the world? " Tho se questions, which swirl through conversations taking pl aceat boom er ki tchen tables around the world, may sound touchy-feely.But they re now occurring at a rat e that is unprecedented in humancivilizat ion. Consider: Boomers are th e largest demographic cohortin mo st western countries, as well as in places like Japan, Australia, 132
  • 137. Purposeand New Zealand. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the UnitedStates alone has about 78 million boomers-which means that,on average, each year more than four million Americans hit thissoul-searching, life-pondering birthday. Thats more than 11,000people each day, more than 450 every hour. In otherwords, in Americaalone one hundredboomers turn sixty every ,thirteen minutes. Every thirteen minutes another hundred people-members of thewealthiest and best-educated generation the world has ever known-begin reckoning with their mortality and asking deep questionsabout meaning, significance, and what they truly want. One hundred people. Every thirteen minutes. Every hour. Ofevery day. Until 2024. When the cold front of demographics meets the warm front ofunrealized dreams, the result will be a thunderstorm of purpose thelikes of which the world has never seen.THE PURPOSE MOTIVET he first two legs of the Type I tripod, autonomy and mastery, are essential. But for proper balance we need a third leg-purpose,which provides a context for its two mates. Autonomous peopleworking toward mastery perform at very high levels. But those whodo so in the service of some greater objective can achieve even more.The most deeply motivated people-not to mention those who aremost productive and satisfied-hitch their desires to a cause largerthan themselves. Motivation 2.0, however, doesnt recognize purpose as a motiva-tor. The Type X operating system doesnt banish the concept, but it 13 3
  • 138. DRIVE relegates it to th e stat us of"I believe wholeheartedly that a new ornament-a nice accessoryform of capitalism is emerging . More if you want it , so long as itstakeholders (customers, employees, doesn t get in th e way of th eshareholders, and the larger community) important st uff. Yet by tak-want their businesses to ... have a ing th is view, Motivationpurpose bigger than their product." 2.0 neglects a cruc ial part MATS LEDERHAUSEN of who we are. From th e Investor and former moment that human being s McDonalds execut ive first stared into the sky, con- templated their place in the universe, and tried to createsomething that bettered the world and outlasted their lives, we havebeen purpose seekers. "Purpose provides activation energy for liv-ing, " psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi told me in an interview."I think that evolution has had a hand in selecting people who had asense of doing something beyond themselves. " Motivation 3.0 seeks to reclaim this aspect of the human condi-tion. Baby boomers around the world-because of the stage of theirlives and the size of their numbers-are nudging purpose closer tothe cultural center. In response, business has begun to rethink howpurpose figures in what it does. "As an emotional catalyst, wealthmaximization lacks the power to fully mobilize human energies,"says strategy guru (and boomer) Gary Hamel. 3 Those staggering lev-els of worker disengagement I described in the previous chapter havea companion trend that companies are only starting to recognize: anequally sharp rise in volunteerism, especially in the United States.These diverging lines-compensated engagement going down ,uncompensated effort going up-suggest that volunteer work isnourishing people in ways that paid work simply is not. Were learning that the profit motive, potent though it is, can be 134
  • 139. Purposean insufficient impetus forboth individuals and orga- "In a curious way, age is simpler thannizations. An equally pow- youth, for it has so many fewer options."erful source of energy, one STANLEY KUNITZweve often neglected or dis- FormerU.S. poet laureatemissed as unrealistic, is whatwe might call the "purposemotive." This is the final big distinction between the two operatingsystems. Motivation 2.0 centered on profit maximization. Motivation3.0 doesn t reject profits, but it places equal emphasis on purposemaximization. We see the first stirrings of this new purpose motive inthree realms of organizational life-goals, words, and policies.GoalsBoomers arent singing alone in their chorus of purpose. Joiningthem, and using the same hymnbook, are their sons and daughters-known as Generation Y, the millennials, or the echo boomers. Theseyoung adults, who have recently begun entering the workforce them-selves, are shifting the center of gravity in organizations by their verypresence. As the writer Sylvia Hewlett has found in her research, thetwo bookend generations "are redefining success [and] are willing toaccept a radically remixed set of rewards." Neither generation ratesmoney as the most important form of compensation. Instead theychoose a range of nonmonetary factors-from "a great team: to "theab ility to give back to society through work."4 And if they cant findthat satisfying package of rewards in an existing organization, theyllcreate a venture of their own. Take the case of American Gen Y-er Blake Mycoskie and TOMS 13 5
  • 140. DRIVEShoes, the company he laun ched in 2006 . TOMS doesn t fit snuglyinto the traditional business boxes. It offers hip , canvas, flat -soledshoes. But every time TOMS sells a pair of shoes to you , me, oryour next-door neighbor, it g ives away ano ther pair of new shoes toa child in a developing country. Is TOMS a chari ty th at finances itsoperation with shoe sales ? Or is it a business that sacrifices its earn-ings in order to do good ? It s neither-and it s both . Th e answe r isso confusing, in fact, that TOMS Shoes had to address th e qu est iondirectly on its website, just below information on how to retu rn apair thats too big . TOMS, the site explains, is "a for-profit companywith giving at its core ." Got it? No? Okay, try this: The companys "business mod el trans-forms our customers into benefactors. " Better? Maybe. We irder ?Certainly. Ventures like TOMS blur, perhaps even shatter, the exist-ing categories . Their goals, and the way companies reach them, areso incompatible to Motivation 2.0 that if TOMS had to rely on th istwentieth-century operating system , the whole endeavor would seize upand crash in the entrepreneurial equivalent of a blue screen of death. Motivation 3.0, by contrast, is expressly built for purpose maxi-mization. In fact, the rise of purpose maximizers is one reason weneed the new operating syst em in the first pl ace. As I expl ained inChapter 1, operations like TOMS are on the vang uard of a bro aderrethinking of how people org anize wh at the y do. "For benefit" orga-nizations, B corporations, and low-profit limited-liability corpora-tions all recast the goals of the tr aditional business enterp rise. Andall are becoming more prev alent as a new br eed of businesspersonseeks purpose with the fervor that tr aditional economic th eory saysentrepreneurs seek profit . Even coope ratives-an old er businessmodel with motives other th an profit maximi zation- are movingfrom th e shaggy edge to the clean -cut center. According to writerMarjorie Kelly, in the last three decades, worldwide membersh ip in 13 6
  • 141. Purposeco-ops has doubled to 800 million people. In the United States alone,more people belong to a co-op than own shares in the stock market.And the idea is spreading. In Colombia, Kelly notes, "SaludCoopprovides health-care services to a quarter of the population. In Spain,the Mondragon Corporacion Cooperativa is the nations seventh larg-est industrial concern. "5 These "not only for profit" enterprises are a far cry from the"socially responsible" businesses that have been all the rage for thelast fifteen years but have rarely delivered on their promise. The aimsof these Motivation 3.0 companies are not to chase profit while tryingto stay ethical and law-abiding. Their goal is to pursue purpose-and to use profit as the catalyst rather than the objective.WordsIn the spring of 2009, as the world economy was reeling from aonce-in-a-generation crisis and the financial shenanigans that stokedit, a few Harvard Business School students glanced in the mirrorand wondered if they were the problem. The people theyd aspiredto be-financiers and corporate dealmakers-werent, it turned out,heroes in an epic tale, but villains in a darker story. Many of thesehigh-profile businesspeople were the ones who pushed the financialsystem to the brink. Meanwhile, these young men and women lookedamong their classmates and saw the seeds of similar behavior. In onesurvey of MBA students a few years earlier, a whopping 56 percentadmitted to cheating regularly. " So a handful of Harvard second-years, fearing that what was oncea badge of honor had become three scarlet letters, did what businessstudents are trained to do. They made a plan. Together they fashioned 137
  • 142. DRIVEwhat the y called "T he MBA Oath"-a H ippo crat ic oat h for busin essgrads in whi ch they pled ge their fealty to causes above and beyondthe bottom line . It s not a legal document. It s a code of conduc t .And the conduct it recommends, as well as the very word s it uses,leans more toward purpose maximization than profit maximi zat ion . From the first sentence, the oath rings with the sounds of Mot iva-tion 3.0: "As a manager, my purpose is to serve the greater good by bring-ing people and resources together to create value that no single indi-vidual can create alone, " it begins. And on it goes for nearl y fivehundred words. "I will safeguard the interests of my shareholders,co-workers , customers and the society in which we operate," theoath-takers pledge. "I will strive to create sustainable economic,social , and environmental prosperity worldwide." These words-"purpose," "g reater good ," "susrainablet-s-d onrcome from the Type X dictionary. One rarely hears them in businessschool-because, after all , that s not what business school is sup-posed to be about. Yet students at arguably the worlds most power-ful MBA factory thought otherwise. And in just a few weeks , roughlyone-quarter of the graduating class had taken the oath and signed thepledge. In launching the effort , Max Anderson, one of the studentfounders, said: "My hope is that at our 25th reunion our class willnot be known for how much mone y we made or how much moneywe gave back to the school, but for how the world was a better placeas a result of our leadership. "? Words matter. And if you listen carefull y, you mi ght begin to heara slightly different-slightly more purpose-oriented--dialect . GaryHamel, whom I mentioned above, says, "T he goals of managementare usually describ ed in words like efficiency, advantage, value,superiority, focus, and d ifferentiation. Important as these objec-ti ves are, th ey lack th e power to rouse human hearts." Business lead- 138
  • 143. Purposeers, he says, "must find ways to infuse mundane business activitieswith deeper, soul-stirring ideals, such as honor, truth, love, justice,and beaury.?" Humanize what people say and you may well human-ize what they do. Thats the thinking behind the simple and effective way RobertB. Reich, former U.S. labor secretary, gauges the health of an orga-nization. He calls it the "pronoun test." When he visits a workplace,hell ask the people employed there some questions about the com-pany. He listens to the substance of their response, of course. Butmost of all, he listens for the pronouns they use. Do the workers referto the company as "they"? Or do they describe it in terms of "we"?"They" companies and "we" companies, he says, are very differentplaces. " And in Motivation 3.0, "we: wins .PoliciesBetween the words businesses use and the goals they seek sit thepolicies they implement to turn the former into the latter. Here, too,one can detect the early tremors of a different approach. For exam-ple, many companies in the last decade spent considerable time andeffort crafting corporate ethics guidelines. Yet instances of unethicalbehavior dont seem to have declined. Valuable though those guide-lines can be, as a policy they can unintentionally move purposefulbehavior out of the Type I schema and into Type X. As Harvard Busi-ness School professor Max Bazerman has explained: Say you take people who are motivated to behave nicely, then give them a fairly weak set of ethical standards to meet. Now, instead of asking them to "do it because its the right thing 13 9
  • 144. DRIVE to do," you ve essentia lly"The value of a life can be measured g iven th em an alte rnateby ones ability to affect the destiny set of sta nda rds-do th isof one less advantaged. Since death is so you can check off allan absolute certainty for everyone, the these boxes.important variable is the quality of life Imagine an organ iza-one leads between the times of birth tion, for example, thatand death." believes in affirmative BILL STRICKLAND action-one that wants Founder of the Manchester to make the world abet- Craftsmens Guild , and MacArthur ter place by creating a "genius award" winner more diverse workforce. By reducing ethics to a checklist, suddenly affirmative action is just a bunch of requirements that the organization must meet to show that it isnt discriminating. Now the organization isn t focused on affirmatively pursu- ing diversity but rather on making sure that all the boxes are checked off to show that what it did is OK (and so it won t get sued). Before, its workers had an intrinsic motivation to do the right thing, but now they have an extrinsic motivation to make sure that the company doesn t get sued or fined .!"In other words, people might meet the minimal ethical st and ards toavoid punishment, but the guidelines have done nothing to in jectpurpose into the corporate bloodstream. The better approach couldbe to enlist the power of autonomy in the service of purpose maximi-zation. Two intriguing examples demonstrate what I mean. First, many psychologists and economists have found that the cor-relation between money and happiness is weak-that past a certain(and quite mod est) level, a larger pile of cash doesn t br ing people 140
  • 145. Purpo se higher level of satisfaction. But a few social scient ists have begunadding a bit more nuance to this observation. According to LaraAknin and Eli zabeth Dunn, sociologists at the University of BritishColumbia, and Michael Norton, a psychologist at th e Harvard Busi-ness School , how people spend their mon ey may be at least as impor-tant as how much money they earn. In particular, spending moneyon other peopl e (buying flowers for your spouse rather than an MP3pla yer for yourself) or on a cause (donating to a religious institutionrather than going for an expensive haircut) can actually increase oursub ject ive well-being. 11 In fact , Dunn and Norton propose turningth eir find ings on what the y call "pro-social" spending into corporatepol icy. According to The Boston Globe, they believe that "companiescan improve their employees emotional well-being by shifting someof their bud get for charitable giving so that individual employees aregi ven sums to donate, leaving them happier even as the charities ofthe ir choice benefit ."12 In other words , handing individual employ-ees cont rol over how the organization gives back to the communitym ight do more to improve their overall satisfaction than one more"if-then" financial incentive. Another study offers a second possible purpose-centered policyprescri pt ion . Ph ysicians in high-profile settings like the Mayo Clinicface pr essure s and demands that can often lead to burnout. But fieldresearch at th e pr esti gious medical facili ty found that letting doc-tors spend one day a week on the aspect of their job that was mostmeaningful to th em-whether patient care, research, or communityservice--could redu ce th e physic al and emotional exhaustion thataccom panies th eir work. Doctor s who participated in this trial policyhad half t he bu rnout rat e of tho se who did not. l Think of it as " 20percent time" wit h a p urpose. 747
  • 146. DRIVETH E GOOD LI FEEach year about thirteen hundred seniors graduate from the U niver-sity of Rochester and begin their journey into what many of theirparents and professors like to call the real world. Edward Deci , Rich-ard Ryan, and their colleague Christopher Niemiec decided to aska sample of these soon-to-be graduates about their life goals-andthen to follow up with them early in their careers to see how theywere doing. While much social science research is done with studentvolunteers, scientists rarely track students after theyve packed uptheir diplomas and exited the campus gates. And these researcherswanted to study the post-college time frame because it represents a"critical development period that marks peoples transitions to theiradult identities and lives."! " Some of the U of R students had what Deci, Ryan, and Niemieclabel "extrinsic aspirations"-for instance, to become wealthy or toachieve fame-what we might call "profit goals." Others had "intrin-sic aspirations"-to help others improve their lives, to learn, and togrow--<>r what we might think of as "purpose goals. " After thesestudents had been out in the real word for between one and two years,the researchers tracked them down to see how they were faring. The people whod had purpose goals and felt they were attainingthem reported higher levels of satisfaction and subjective well-beingthan when they were in college, and quite low levels of anxiety anddepression. Thats probably no surprise. Theyd set a personallymeaningful goal and felt they were reaching it. In that situation,most of us would likely feel pretty good, too. But the results for people with profit goals were more compli-cated. Those who said they were attaining their goals-accumulating 142
  • 147. Purpo sewealth , winning acclaim-reported levels of satisfaction, HOne cannot lead a life that is tru lyself-esteem, and positive affect excellent without feeling that one belongsno higher than when they to something greater and more permanentwere students. In other words, than oneself."theyd reached their goals, MIHALY CSIKSZENTMIHALYIbut it didn t make them anyhappier. Whats more, gradu-ates with profit goals showed increases in anxiety, depression, and othernegative indicators-again, even though they were attaining theirgoals. "T hese findings are rather striking," the researchers write, "asthey sugg est that attainment of a particular set of goals [in this case,profit goals} has no impact on well-being and actually contributes toill-being ."! W hen I d iscussed these results with Deci and Ryan , they wereespecially emphatic about their significance-because the findingssugges t th at even when we do get what we want, it s not always whatwe need . "People who are very high in extrinsic goals for wealth aremo re likely to attai n that wealth, but they re still unhappy," Ryantold me. O r as Deci put it , "T he typical notion is this: You value some-thing . You attai n it. Th en you re better off as a function of it. Butwhat we find is th at th ere are certa in things that if you value and ifyou attai n th em , youre worse off as a result of it , not better off." Failing to unde rstand th is conundrum-that sati sfaction dependsnot merely on having goals, but on having th e right goals-can leadsensible people down self-des tr ucti ve paths . If people chase profitgoals, reach those goals, and sti ll don t feel any better about th eirlives, one response is to increase th e size and scope of th e goals-toseek more money or greater outside validation. And th at can "drive 14 3
  • 148. DRIVEthem down a road of further unhappiness thinking it s the road tohappiness," Ryan said. "One of the reasons for anxiety and depression in the high attain-ers is that theyre not having good relationships. Theyre busy mak-ing money and attending to themselves and that means that there sless room in their lives for love and attention and caring and empa-thy and the things that truly count," Ryan added. And if the broad contours of these findings are true for ind ividu-als, why shouldnt they also be true for organizations-which, ofcourse, are collections of individuals? I don t mean to say that profitdoesnt matter. It does. The profit motive has been an importantfuel for achievement. But its not the only motive. And it s not themost important one. Indeed, if we were to look at history s greatestachievements-from the printing press to constitutional democracyto cures for deadly diseases-the spark that kept the creators work-ing deep into the night was purpose at least as much as profit. Ahealthy society-and healthy business organizations-begins withpurpose and considers profit a way to move toward that end or ahappy by-product of its attainment. And here the boomers-maybe, just maybe--can take the lead.On the subjects of autonomy and mastery, adults should look to theeloquent example of children. But perhaps purpose is another mat-ter. Being able to contemplate the big picture, to ponder one s ownmortality, to understand the paradox that attaining certain goals isn tthe answer seem to require having spent a few years on the planet.And since the planet very soon will contain more people over agesixty-five than under age five for the first time in its existence, thetiming couldnt be better. Its in our nature to seek purpose. But that nature is nowbeing revealed and expressed on a scale that is demographically 144
  • 149. Purpose pr ecedented and, until recently, scarcely imaginable. The conse-q uences could rejuvenate our businesses and remake our world.A CENTRAL IDEA of this book has been the mismatch betweenwhat science knows and what business does. The gap is wide. Itsexistence is alarming. And though closing it seems daunting, wehave reasons to be optimistic. The scientists who study human motivation, several of whom weveencountered in this book, offer us a sharper and more accurate accountof both human performance and the human condition. The truthsthey ve revealed are simple, yet powerful. The science shows thatthose typical twentieth-century carrot-and-stick motivators-thingswe consider somehow a "natural" part of human enterprise--cansometimes work. But theyre effective in only a surprisingly narrowband of circumstances. The science shows that "if-then" rewards-themainstays of the Motivation 2.0 operating system-not only are inef-fective in many situations, but also can crush the high-level, creative,conceptual abilities that are central to current and future economicand social progress. The science shows that the secret to high perfor-mance isnt our biological drive or our reward-and-punishment drive,but our third drive-our deep-seated desire to direct our own lives, toextend and expand our abilities, and to live a life of purpose. Bringing our businesses in sync with these truths wont be easy.Unlearning old ideas is difficult, undoing old habits even harder.And Id be less sanguine about the prospects of closing the motiva-tion gap anytime soon, if it weren t for this: The science confirmswhat we already know in our hearts. We know that human beings are not merely smaller, slower, better-smelling horses galloping after that days carrot. We know-if weve 14 5
  • 150. DRIVEspe nt time with youn g child ren or rem ember our selves at our best-th at were not destined to be passive and compliant. Were design edto be activ e and engaged . And we know that the richest experiencesin our lives aren t when were clamoring for validation from ot hers,but when were listening to our own voice--doing some thi ng thatmatters, doing it well, and doing it in the service of a cause largerthan oursel ves. So, in the end, repairing the mismatch and bringing our under-standing of motivation into the twenty-first century is more than anessential move for business. Its an affirmation of our humanity. 146
  • 151. Pa rt Th ree - -The Type I Toolkit
  • 152. Welcome to the Type I Toolkit. This is your guide to taking the ideas in this book andputting them into action. Whether youre looking for a better way to run yourorganization, navigate your career, or help your kids, theresa tip, a best practice, or a recommended book for you. And ifever you need a quick summary of-Drive, or you want to lookup one of its terms, you can find that here, too. You dont have to read this section in any particular order.Pick an entry that interests you and dive right in. Like anygood toolkit, this one is versatile enough for you to return toagain and again.P.S Id love to hear your suggestions for what to include in future editions .of the Type I Toolkit. Send your ideas directly to me at
  • 153. WHATS IN THIS TOOLKITType I for Individuals: Nine Strategies for AwakeningYour MotivationType I for Organizations: Nine Ways to Improve YourCompany, Office, or GroupThe Zen of Compensation: Paying People theType I WayType I for Parents and Educators: Nine Ideasfor Helping Our KidsThe Type I Reading List: Fifteen Essential BooksListen to the Gurus: Six Business Thinkers Who Get ItThe Type I Fitness Plan: Four Tips for Getting (andStaying) Motivated to ExerciseDrive: The Recap
  • 154. DRIVEDrive: The GlossaryThe Drive Discussion Guide: Twenty ConversationStarters to Keep You Thinking and TalkingFind Out More-About Yourself and Th is Top ic 152
  • 155. Type I for Individuals: Nine Strategies for Awakening Your Motivation Type l s are made, not born. Although the world is awash in extrinsic motivators there a lot we can do to bring more autonomy, mastery, , s and purpose into our work and life. Here are nine exercises to getyou on the right track.GIVE YOURSELF A "FLOW TEST"M ihaly Csikszentmi halyi did mor e th an discover th e concept of "flow." He also in troduced an ingenious new tech nique tomeasure it. Csikszentmihalyi and his U niversity of Ch icago teamequipped participants in their research studies wi th electronic pag -ers. Then they paged people at random intervals (approximately eig httimes a day) for a week, asking them to describe t heir mental sta teat that moment. Compared with previous met hods, these real-timereports proved far more honest and revealing.
  • 156. DRIVE You can use Csikszentmihalyis methodological innovation in yourown quest for mastery by giving yourself a "flow test. " Set a reminderon your computer or mobile phone to go off at forty random times ina week. Each time your device beeps, write down what youre doing ,how youre feeling, and whether youre in "flow." Record your obser-vations, look at the patterns, and consider the following que stions: • Which moments produced feelings of "flow"? Where were you? What were you working on? Who were you with ? • Are certain times of day more flow-friendly than oth- ers? How could you restructure your day based on your findings? • How might you increase the number of optimal experi- ences and reduce the moments when you felt disengaged or distracted? • If youre having doubts about your job or career, what does this exercise tell you about your true source of intrinsic motivation?FIRST, ASK A BIG QUESTION ...In 1962, Clare Boothe Luce, one of the first women to serve in the U.S. Congress, offered some advice to President John F. Kennedy."A greatman," she told him, "is one sentence. " Abraham Lincoln ssentence was: "He preserved the union and freed the slaves." Frank-lin Roosevelts was: "He lifted us out of a great depression and helpedus win a world war." Luce feared that Kennedys attention was sosplintered among different priorities that his sentence risked becom-ing a muddled paragraph. 154
  • 157. Type I for Individuals You don t have to be a president--of the United States or of yourlocal gardening club--to learn from this tale. One way to orient yourlife toward greater purpose is to think about your sentence. Maybeit s: "He raised four kids who became happy and healthy adults." Or"She invented a device that made peoples lives easier." Or "He caredfor every person who walked into his officeregardless of whether thatperson could pay." Or "She taught two generations of children howto read." As you contemplate your purpose, begin with the big question:What s your sentence?... THEN KEEP ASKINGA SMALL QUESTIONT he big question is necessary, but not sufficient. Thats where the small question comes in. Real achievement doesnt happenovernight. As anyone whos trained for a marathon, learned a newlanguage, or run a successful division can attest, you spend a lotmore time grinding through tough tasks than you do basking inapplause . Here s something you can do to keep yourself motivated. At theend of each day, ask yourself whether you were better today than youwere yesterday. Did you do more? Did you do it well? Or to get spe-cific, did you learn your ten vocabulary words, make your eight salescalls, eat your five servings of fruits and vegetables, write your fourpages ? You don t have to be flawless each day. Instead, look for smallmeasures of improvement such as how long you practiced your saxo-phone or whether you held off on checking e-mail until you finishedthat report you needed to write. Reminding yourself that you dont 155
  • 158. DRIVEneed to be a master by day 3 is th e best way of ensuring you will beone by day 3,000. So before you go to sleep each night, ask your self th e sma ll q ues-tion: Was I better today than yesterday?TAKE A SAGMEISTERT he designer Stefan Sagmeister has found a brilliant way to ensure he s living a Type I life. Think about the standard pattern in devel-oped countries, he says. People usually spend the first twenty-five orso years of their lives learning, the next forty or so years working ,and the final twenty-five in retirement. That boilerplate timeline gotSagmeister wondering : Why not snip five years from retirement andsprinkle them into your working years ? So every seven years, Sagrneisrer closes his graphic design shop ,tells his clients he won t be back for a year, and goes off on a 36 5-daysabbatical. He uses the time to travel , to live places hes never been ,and to experiment with new projects. It sounds risk y, I know . Buthe says the ideas he generates during the year "off" often pro videhis income for the next seven years. "Taking a Sagmeister," as I nowcall it, requires a fair bit of planning and saving , of course . Butdoesn t forgoing that big -screen TV seem a small pr ice to pay foran unforgettable-and un-get-backable-year of personal explora-tion? The truth is, this idea is more realistic than man y of us realize.Which is why I hope to take a Sagmeister in a couple of years andwh y you should consid er it, too . 156
  • 159. Type I for IndividualsGIVE YOURSELF A PERFORMANCE REVIEWP erformance reviews, those annual or biannual rituals of organiza- tionallife, are about as enjoyable as a toothache and as productiveas a train wreck. Nobody likes them-not the giver, not the receiver.They dont really help us achieve mastery-since the feedback oftencomes six months after the work is complete. (Imagine Serena Wil-liams or Twyla Tharp seeing their results or reading reviews onlytwice a year.) And yet managers keep on hauling employees intotheir offices for those awkward, painful encounters. Maybe theres a better way. Maybe, as Douglas McGregor andothers have suggested, we should give ourselves our own perfor-mance reviews. Heres how. Figure out your goals-mostly learninggoals, but also a few performance goals-and then every month, callyourself to your office and give yourself an appraisal. How are youfaring? Where are you falling short? What tools, information, orsupport might you need to do better? Some other hints: • Set both smaller and larger goals so that when it comes time to evaluate yourself you ve already accomplished some whole tasks. • Make sure you understand how every aspect of your work relates to your larger purpose. • Be brutally honest. This exercise is aimed at helping you improve performance and achieve mastery-so if you rationalize failures or gloss over your mistakes instead of learning from them, youre wasting your time. 157
  • 160. DRIVE And if doin g this solo isn t your thing , gat her a sma ll g roup ofcolleagues for regular peer-b ased do -it -your self perform ance reviews.If your com rades really care, th eyll tell you th e tru th and hold youaccountable . One last que stion for bosses: Why in G od s nam e areyou not encouraging all your employees to do thi s?GET UNSTUCK BY GOING OBLIQU EE ven the most intrinsically motivated person sometimes gets stuck. So heres a simple, easy, and fun way to power out of your men-tal morass. In 1975, producer Brian Eno and artist Peter Schm idtpublished a set of one hundred cards containing strategies that helpedthem overcome the pressure-packed moments that always accompanya deadline. Each card contains a single, often inscrutable, questionor statement to push you out of a mental rut. (Some examples: W hatwould your closest friend do? Your mistake was a hidden intention. W hatis the simplest solution? Repetition is a form of change. D ont avoid what iseasy.) If you re working on a project and find yourself st ym ied , pullan Oblique card from the deck. These brain bombs are a great wayto keep your mind open despite constraints you can t control. Youcan buy the deck at or follow one of the Twit-ter accounts inspired by the strategies, such as: http://tw FIVE STEPS CLOSER TO MASTERYO ne key to mastery is what Florida State University psychology profes sor Anders Ericsson calls "deliberate practice" -a "lifelongperiod of .. . effort to improve performance in a specific domain ." 158
  • 161. Type I for IndividualsDeliberate practice isnt running a few miles each day or bangingon the piano for twenty minutes each morning. Its much more pur-poseful, focused, and, yes, painful. Follow these steps-over and overagain for a decade-and you just might become a master: • Remember that deliberate practice has one objective: to improve performance. "People who play tennis once a week for years dont get any better if they do the same thing each time," Ericsson has said. "Deliberate practice is about changing your performance, setting new goals and straining yourself to reach a bit higher each time." • Repeat, repeat, repeat. Repetition matters. Basketball greats dont shoot ten free throws at the end of team practice; they shoot five hundred. • Seek constant, critical feedback. If you dont know how youre doing, you wont know what to improve. • Focus ruthlessly on where you need help. While many of us work on what were already good at, says Ericsson, "t hose who get better work on their weaknesses ." • Prepare for the process to be mentally and physi- cally exhausting. Thats why so few people commit to it, but thats why it works.TAKE A PAGE FROM WEBBER ANDA CARD FROM YOUR POCKET n his insightful book Rules of Thumb, Fast Company magazineIcofounder Alan Webber offers a smart and simple exercise forassessing whether youre on the path to autonomy, mastery, and 159
  • 162. DRIVEpurpose. Get a few blank three-by-five-inch card s. On one of thecards, write your answer to this question: "What gets you upin the morning?" Now, on the other side of the card, write youranswer to another question: "What keeps you up at night ?" Pareeach response to a single sentence. And if you don t like an answer ,toss the card and try again until you ve crafted something you canlive with. Then read what youve produced. If both answers giveyou a sense of meaning and direction, "Congratulations! " saysWebber. "Use them as your compass, checking from time to timeto see if theyre still true. If you don t like one or both of youranswers, it opens up a new question: What are you going to doabout it?"CREATE YOUR OWNMOTIVATIONAL POSTEROffice posters that try to "motivate" us have a grim reputation. Asone wag put it, "For the last two decades, motivational posters haveinflicted unimaginable suffering on the workplaces of the world. "But who knows? Perhaps the first one was a thing of beauty. Maybethose cave drawings in Lascaux, France, were some Paleolithic moti-vational speakers way of saying, "If you know where you re going,youll never take a wrong turn." Now youve got a chance to fightback (or perhaps to reclaim that ancient legacy). Thanks to a numberof websites, you can create your own motivational posters-and youno longer have to settle for photos of kittens climbing out of baskets.You can be as serious or silly with this exercise as you like. Motiva-tion is deeply personal and only you know what words or images willresonate wi th you. 760
  • 163. Type I for Individuals Try any of these sites :Despair Inc (http://diy.des pBig Huge Labs ( utomotivator ( offer you some , er, motivation, here are two posters I createdm yself: 767
  • 164. Type I for Organizations: Nine Ways to Improve Your Company, Office, or Group Whetheryourethe CEO orthe new intern, you can helpcreat engag- e ing, productive workplaces that foster TypeI behavior. Here are nine ways to begin pulling your organi ation out of the past and into the z brighterworld of Motivation 3. O.TRY "20 PERCENT TI M E"WITH TRAINING WHEELSY Ouve read about the wonders of "20 percent time"-where orga- nizations encourage employees to spend one-fifth of th eir hoursworking on any project they want. And if youve ever used Gmailor read Google News, youve benefited from the results . But for allthe virtues of this Type I innovation, putting such a poli cy in placecan seem daunting. How much will it cost? What if it doesn t work ?If youre feeling skittish, here s an idea: Go with a more modestversion-20 percent time . .. with training wheels. Start with, say,
  • 165. Type I for Organizations10 percent time. Thats just one afternoon of a five-day workweek. (Whoamong us hasnt wasted that amount of time at work anyway?) Andinstead of committing to it forever, try it for six months. By creatingthis island of autonomy, youll help people act on their great ideas andconvert their downtime into more productive time. And who knows?Someone in your operation just might invent the next Post-it note.ENCOURAGE PEER-TO-PEER"NOW THAT" REWARDSK im leY-H orn and Associates, a civil engineering firm in Raleigh, North Carolina, has established a reward system that gets theType I stamp of approval: At any point, without asking permission,anyone in the company can award a $50 bonus to any of her col-leagues. "It works because its real-time, and its not handed downfrom any management," the firms human resources director told FastCompan "Any employee who does something exceptional receives y.recognition from their peers within minutes." Because these bonusesare noncontingent "now that" rewards, they avoid the seven deadlyflaws of most corporate carrots. And because they come from a col-league, not a boss, they carry a different (and perhaps deeper) mean-ing. You could even say theyre motivating.CONDUCT AN AUTONOMY AUDITH Ow much autonomy do the people in your organization really have ? If you re like most folks, you probably dont have a clue.Nobody does. But there s a way to find out-with an autonomy audit. 16 3
  • 166. DRIVEAsk everyone in your department or on your team to respond to thesefour questions with a numerical ranking (using a scale of 0 to 10, witho meaning "almost none" and 10 meanin g "a huge amo unt "): 1. H ow much autonomy do you have over your tasks at work- your main responsibilities a nd what you do in a given day ? 2. How much aut onomy do you have over your time at work- for instance, when you arr ive, when you leave, an d how you allocat e your hours each day ? 3. How much auton omy do you ha ve over your team at work- that is, to what extent are you abl e to choos th e people with e whom you typically colla borate? 4. How much autonomy do you ha ve over your techniq ue at work-how you actually perform the main responsibilities of your job?Make sure all responses are anonymous. Then tabulate the results.Whats the employee average? The figure will fall somewhere on a40-point autonomy scale (with 0 being a North Korean prison and40 being Woodstock). Compare that number to peoples perceptions.Perhaps the boss thought everyone had plenty of freedom-but theaudit showed an average autonomy rating of only 15. Also calculateseparate results for task , time, team, and technique. A healthy overallaverage can sometimes mask a problem in a particular area. An over-all autonomy rating of, say, 27 isn t bad. However, if that averageconsists of 8 each for task , technique, and team , but onl y 3 for time,you ve identified an autonomy weak spot in the organization. It s remarkable sometimes how little the people running organi-zations know about the experiences of the people working aroundthem . But it s eq ually remarkable how often leaders are willing todo things differently if they see real data. Thats what an autonomy 16 4
  • 167. Type I for Organizationsaudit can do. And if you include a section in your audit for employeesto jot down their own ideas about increasing autonomy, you mighteven find some great solutions.TAKE THREE STEPS TOWARDGIVING UP CONTROLT ype X bosses relish control. Type I bosses relinquish control. Extending people the freedom they need to do great work is usu-ally wise, but it s not always easy. So if youre feeling the urge to con-trol, here are three ways to begin letting go-for your own benefitand your teams: 1. Involve people in goal-setting. Would you rather set your own goals or have them foisted upon you? Thought so. Why should those working with you be any differ- ent? A considerable body of research shows that indi- viduals are far more engaged when theyre pursuing goals they had a hand in creating. So bring employees into the process. They could surprise you: People often have higher aims than the ones you assign them. 2. Use noncontrolling language. Next time youre about to say "must" or "should ," try saying "think about " or "consider" instead. A small change in word- ing can help promote engagement over compliance and mi ght even reduce some peoples urge to defy. Think about it. Or at least consider it, okay? 3. Hold office hours. Sometimes you need to summon people into your office. But sometimes its wise to let 16 5
  • 168. DRIVE them come to you. Take a cue from college pro fessors and set aside one or two hours a week when your sched- ule is clear and any employ ee can come in and talk to you about anyth ing thats on her mind . Your colleagues might benefit and you might learn something.PLAY "WHOSE PURPOSE IS IT ANYWAY?"T his is another exercise designed to close the gap between percept ion and reality. Gather your team , your department, or, if you can, allthe employees in your outfit. Hand everyone a blank three-by-five-inch card. Then ask each person to write down his or her one-sente nceanswer to the following question: "W hat is our compan ys (or organiza-tions) purpose?" Collect the cards and read them aloud . What do the ytell you? Are the answers similar , everyone aligned along a commo npurpose ? Or are they all over the place-some people believing onething, others something completely different , and still others withouteven a guess? For all the talk about culture, alignment, and mission,most organizations do a pretty shabby job of assessing this aspect oftheir business. This simple inquiry can offer a glimpse into the soul ofyour enterprise. If people don t know why theyre doing what theyredoing, how can you expect them to be motivated to do it ?USE REICHS PRONOUN TEST u.s. labor secretaryF ormer Robert B. Reich has devised a smart, simple, (and free) diagnostic tool for measuring th e health of anorganization. When he talks to employees, he list ens carefully for th e 16 6
  • 169. Type I for Organizationspronouns they use. Do employees refer to their company as "they"or as "we"? "They" suggests at least some amount of disengagement,and perhaps even alienation. "We" suggests the opposite-thatemployees feel they re part of something significant and meaningful.If youre a boss, spend a few days listening to the people around you,not only in formal settings like meetings, but in the hallways andat lunch as well. Are you a "we" organization or a "they" organiza-tion? The difference matters. Everybody wants autonomy, mastery,and purpose. The thing is, "we" can get it-but "they" cant.DESIGN FOR INTR I NSIC " OTIVATION MInternet guru and author Clay Shirky ( that the most successful websites and electronic forums have a certain Type Iapproach in their DNA. They re designed--often explicitly-to tapintrinsic motivation. You can do the same with your online presenceif you listen to Shirky and: • Create an environment that makes people feel good about participating. • Give users autonomy. • Keep the system as open as possible.And what matters in cyberspace matters equally in physical space.Ask yourself: How does the built environment of your workplacepromote or inhibit autonomy, mastery, and purpose? 167
  • 170. DRIVEPROMOTE GOLDILOCKS FOR GROUPSA lmost everyone has experienced the satisfaction of a Goldilocks task-the kind thats neither too easy nor too hard , that deliv-ers a delicious sense of flow. But sometimes it s difficult to replicatethat experience when youre working in a team . People often end updoing the jobs they always do because they ve proven they can dothem well, and an unfortunate few get saddled with the flow-freetasks nobody else wants. Here are a few ways to bring a little Goldi-locks to your group: • Begin with a diverse team. As Harvards Teresa Amabile advises, "Set up work groups so that people will stimulate each other and learn from each other, so that theyre not homogeneous in terms of their back- grounds and training. You want people who can really cross-fertilize each others ideas." • Make your group a "no competition" zone. Pitting coworkers against one another in the hope that competi- tion will spark them to perform better rarely works- and almost always undermines intrinsic motivation. If youre going to use a c-word, go with "collaboration" or "cooperation." • Try a little task-shifting. If someone is bored with his current assignment, see if he can train someone else in the skills hes already mastered. Then see ifhe can take on some aspect of a more experienced team members work. • Animate with purpose, dont motivate with rewards. Nothing bonds a team like a shared mission. The more 168
  • 171. Type I for Organi zat ions that people share a common cause-whether its creat- ing something insanely great, outperforming an outside competitor, or even changing the world-the more your g roup will do deeply satisfying and outstanding work.TURN YOUR NEXT OFF-SITEI NTO A FEoEx DAYB ehold the company off-site, a few spirit-sapping days of forced fun and manufactured morale-featuring awkward pep talks,wretched dancing , and a few "tr ust falls. " To be fair, some off-sitesreengage employees, recharge peoples batteries, and restart conver-sations on big issues. But if your organizations off-sites are fallingshor t , wh y not try replacing the next one with a FedEx Day? Set asidean enti re day where employees can work on anything they choose,however the y want, with whomever they d like. Make sure they havethe tools and resources they need. And impose just one rule: Peoplem ust del iver something- a new idea , a prototype of a product, a bet-te r in te rnal pro cess-the following day. Type I organizations knowwhat thei r Type X counterpart s rarely comprehend: Real challengesare far mo re invig orati ng than controlled leisure. 169
  • 172. The Zen of Compensation: Paying People the Type I WayEverybody wants to bepaid well. I suredo. I betyourethe same. TheTypeI approach to motivation doesnt require bargain basement wagesor an all- volunteer workforce, but it does demand a new approachto pay. Think of this newapproach as the Z en of compensation: In Moti-vation 3.0 , the bestuseof money is to take the issueof money off thetable. The more prominent salary, perks, and benefits are in someoneswork life, the more they can inhibit creativity and unravel per or- fmance. As Edward Deciexplainedin Chapter 3, when organizationsuse rewards like money to motivate staff, "thats when theyre mostdemotiuating. " The better strategy is to get compensation right-andthen get it out of sight. Effective organizations compensa peo in te pleamountsand in ways that allow individuals to mostly forget aboutcompensation and insteadfocus on the work itself. Here are three key techniques.
  • 173. The Zen of Compensation1. ENSURE INTERNAL ANDEXTERNAL FAIRNESST he most important aspect of any compensation package is fairness. And here, fairness comes in two varieties-internal and external.Internal fairness means paying people commensurate with their col-leagues. External fairness means paying people in line with othersdoing similar work in similar organizations. Let s look at each type of fairness. Suppose you and Fred haveadjoining cubicles. And suppose youve got pretty much equivalentresponsibility and experience. If Fred makes scads more money thanyou, you Il be miffed. Because of this violation of internal fairness,your motivation will plummet. Now suppose instead that you andFred are both auditors with ten years experience working in a For-tune 200 company. If you discover that similarly experienced audi-tors at other Fortune 200 firms are making double your salaries, bothyou and Fred will experience a largely irreversible motivation dip.The company has violated the ethic of external fairness. (One impor-tant addendum: Paying people the Type I way doesnt mean payingeveryone the same amount. If Fred has a harder job or contributesmore to the organization than you, he deserves a richer deal. And, asit turns out, several studies have shown that most people dont havea beef with that. Why ? It s fair.) Getting the internal and external equity right isnt itself a moti-vator. But it is a way to avoid putting the issue of money back on thetable and making it a de-motivator. 171
  • 174. DRIVE2. PAY MORE THAN AVERAGEIf you have provided adequate baseline reward s and established internal and external fairness, consider borrowing a strategy firstsurfaced by a Nobel laureate. In the mid-1980s, George Akerlof, wholater won the Nobel Prize in economics, and his wife, Janet Yellen ,whos also an economist, discovered that some companies seemed tobe overpaying their workers. Instead of paying employees the wagesthat supply and demand would have predicted, they gave their work-ers a little more. It wasn t because the companies were selfless andit wasnt because they were stupid. It was because they were savvy.Paying great people a little more than the market demands, Akerlofand Yellen found, could attract better talent, reduce turnover, andboost productivity and morale. Higher wages could actually reduce a companys costs. The pay-more-than-average approach can offer an elegant wayto bypass "if-then" rewards, eliminate concerns about unfairness,and help take the issue of money off the table. It s another way toallow people to focus on the work itself. Indeed, other economistshave shown that providing an employee a high level of base pay doesmore to boost performance and organizational commitment than anattractive bonus structure. Of course, by the very nature of the exercise, paying above theaverage will work for only about half of you. So get going before yourcompetitors do. 172
  • 175. The Zen of Compen sation3. IF YOU USE PERFORMANCE METRICS,MAKE THEM WIDE-RANGING, RELEVANT,AND HARD TO GAMEImag ine you re a product manager and your pay depends largely on reaching a particular sales goal for the next quarter. If youre smart,or if you ve got a famil y to feed , youre going to try mightily to hitth at number. You probably won t concern yourself much with thequarter after that or the health of the company or whether the firmis investi ng enough in research and development . And if youre ner-vous, you m ight cut corners to reach your quarterly goal. No w imagi ne you re a product manager and your pay is deter-m ined by these factors : your sales for the next quarter; your salesin the current year; the companys revenue and profit in the nexttwo years; levels of satisfaction among your customers; ideas fornew pr oducts; and evaluations of your coworkers. If youre smart,youll probably try to sell your product , serve your customers, helpyour team ma tes, and, well , do good work. When metrics are varied ,theyre harde r to finagle. In addi tio n, the gain for reaching the metrics shouldnt be toolarge. When the payoff for reaching targets is modest , rather thanmassive , its less likely to narrow peoples focus or encourage them totake the low road . To be sure, findin g th e right mix of metrics is difficult and willvary considerably across orga ni zations. And some people will inevi-tably find a way to ga me even th e most carefully calibrated system .But using a varie ty of measur es th at reflect th e totality of gr eat workcan transform ofte n counte rp rod uctive "if-then" rewards into lesscombustible "now that" rewards. 173
  • 176. Type I for Parents and Educators: Nine Ideas for Helping Our KidsAll kids start out as curious, self-directed Type /s. But many ofthem end up as disengaged, compliant Type X s. What s going on?Maybe the problem is us-the adults who are running schools andheadingfamilies. If we want to equipyoungpeople for the new worldof work-and, more important if we want them to lead satisfy- ,ing lives-we need to breakMotivation 2.0 s grip on education andparenting. Unfortunately, as with business, theresa mismatch between whatscience knows and what schools do. Science knows (and you do, too,ifyou readChapter2) that if youpromise a preschooler a f ancy cer-tificate for drawing a picture that child will likely draw a picture ,for you-and then lose further interest in drawing. Yet in theface ofthis evidence-and as the world economy demands more nonroutine,creative, conceptual abilities-too many schools are moving in thewrongdirection. Theyre redoubling their emphasis on routines right ,answers, and standardization. And theyre hauling out a wagonfu llof Uif-then" rewards- pizza for reading books, iPodsf orshowing upto class, cash for good test scores. Were bribingstudents into compli-ance insteadof challenging theminto engagement.
  • 177. Type I for Parents and Educators Wecando better. And weshould. If wewant to raise Type I kids, at school and at home, we need to helpthem move towardautonomy, mastery, and purpose. Here are nineways to start thejourney.APPLY THE THREE-PART TYPE ITEST FOR HOMEWORKD oes the homework bulging from kids backpacks truly help them learn? Or does it simply steal their free time in the serviceof a false sense of rigor? Teachers, before you dole out yet anothertime-consuming assignment, run it through this Type I homeworktest by asking yourself three questions: • Am I offering students any autonomy over how and when to do this work? • Does this assignment promote mastery by offering a novel, engaging task (as opposed to rote reformulation of something already covered in class)? • Do my students understand the purpose of this assign- ment? That is, can they see how doing this additional activity at home contributes to the larger enterprise in which the class is engaged?If the answer to any of these questions is no, can you refashion theassignment? And parents, are you looking at homework assignmentsevery so often to see whether they promote compliance or engage-ment ? Lets not waste our kids time on meaningless exercises. With alittle thought and effort, we can turn homework into homelearning. 175
  • 178. DRIVEHAVE A FEDEx DAYIn Chapter 4, we learned how the software company Atlassian in jects a burst of autonomy into its workplace by setting aside a day eachquarter when employees can work on any project they choose , how-ever they want, with whomever theyd like. Why not try this withyour students-or even your own sons and daughters ? Set aside anentire school day (or a family vacation day) and ask kids to comeup with a problem to solve or a project to tackle. In advance , helpthem collect the tools, information, and supplies they might need.Then let them have at it. The next morning, ask them to deliver-by reporting back to the class or the family on their discoveries andexperiences. Its like Project Runway-only the kids come up withthe project themselves, and the reward at the end of the day is thechance to share what theyve created and all they ve learned alongthe way.TRY DIY REPORT CARDST oo many students walk through the schoolhouse door with one aim in mind: to get good grades. And all too often, the best wayto reach this goal is to get with the program, avoid risks, and serveup the answers the teacher wants the way the teacher wants them.Good grades become a reward for compliance-but don t have muchto do with learning. Meanwhile, students whose grades don t mea-sure up often see themselves as failures and give up trying to learn. The Type I approach is different. Report cards are not a potential 176
  • 179. Type I for Parents and Educatorsprize, but a way to offer students useful feedback on their progress.And Type I students understand that a great way to get feedback isto evaluate their own progress. So try experimenting with the DIY (do it yourself) report card.At the beginning of a semester, ask students to list their top learn-ing goals. Then, at the end of the semester, ask them to create theirown report card along with a one- or two-paragraph review of theirprogress. Where did they succeed? Where did they fall short? Whatmore do they need to learn? Once students have completed theirDIY report cards , show them the teachers report card, and let thecomparison of the two be the start of a conversation on how they aredoing on their path toward mastery. Maybe even include students inany parent-teacher conferences. (Parents: If your childs teacher wontgo for these DIY report cards, try it yourself at home. Its anotherway to prevent school from changing your childs default setting andturning him from Type I to Type X.)GIVE YOUR KIDS AN ALLOWANCEAND SOME CHORES-BUT DONTCOMBINE THEMH eres why an allowance is good for kids: Having a little of their own money, and deciding how to save or spend it, offers a mea-sure of autonomy and teaches them to be responsible with cash. Heres why household chores are good for kids: Chores show kidsthat families are built on mutual obligations and that family mem-bers need to help each other. Heres why combining allowances with chores is not good forkids. By linking money to the completion of chores, parents turn an 777
  • 180. DRIVEallowance into an "if-then" reward . Thi s sends kids a clear (andclearly wrongheaded) message : In the absence of a paym ent , no self-respecting child would willingly set the table , empty the garbage, ormake her own bed. It converts a moral and familial obli gation intojust another commercial transaction-and teaches that th e only rea-son to do a less-than-desirable task for your family is in exchange forpayment. This is a case where combining two good things give youless, not more. So keep allowance and chores separate, and you justmight get that trash can emptied. Even better, your kids will beg into learn the difference between principles and payoffs.OFFER PRAISE . . . TH E RIGHT WAYD one right, praise is an important way to give kids feedback and encouragement. But done wrong , praise can become yet another"if-then" reward that can squash creativity and stifle intrinsicmotivation. The powerful work of psychologist Carol Dweck , as well as oth-ers in the field, offers a how-to list for offering praise in a way thatpromotes Type I behavior: • Praise effort and strategy, not intelligence. As Dwecks research has shown, children who are praised for "being smart" often believe that every encounter is a test of whether they really are. So to avoid looking dumb, they resist new challenges and choose the easiest path. By contrast, kids who understand that effort and hard work lead to mastery and growth are more willing to tak e on new, difficult tasks. 178
  • 181. Type I for Parents and Educators • Make praise specific. Parents and teachers should give kids useful information about their performance. Instead of bathing them in generalities, tell them specifically what theyve done thats noteworthy. • Praise in private. Praise is feedback-not an award cer- emony. Thats why its often best to offer it one-on-one, in private. • Offer praise only when theres a good reason for it. Don t kid a kid. He can see through fake praise in a nanosecond. Be sincere---or keep quiet. If you over- praise, kids regard it as dishonest and unearned. Plus, overpraising becomes another "if-then" reward that makes earning praise, rather than moving toward mas- tery, the objective.HELP KIDS SEE THE BIG PICTUREIn education systems tilted toward standardized tests, grades, and "if-then" rewards, students often have no idea why theyre doingwhat theyre doing. Turn that around by helping them glimpse thebig picture. Whatever theyre studying, be sure they can answerthese questions: Why am I learning this? How is it relevant to the worldI live in now? Then get out of the classroom and apply what theyrestudying. If theyre learning Spanish, take them to an office, a store,or a community center where they can actually speak the language.If theyre studying geometry, have them draw up architectural plansfor an addi tion to your school or home. If theyre taking history, askthem to apply what theyve learned to an event in the news. Think ofit as the fourth R: reading, writing, arithmetic ... and relevance. 179
  • 182. DRIVECHECK OUT THESE FIVE TYPE I SCHOOLSA lt houg h most schools around the world are still built atop the Motivation 2.0 operating system, a number of forward-thinkingeducators have long understood that young people are brimmingwith the third drive. Here are five Type I schools in the United Stateswith practices to emulate and stories to inspire. • Big Picture Learning. Since 1996, with the opening of its flagship public high school, the Met, in Provi- dence, Rhode Island, Big Picture Learning has been creating places that cultivate engagement rather than demand compliance. Founded by two veteran education innovators, Dennis Litrky and Elliot Washor, Big Pic- ture is a nonprofit that now has sixty-plus schools around the United States that put students in charge of their own education. Big Picture kids get the basics. But they also use those basics and acquire other skills by doing real work in the community-all under the guid- ance of an experienced adult tutor. And instead of easily gamed Motivation 2.0 measurements, Big Picture kids are assessed the way adults are-on work performance, individual presentations, effort, attitude, and behavior on the job. Most of the students at the Met and other Big Picture schools are "at risk" low-income and minor- ity kids whove been poorly served by conventional schools. Yet thanks to this innovative Type I approach, more than 95 percent graduate and go on to college. For 780
  • 183. Type I for Parents and Educators more information, go to (Full disclosure: I have served, unpaid, on the board of directors of Big Picture since 2007~)• Sudbury Valley School. Take a look at this indepen- dent school in Framingham, Massachusetts, to see what happens when young kids have genuine autonomy. Working from the assumption that all human beings are naturally curious and that the best kind of learning hap- pens when its initiated and pursued by the one doing the learning, Sudbury Valley School gives its students total control over the task, time, and technique of their learning. Teachers and staff are there to help them make things happen. This is a school where engagement is the rule and compliance isnt an option. For more informa- tion, go to• The TInkering School More of a lab than a school, this summer program, created by computer scientist Gever Tulley, lets children from seven to seventeen play around with interesting stuff and build cool things. At the head- quarters in Montara, California, Tulley s tinkerers have built: working zip-lines, motorcycles, toothbrush robots, roller coasters, and plastic bag bridges strong enough to hold people. Most of us arent able to ship our kids out to California for a week of tinkering, but we can all learn the "Five Dangerous Things You Should Let Your Children Do. " So take nine minutes to listen to Tulleys 2007 online TED Talk of that title. Then hand your kids a pocket- knife, some power tools, and a book of matches-and get out of the way. For more information, go to http://www (includes a link to Tulleys talk). 181
  • 184. DRIVE• Puget Sound Community School. Like Sudbury and Big Picture, this tiny ind ependent school in Seattle, Washington , gives its students a radi cal dose of auton- omy, turning th e "one size fits all " approach of conven- tional schools on its head. Each student has an advi ser who acts as her personal coach, helping her come up with her own learning goals . "School" consists of a m ixture of class time and self-created independent study pro ject s, along with community service devised by the students. Since youngsters are often away from campus , the y ga in a clear sense that their learning has a real-world pur- pose. And rather than chase after grades, they receive frequent, informal feedback from advisers , teachers, and peers. For more information , go to• Montessori Schools. Dr. Maria Montessori developed the Montessori method of teaching in the early 1900s after observing childrens natural curiosity and innate desire to learn. Her early understanding of the third drive spawned a worldwide network of schools, mostl y for pre- school and primary-aged children. Many of the key tenets of a Montessori education resonate with the principles of Motivation 3.0-that children naturally engage in self-directed learning and independent study; that teach- ers should act as observers and facilitators of that learning, and not as lecturers or commanders; and that children are naturally inclined to experience periods of intense focus, concentration, and flow that adults should do their best not to int errupt. Although Montessori schools are rare at the junio r high and high school levels, every school , educator, and parent can learn from its enduring and suc- cessful approach. Meantime, while youre investigating 182
  • 185. Type I for Parents and Educators Montessori, check out two other approaches to learning that also promote Type I behavior : the Reggio Emilia philosophy for the education of young children and the Waldorf schools. For more information, visit these websites:,,,, and www A CLASS FROM TH E UNSCHOOLERSIn the United States, the homeschooling movement has been grow- ing at a remarkable pace over the past twenty years. And thefastest-growing segment of that movement is the "unschoolers"-families that don t use a formal curriculum and instead allow theirchildren to explore and learn what interests them. U nschoolers havebeen among the first to adopt a Type I approach to education. Theypromote autonomy by allowing youngsters to decide what they learnand how they learn it . They encourage mastery by allowing childrento spend as long as theyd like and to go as deep as they desire on thetop ics that interest them. Even if unschooling is not for you or yourkids, you can learn a thing or two from these educational innovators.Start by reading John Taylor Gattos extraordinary book, DumbingUs Down. Take a look at Home Education Magazine and its website.Then check out some of the many other unschooling sites on theWeb . For more information, go to www.homeedmag.corn , www.unschooling .com, and 183
  • 186. DRIVETURN STUDENTS INTO TEACHERSO ne of the best ways to know whether you ve mastered something is to try to teach it. Give students that opportunity. Assigneach pupil in a class a different aspect of the broader topic you restudying-and then have them take turns teaching what they velearned to their classmates. And once theyve got it down, give thema wider audience by inviting other classes, teachers, parents, or schooladministrators to learn what they have to teach. Also, at the start of a school term, ask students about their indi-vidual passions and areas of expertise. Keep a list of your experts, andthen call upon them as needed throughout the term. A classroom ofteachers is a classroom of learners. 184
  • 187. The Type I Reading List: Fifteen Essential Books Autonom y, mastery, and purposeare integral to the human condition, so it s no surprise that a number of writers-from psychologists to j ournalists to novelists-have exploredthesethree elementsand probed what they mean for our lives. T his list of books, arranged alphabeti - cally by author, isnt exhaustive-but it s a good starting point for anyone interested in cultivating a Type I life.Finite a nd Infi nite Ga mes:A Vision of Life as Play a nd Possib ilityBY JAMES P. CARSEIn his elegant little book, religious scholar Carse descri bes two typesof games . A "finite game" has a winner and an end; the goal is totriumph . An "infinite game" has no winner and no end; the goa l isto keep playing. Nonwinnable games, Carse explains, are much morerewarding than the win-lose ones were accustomed to p laying at ourwork and in our relationships.
  • 188. DRIVE Type I Insight: "Finite players play within boundaries; infiniteplayers play with boundaries."Talent Is Overrated: What Really SeparatesWorld-Class Performers from Everybody ElseBY GEOFF COLVINWhats the difference between those who are pretty good at whatthey do and those who are masters? Fortune magazines Colvin scoursthe evidence and shows that the answer is threefold: practice, prac-tice, practice. But its not just any practice, he says. The secret is"deliberate practice"-highly repetitive, mentally demanding workthats often unpleasant, but undeniably effective . Type I Insight: "If you set a goal of becoming an expert in yourbusiness, you would immediately start doing all kinds of things youdont do now."Flow: The Psychology of Optimal ExperienceBY MIHALY CSIKSZENTMIHALYIIts tough to find a better argument for working hard at somethingyou love than Csikszentrnihalyis landmark book on "optimal experi-ences." Flow describes those exhilarating moments when we feel incontrol, full of purpose, and in the zone. And it reveals how peoplehave turned even the most unpleasant tasks into enjoyable, reward-ing challenges. Type I Insight: "Contrary to what we usually believe . .. the bestmoments in our lives are not the passive, receptive, relaxing times-although such experiences can also be enjoyable, if we have workedhard to attain them. The best moments usually occur when a per- 186
  • 189. The Type I Reading List: Fifteen Essential Bookssons body or mind is stretched to the limits in a voluntary effort toaccomplish something difficult and worthwhile." For more of Csikszentmihalyis ideas, check out three of hisother books: Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Every-day Life; Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention;and the classic BeyondBoredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Workand Play.Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-MotivationBY EDWARD L. DECI WITH RICHARD FLASTEIn 1995, Edward Deci wrote a short book that introduced his power-ful theories to a popular audience. In clear, readable prose, he discussesthe limitations of a society based on control, explains the origins ofhis landmark experiments, and shows how to promote autonomy inthe many realms of our lives. Type I Insight: "The questions so many people ask-namely, Howdo I motivate people to learn? to work? to do their chores? or to taketheir medicine?-are the wrong questions. They are wrong becausethey imply that motivation is something that gets done to peoplerather than something that people do."Mindset: The New Psychology ofSuccessBY CAROL DWECKStanfords Dweck distills her decades of research to a simple pair ofideas. People can have two different mindsets, she says. Those witha "fixed rnindser" believe that their talents and abilities are carved instone. Those with a "g rowth rnindser" believe that their talents and 187
  • 190. DRIVEabilities can be developed . Fixed mindsets see every encounte r as atest of their worthiness. Growth mindsets see th e same encounters asopportunities to improve. Dweck s message: Go with g rowth. Type I Insight: In the book and likewise on her website ,, Dweck offers concrete steps for mov ing from afixed to a growth rnindset : • Learn to listen for a fixed mindset "voice" that might be hurting your resiliency. • Interpret challenges not as roadblocks, but as opportu- nities to stretch yourself. • Use the language of growth-for example, "I m not sure I can do it now, but I think I can learn with time and effort. "Then We Came to the EndBY JOSHUA FERRISThis darkly hilarious debut novel is a cautionary tale for the demor-alizing effects of the Type X workplace. At an unnamed ad agenc y inChicago, people spend more time scarfing free doughnuts and scam-ming office chairs than doing actual work-all while fretting about"walking Spanish down the hall, " office lingo for being fired. Type I Insight: "They had taken away our Bowers, our summerdays, and our bonuses , we were on a wage freeze and a hiring freezeand people were Bying out the door like so many dismantled dum-mies. We had one thing still going for us: the prospect of a pro-motion. A new title: true, it came with no money, the power wasalmost always illusory, the bestowal a cheap shrewd device concoctedby management to keep us from mutiny, but when word circulated 188
  • 191. The Type I Reading List: Fifteen Essential Booksthat one of us had jumped up an acronym, that person was just alittle quieter that day, took a longer lunch than usual, came backwith shopping bags, spent the afternoon speaking softly into thetelephone, and left whenever they wanted that night, while the restof us sent emails flying back and forth on the lofty topics of Injusticeand Uncertainty."Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics MeetBY HOWARD GARDNER, MIHALY CSIKSZENTMIHALYI,AND WILLIAM DAMONHow can you do "good work" in an age of relentless market forcesand lightning-fast technology? By considering three basic issues:your professions mission, its standards or "best practices," and yourown identity. Although this book focuses mainly on examples fromthe fields of genetics and journalism, its insights can be applied to anumber of professions buffeted by changing times. The authors havealso continued their effort to identify individuals and institutionsthat exemplify "good work" on their website: Type I Insight: "What do you do if you wake up in the morningand dread going to work, because the daily routine no longer satisfiesyour standards?" • Start groups or forums with others in your industry or outside it to reach beyond your current area of influence. • Work with existing organizations to confirm your pro- fessions values or develop new guidelines. • Take a stand. It can be risky, sure, but leaving a job for ethical reasons need not involve abandoning your pro- fessional goals . 189
  • 192. DRIVEOutliers. The Story ofSuccessBY MALCOLM GLADWELLWith a series of compelling and gracefully told stories, Gladwelldeftly takes a hammer to the idea of the "self-made man. " Success ismore complicated, he says. High achievers-from young Canad ianhockey players to Bill Gates to the Beatles-are often th e products ofhidden advantages of culture, timing, demographics, and luck thathelped them become masters in their fields. Reading this book willlead you to reevaluate your own path. More important , it will makeyou wonder how much human potential were losing when so man ypeople are denied these advantages. Type I Insight: "It is not how much money we make that ulti-mately makes us happy between nine-to-five. It s whether our workfulfills us. If I offered you a choice between being an architect for$75,000 a year and working in a tollbooth every day for the rest ofyour life for $100,000 a year, which would you take? Im guessingthe former, because there is complexity, autonomy, and a relationshipbetween effort and reward in doing creative work, and that s worthmore to most of us than money. "Team ofRivals. The Political Genius ofAbraham LincolnBY DORIS KEARNS GOODWINIn her entertaining popular history, Goodwin shows Abraham Lin-coln as an exemplar of Type I behavior. He worked mightily toachieve mastery in law and politics. He gave his staunchest rivalspower and autonomy. And he developed a leadership style rooted ina higher purpose--ending slavery and keeping the union intact. 190
  • 193. The Type I Reading List: Fifteen Essential Books Typ I Insight: Goodwin sheds light on Lincolns Type I leadershipskills. Among them: • He was self-confident enough to surround himself with rivals who excelled in areas where he was weak. • He genuinely listened to other peoples points of view, which helped him form more complex opinions of his own. • He gave credit where it was due and wasnt afraid to take the blame.The Amateurs: The Story ofFour Young Men andTheir Quest for an Olympic Gold MedalBY DAVID HALBERSTAMWhat would compel a group of men to endure untold physical painand exhaustion for a sport that promised no monetary compensa-tion or fame? Thats the question at the heart of Halberstams rivet-ing narrative about the 1984 U.S. rowing trials, a book that offers aglimpse into the fires of intrinsic motivation. Type I Insight: "No chartered planes or buses ferried the athletesinto Princeton. No team managers hustled their baggage from thebus to the hotel desk and made arrangements so that at mealtimethey need only show up and sign a tab. This was a world of hitchedrides and borrowed beds, and meals, if not scrounged, were desper-ately budgeted by appallingly hungry young men." 191
  • 194. DRIVEPunished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars,Incentive Plans, As, Praise, and Other BribesBY ALFIE KOHNFormer teacher Kohn throws down the gauntlet at society s blindacceptance of B. F. Skinners "Do this and youll get that" theory ofbehaviorism. This 1993 book ranges across school, work, and privatelife in its indictment of extrinsic motivators and paints a compellingpicture of a world without them. Type I Insight: "Do rewards motivate people? Absolutely. Theymotivate people to get rewards." Kohn has written eleven books on parenting, education, andbehavior-as well as scores of articles on that topic-all of which areinteresting and provocative. Theres more information on his web-site: a RunnerBY JOHN L. PARKER, JR.Parkers novel, originally published in 1978 and kept alive by adevoted coterie of fans, offers a fascinating look into the psychol-ogy of distance running. Through the tale of college miler QuentonCassidy, we see the toll that mastery can take-and the thrill it canproduce when its realized. Type I Insight: "He ran not for crypto-religious reasons but to winraces, to cover ground fast. Not only to be better than his fellows,but better than himself. To be faster by a tenth of a second, by aninch, by two feet or two yards, than he had been the week or yearbefore. He sought to conquer the physical limitations placed on himby a three-dimensional world (and if Time is the fourth dimension, 192
  • 195. The Type I Reading List : Fifteen Essential Booksth at too was his province). If he could conquer the weakness, thecowardice in himself, he would not worry about the rest; it wouldcome. "The War ofArt: Break Through the Blocksand Win Your Inner Creative BattlesBY STEVEN PRESSFIELDPr essfield s potent book is both a wise meditation on the obstaclesthat stand in the way of creative freedom and a spirited battle planfor overcoming the resistance that arises when we set out to do some-thing g reat. If you re looking for a quick jolt on your journey towardmastery, this is it. Type I Insight: "It may be that the human race is not ready for free-dom. The air of liberty may be too rarified for us to breathe. CertainlyI would n t be writing this book , on this subject, if living with free-do m were easy. The paradox seems to be, as Socrates demonstratedlong ago, that the truly free individual is free only to the extent ofhis ow n self-m astery. While those who will not govern themselvesare condem ned to find masters to govern over them. "Ma verick: The Success Story Behind theWorlds Most Unusual WorkplaceBY RIC ARDO SE M LE RWhile man y bosses are cont rol freaks, Seml er mi ght be the firstautonomy freak. H e tran sform ed th e Brazilian manufacturing firmSemco through a series of radi cal steps . H e canned most executives ,eliminated job titles, let t he compa nys three thousand employees 193
  • 196. DRIVEset their own hours, gave everyone a vote in big decisions, and evenlet some workers determine their own salaries. Th e result: UnderSemler s (non)command, Semco has g rown 20 percent a year for th epast two decades. This book, along with Semler s mor e recent TheSeven-Day Weekend, shows how to put his iconoclast ic and effectivephilosophy into action. Type I Insight: "I want everyone at Semco to be self-sufficient . T hecompany is organized-well, maybe thats not quite the right wordfor us-not to depend too much on any individual , especially me. Itake it as a point of pride that twice on my return from long trips myoffice had been moved-and each time it got smaller. "The Fifth Discipline: The Art andPractice ofthe Learning OrganizationBY PETER M. SENGEIn his management classic, Senge introduces readers to "learningorganizations"-where autonomous thinking and shared visions forthe future are not only encouraged, but are considered vital to thehealth of the organization. Senges "five disciplines" offer a smartorganizational companion to Type I behavior. Type I Insight: "People with a high level of personal mastery areable to consistently realize the results that matter most deepl y tothem-in effect, they approach their life as an artist would approacha work of art. They do that by becoming committed to the ir ownlifelong learning." 194
  • 197. Listen to the Gurus: Six Business Thinkers Who Get It While the list of companies that embrace TypeI thinking is distress- ingly short, the blueprints for building suchorganizations are readily available. The following six business thinkers offersome wise guid- ancefor designing organizations that promote autonomy, mastery, and purpose.DOUGLAS McGREGORWho: A social psychologist and one of the first professors at MITsSloan School of Management. His landmark 1960 book, The HumanSide of Enterprise, gave the practice of management a badly neededshot of humanism.Big Idea: Theory X vs, Theory Y. McGregor described twovery different approaches to management, each based on a differ-ent assumption about human behavior. The first approach, which
  • 198. DRIVEhe called Theory X, assumed that people avoid effort, work only formoney and security, and therefore need to be controlled. The second ,which he called Theory Y, assumed that work is as natural for humanbeings as play or rest, that initiative and creativity are widespread ,and that if people are committed to a goal, they will actually seekresponsibility. Theory Y, he argued, was the more accurate-andultimately more effective-approach.Type I Insight: "Managers frequently complain to me about the factthat subordinates nowadays wont take responsibility. I have beeninterested to note how often these same managers keep a constantsurveillance over the day-to-day performance of subordinates, some-times two or three levels below themselves."More Info: As I explained in Chapter 3, The Human Side of Enterpriseis a key ancestor of Motivation 3.0. Although McGregor wrote thebook a full fifty years ago, his observations about the limits of controlremain smart, fresh, and relevant.PETER F. DRUCKERWho: The most influential management thinker of the twentiethcentury. He wrote an astonishing forty-one books, influenced thethinking of two generations of CEOs, received a U.S. PresidentialMedal of Freedom, and taught for three decades at the ClaremontGraduate University Business School that now bears his name.Big Idea: Self-management. "Druckers primary contributionis not a single idea," Jim Collins once wrote, "but rather an entire 196
  • 199. Listen to the Gurus : Six Business Thinkers Who Get Itbod y of work that has one gigantic advantage: nearly all of it isessentially right. " Drucker coined the term "knowledge worker, "foresaw the rise of the nonprofit sector , and was among the firstto stress the primacy of the customer in business strategy. Butalthough hes best known for his thoughts on managing businesses,toward the end of his career Drucker signaled the next frontier:self-management . With the rise of individual longevity and the declineof job security, he argued, individuals have to think hard aboutwhere their strengths lie, what they can contribute, and how theycan imp rove their own performance. "T he need to manage oneself,"he wrote shortly before he died in 2005 , is "creating a revolution inhuman affairs. "Type I Insight: "Demanding of knowledge workers that they definethe ir own task and its results is necessary because knowledge workersmust be autonomous .. . workers should be asked to think throughthe ir own work plans and then to submit them . What am I going tofocus on? What results can be expectedfor whi ch I should be held account-able? By what deadline?"More Info: Drucker wrote many books, and many have been writtenabout him , but a g reat starting place is Th e Daily Drucker, a smallge m that prov ides 366 insights and "action points" for putting hisideas into practice. On the topic of self-management, read Druckers200 5 Harvard Business Review article, "Manag ing Oneself. " For moreinfo rma tion and access to dig ital archives of his writing, check outwww.d ruckeri nstit 197
  • 200. DRIVEJIM COLLINSWho: One of the most authoritative voices in business today andthe author of Built to Last (with Jerry Porras), Good to Great, and ,most recently, How the Mighty Fall. A former professor at the StanfordGraduate School of Business, he now operates his own managementlab in Boulder, Colorado.Big Idea: Self-motivation and greatness. "Expending energy try-ing to motivate people is largely a waste of time," Collins wrote inGoodto Great. "If you have the right people on the bus, they will beself-motivated. The real question then becomes: How do you managein sucha way as not to de-motivate people?"Type I Insight: Collins suggests four basic practices for creating aculture where self-motivation can flourish: 1. "Lead with questions, riot answers." 2. "Engage in dialogue and debate, not coercion." 3. "Conduct autopsies, without blame." 4. "Build red flag mechanisms." In other words, make it easy for employees and customers to speak up when they iden- tify a problem.More Info: Collinss website,, contains moreinformation about his work, as well as excellent diagnostic tools,guides, and videos. 198
  • 201. Listen to the Gurus: Six Business Thinkers Who Get ItCALI RESSLER AND JODY THOMPSONWho: These two former human resources professionals at Best Buypersuaded their CEO to experiment with a radical new approach toorganizing work. They wrote a book about their experiences, WhyWork Sucks and How to Fix It, and now run their own consultancy.Big Idea: The results-only work environment. ROWE, describedin Chapter 4, affords employees complete autonomy over when,where, and how they do their work. The only thing that matters isresults.Type I Insight: Among the basic tenets of ROWE: "People at all levels stop doing any activity that is a waste of their time, the customers time, or their companys time." "Employees have the freedom to work any way they want." "Every meeting is optional." "T here are no work schedules."More Info: You can learn more about ROWE at their 199
  • 202. DRIVEGARY HAMELWho: "The world s leadin g expert on busin ess st rategy," accordingto BusinessWeek. He s the coauthor of th e influential book Competingfor the Future, a professor at the London Business School , and th edirector of the California-based MLab , where hes spearheadi ng thepursuit of "moon shots for management"-a set of huge challengesto reform the theory and practice of running organizations.Big Idea: Management is an outdated technology. Hamel likensmanagement to the internal combustion engine-a technology thathas largely stopped evolving. Put a 1960s-era CEO in a time mach ineand transport him to 2010, Hamel says, and that CEO "would find agreat many of today s management rituals little changed from thosethat governed corporate life a generation or two ago. " Small won-der , Hamel explains. "Most of the essential tools and techniques ofmodern management were invented by individuals born in the 19thcentury, not long after the end of the American Civil War ." The solu-tion? A radical overhaul of this aging technology.Type I Insight: "T he next time you re in a meeting and folks are dis-cussing how to wring another increment of performance out of yourworkforce, you might ask: To what end , and to whose benefit , areour employees being asked to gi ve of themselves ? Have we commit-ted ourselves to a purpose that is truly deserving of their initiat ive,imagination, and passion ? "More Info: Hamels The Future of Management (writt en with BillBreen ) is an important read . For mor e on Hamels ideas and research ,see and 2 00
  • 203. The Type I Fitness Plan: Four Tips for Getting (and Staying) Motivated to Exercise On the jacket of this book is a runner-and thats no accident. Run- ning can have all the elementsof Type I behavior. Its autonomous. It allows you to seek mastery. And the peoplewho keep at it, and enjoy it most, often run toward a greater purpose-testing their limits or staying healthy and vital. To help you bring the spirit of intrinsic motivation out of the officeand classroom and into another realm of your life, here are four tips for staying fit the Type I way.Set your own goals. Dont accept some standardized, cookie-cutterexercise plan. Create one thats tailored to your needs and fitnesslevel. (You can work with a professional on this, but you make thefinal calls.) Equally important, set the right kinds of goals. Ampleresearch in behavioral science shows that people who seek to loseweight for extrinsic reasons-to slim down for a wedding or to lookbetter at a class reunion-often reach their goals. And then they gainthe weight back as soon as the target event ends. Meanwhile, people
  • 204. DRIVEwho pursue mor e intrinsic goals-to ge t fit in orde r to feel go od orto st ay healthy for th eir family-make slower prog ress at first , butachieve significantly better results in th e long term .Ditch the treadmill. Unless you really like tr eadmills, that is. Iftrudging to the g ym feels like a dreary obli gation , find a form of fit-ness you enjoy -that produces those intoxicating moments of flow.Gather some friends for an informal game of tennis or bask etball , joinan amateur league , go for walks at a local park, dance for a half-hour,or play with your kids. Use the Sawyer Effect to your advantage-and turn your work/out) into play.Keep mastery in mind. Getting better at something prov ides agreat source of renewable energy. So pick an activity in which youcan improve over time. By continually increasing the d ifficulty ofwhat you take on-think Goldilocks-and setting more audaciouschallenges for yourself as time passes, you can renew that energy andstay motivated.Reward yourself the right way. If you re really struggling , con-sider a quick experiment with Stickk (, a website inwhich you publicly commit to a goal and must hand over money-toa friend, a charity, or an "anti-charity"- if you fail to reach it. Butin general, dont bribe yourself with "if-then" rewards-like "If Iexercise four times this week, then Ill buy myself a new shirt. " Theycan backfire. But the occasional "now that" reward ? Not a problem.So if you ve swum the distance you hoped to this week , theres noharm in treating yourself to a massage afterward . It won t hurt. Andit mi ght feel good . 2 02
  • 205. Drive: The Reca p This book has covereda lot o ground-and you might not be able f to instantly recall everything in it. So here you/I find three different summaries of D rive. T hink of it as your talking points, refresher course, or memoryjogger.TWITTER SUMMARY*Carrots & sticks are so last century. D rive says for 21st cent ury work,we need to upgrade to aut onomy, mastery & purpose.COCKTAIL PARTY SUMMARy tWhen it comes to motivation, there s a gap bet ween wha t scienceknows and what business does. Our current bu siness operating*A maxi m um of 140 characte rs, as required by Twitter (see www.twirter.corn). Feel free co retw eer chis sum m ary or on e of your own.tA maximum of 100 words, or less th an a minute of calkin g .
  • 206. DRIVEsystem-which is built around exte rnal, carrot-a nd-s t ickrnotivators-c-doesn t work and oft en does harm . W e need an up gr ade.And the science shows the way. Thi s new approach has three essen-tial elements: (1) A utonomy-the desire to d irect our own lives; (2)Mastery-the urge to get better and better at some thing that mat-ters ; and (3) Purpose-the yearning to do what we do in the service ofsomething larger than ourselves.CHAPTER-BY-CHAPTER SUMMARYIntroduction: The Puzzling Puzzlesof Harry Harlow and Edward DeciHuman beings have a biological drive that includes hunger, thirst,and sex. We also have another long-recognized drive: to respond torewards and punishments in our environment. But in the m iddleof the twentieth century, a few scientists began discovering thathumans also have a third drive-what some call "intrinsic motiva-tion. " For several decades, behavioral scientists have been figuringout the dynamics and explaining the power of our third dri ve. Alas ,business hasn t caught up to this new understanding . If we want tostrengthen our companies , elevate our lives , and improve the world ,we need to close the gap between what science knows and wh at bus i-ness does. 20 4
  • 207. Drive: The RecapPART ONE. A NEW OPERATING SYSTEMChapter 1. The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0Societies, like computers, have operating systems-a s~t of mostlyinvisible instructions and protocols on which everything runs.The first human operating system-call it Motivation 1.0-wasall about survival. Its successor, Motivation 2.0, was built aroundexternal rewards and punishments. That worked fine for routinetwentieth-century tasks. But in the twenty-first century, Motivation2.0 is proving incompatible with how we organize what we do, howwe think about what we do, and how we do what we do. We needan upgrade.Chapter 2. Seven Reasons Carrotsand Sticks (Often) Dont Work ...When carrots and sticks encounter our third drive, strange thingsbegin to happen. Traditional "if-then" rewards can give us less ofwhat we want: They can extinguish intrinsic motivation, diminishperformance, crush creativity, and crowd out good behavior. Theycan also give us more of what we dont want: They can encourageunethical behavior, create addictions, and foster short-term think-ing. These are the bugs in our current operating system. 205
  • 208. DRIVEChapter 2a .. .. and the Special CircumstancesWhen They DoCarrots and sticks arent all bad. They can be effective for rule-basedroutine tasks-because theres little intrinsic motivation to under-mine and not much creativity to crush. And they can be more effec-tive still if those giving such rewards offer a rationale for why thetask is necessary, acknowledge that its boring, and allow peopleautonomy over how they complete it . For nonroutine conceptualtasks, rewards are more perilous-particularly those of the "if-then"variety. But "now that" rewards-noncontingent rewards givenafter a task is complete--can sometimes be okay for more creative ,right-brain work, especially if they provide useful information aboutperformance.Chapter 3. Type I and Type XMotivation 2.0 depended on and fostered Type X behavior-behaviorfueled more by extrinsic desires than intrinsic ones and concerned lesswith the inherent satisfaction of an activity and more with the exter-nal rewards to which an activity leads. Motivation 3.0 , the upgradethats necessary for the smooth functioning of twenty-first-centurybusiness, depends on and fosters Type I behavior. Type I behaviorconcerns itself less with the external rewards an activity brings andmore with the inherent satisfaction of the activity itself. For profes-sional success and personal fulfillment, we need to move ourselvesand our colleagues from Type X to Type I. The good news is that 206
  • 209. Drive: The RecapType Is are made, not born-and Type I behavior leads to strongerperformance, greater health, and higher overall well-being.PART TWO. THE THREE ELEMENTSChapter 4. AutonomyOur "default setting" is to be autonomous and self-directed.Unfortunately, circumstances-including outdated notions of"management "---often conspire to change that default setting andturn us from Type I to Type X. To encourage Type I behavior, andthe high performance it enables, the first requirement is autonomy.People need autonomy over task (what they do), time (when theydo it), team (who they do it with), and technique (how they do it).Companies that offer autonomy, sometimes in radical doses, are out-performing their competitors.Chapter 5. MasteryWhile Motivation 2.0 required compliance, Motivation 3.0 demandsengagement. Only engagement can produce mastery-becomingbetter at something that matters. And the pursuit of mastery, animportant but often dormant part of our third drive, has becomeessential to making ones way in the economy. Mastery beginswith "flow"---o pt imal experiences when the challenges we face areexquisitely matched to our abilities. Smart workplaces therefore 207
  • 210. DRIVEsupplement day-to -day activities with "G old ilocks tasks"-not toohard and not too easy. But mastery also abid es by three peculiar rul es.Mastery is a mindset: It requires the capacity to see your abil iti es notas finite , but as infinitely improvable. Mast ery is a pain : It demandseffort , grit, and deliberate practice. And mastery is an asympto te: It simpossible to fully realize, which makes it simultaneously frustrat-ing and alluring.Chapter 6. PurposeHumans, by their nature, seek purpose-a cause greater and moreenduring than themselves . But traditional businesses have long con-sidered purpose ornamental-a perfectly nice accessory, so long as itdidnt get in the way of the important things. But that s changing-thanks in part to the rising tide of aging baby boomers reckoningwith their own mortality. In Motivation 3.0, purpose maxim izat ionis taking its place alongside profit maximization as an aspirationand a guiding principle. Within organizations, this new "purposemotive" is expressing itself in three ways: in goals that use profit toreach purpose; in words that emphasize more than self-interest; andin policies that allow people to pursue purpose on their own terms.This move to accompany profit maximization with purpose maxim i-zation has the potential to rejuvenate our businesses and remake ourworld. 208
  • 211. Drive: The Glossary A new approach to motivationrequires a new vocabulary for talking about it. Heresyour officialDrive dictionary.Baseline rewards: Salary, contract payments, benefits, and a fewperks that represent the floor for compensation. If sorneones base-line rewards arent adequate or equitable, her focus will be on theunfairness of her situation or the anxiety of her circumstance, mak-ing motivation of any sort extremely difficult.FedEx Days: Created by the Australian software company Atlas-sian, these one-day bursts of autonomy allow employees to tackleany problem they want-and then show the results to the rest of thecompany at th e end of twenty-four hours. Why the name? Becauseyou have to deliver something overnight.Goldilocks tasks: The sweet spot where tasks are neither too easynor toohard. Essential to reaching the state of "flow" and to achieving mastery.
  • 212. DRIVE"I f-the n" rewards: Reward s offered as continge ncies-as in, "If youdo this , then you ll ge t th at ." For routine tasks, "if-then" rewards cansometimes be effect ive. For creative, concep t ual tasks, th ey invari-ably do mor e harm than good .Mastery asymptote: The knowl edg e that full mastery can never berealized , which is what makes its pursuit simultaneously alluringand frustrating.Motivation 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0: The motivational operating systems,or sets of assumptions and protocols about how the world works andhow humans behave , that run beneath our laws, economic arran ge-ments , and business practices. Motivation 1.0 presumed that humanswere biological creatures , struggling for survival. Mot ivation 2.0presumed that humans also responded to rewards and punishmentsin their environment. Motivation 3.0, the upgrade we now need ,presumes that humans also have a third drive-to learn , to create ,and to better the world.Nonroutine work: Creative, conceptual, right-brain work thatcan t be reduced to a set of rules . Today, if you re not doing this sortof work , you won t be doing what you re doing much longer."N o w that" rewards: Rewards offered after a task has been com-pleted-as in "N ow that you ve done such a great job, let s acknowl-edge the achievement." "N ow that" rewards , while tricky, are lessperilous for nonroutine tasks than "if-then" rewards.Results-only work environment (ROWE): The brain child of twoAm erican consultants, a ROWE is a workplace in which employees 2 10
  • 213. Drive : The Glossarydont have schedules. They dont have to be in the office at a certaintime or any time. They just have to get their work done .Routine work: Work that can be reduced to a script, a spec sheet, aformula, or a set of instructions. External rewards can be effective inmotivating routine tasks. But because such algorithmic, rule-based,left-brain work has become easier to send offshore and to automate,this type of work has become less valuable and less important inadvanced economies.Sawyer Effect: A weird behavioral alchemy inspired by the scenein The Adventures of Tom Sawyer in which Tom and friends white-wash Aunt Pollys fence. This effect has two aspects. The negative:Rewards can turn play into work. The positive: Focusing on masterycan turn work into play.20 percent time: An initiative in place at a few companies in whichemployees can spend 20 percent of their time working on any projectthey choose.Type I behavior: A way of thinking and an approach to life builtaround intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, motivators. It is poweredby our innate need to direct our own lives, to learn and create newthings, and to do better by ourselves and our world.Type X behavior: Behavior that is fueled more by extrinsic desiresthan intrinsic ones and that concerns itself less with the inherent sat-isfaction of an activity and more with the external rewards to whichthat activity leads. 211
  • 214. The Drive Discussion Guide: Twenty Conversation Starters to Keep You Thinking and TalkingThese days authors might get the first word. But they dont-andshouldnt-get the last word. Thats your job. So now that youveread this book, go out and laud or lash it on your blog or your favoritesocial networking site. But if you want to make the ideas in Drivetruly come to life, talk them over in person-with some colleaguesfrom work, friends at school or your book club. Th at s how the world ,changes--conversation by conversation. Here are twenty questions toget your conversationgoing. 1. Has Pink persuaded you about the gap between what science knows and what organizations do ? Do you agree that we need to upgrade our motivational oper- ating system ? Why or why not ? 2. How has Motivation 2.0 affected your experiences at school, at work, or in family life? If Motivation 3.0 had been th e prevailing ethic when you were young , how would your experiences have differed ?
  • 215. The Drive Discussion Guide 3. Do you consider yourself more Type I or Type X? Why? Think of three people in your life (whether at home, work, or school). Are they more Type I or Type X? What leads you to your conclusions? 4 . Describe a time when you ve seen one of the seven deadly flaws of carrots and sticks in action. What les- sons might you and others learn from that experience? Have you seen instances when carrots and sticks have been effective? 5. How well is your current job meeting your need for "baseline rewards"-salary, benefits, a few perks? If its falling short, what changes can you or your organiza- tion make? 6. Pink draws a distinction between "routine" work and "nonrourine" work. How much of your own work is routine? How much is nonroutine? 7. If you re a boss, how might you replace "if-then" rewards with a more autonomous environment and the occasional "now that" reward? 8. As you think about your own best work, what aspect of autonomy has been most important to you? Auton- omy over what you do (task), when you do it (time), how you do it (technique), or with whom you do it (team) ? Why? How much autonomy do you have at work right now ? Is that enough? 9. Would initiatives like FedEx Days, 20 percent time, and ROWE work in your organization? Why or why not ? What are one or two other ideas that would bring out more Type I behavior in your workplace ?10. Describ e a time recently when youve experienced "flow." What were you doin g ? Where were you ? How 2 13
  • 216. DR IVE might you tweak your current role to brin g on more of these optimal experiences ?11. Is there anything youve ever wanted to master that youve avoided for reasons like "I m too old " or "I ll never be good at that" or "It would be a waste of time"? What are the barriers to giving it a try? How can you remove those barriers?12. Are you in a position to delegate any of the tasks that might be holding you back from more challenging pursuits? How might you hand off these tasks in a way that does not take away your colleagues autonomy ?13. How would you redesign your office, your classroom , or your home-the physical environment, the pro- cesses, the rules-to promote greater engagement and mastery by everyone?14. When tackling the routine tasks your job requires , what strategies can you come up with to trigger the positive side of the Sawyer Effect?15. Drive talks a lot about purpose-both for organiza- tions and individuals. Does your organization have a purpose? What is it? If your organization is for-profit , is purpose even a realistic goal given the competitive pressures in every industry?16. Are you-in your paid work, family life, or volun- teering-on a path toward purpose? What is that purpose?17. Is education today too Type X-that is, does it put too great an emphasis on extrinsic rewards ? If so, how should we reconfigure schools and classrooms? Is there an elegant way to reconcile intrinsic motivation and accountability? 214
  • 217. The Drive Discussion Guide 18. If youre a mom or dad, does your home environment promote more Type I or Type X behavior in your child or children? How? What, if anything, should you do about it? 19. Does Pink underplay the importance of earning a liv- ing? Is his view of Motivation 3.0 a bit too utopian- that is, is Pink, if youll pardon the pun, too rosy? 20. What are the things that truly motivate you? Now think about the last week. How many of those 168 hours were devoted to these things? Can you do better?Your own questions:**If youd like your quest ion included in the Discussion Guide for future editions ofDrive, send it dire ctly to me at dhp . 2 15
  • 218. FIND OUT MORE- ABOUT YOURSELF AND THIS TOPIC Are you Type I or Type X? Take the comprehensive, free online assessment at in regular updates on the science and practice of human motivation? Subscribe to Drive Times , a free quarterly e-mail newsletter at
  • 219. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSAnd now a tip of the hat to those who kept me motivated. At Riverhead Books, Jake Morrisseys skills as an editor werematched only by his talents as a therapist. He made this a betterbook without making its author a crazier person. Thanks also toGeoff Kloske, who threw his support behind this project early andenthusiastically-and to Riverheads extraordinary production teamfor their skill and patience. Rafe Sagalyn understood the promise of this book even before Idid and championed it with his usual deft touch. Im grateful to havehim as a literary agent and a friend. A huge shout-out as well to thetalented Bridget Wagner, who has spread the word about Drive topublishers around the world. Vanessa Carr did a terrific job of finding obscure social psychol-ogy studies in the crevices of the Internet and on the dusty shelves
  • 220. Ackn owl edgm ent sof university libraries. Rob Ten Pas once again used his consider-able talents to craft pictures to enliv en my less considerable word s.Sarah Rainone provided spectacular help pushing the proje ct overthe finish line during a hot and dreary summer. Rem ember all th reeof those names , folks. They re stars . One of the joys of working on this book was havin g a few longconversations and interviews with Mike Csikszentmihalyi , Ed Deci,and Rich Ryan, who have long been heroes of mine. If there were anyjustice in the world, all three would win a Nobel Prize-and if thatjustice had a slight sense of humor, the prize would be in econom-ics. Any errors or misinterpretations of their work are my fault , nottheirs. Its about at this point that authors who are parents apologize totheir children for missed dinners. Not me. I don t miss meals . ButI did skip nearly everything else for several months and that forcedthe amazing Pink kids-Sophia, Eliza, and Saul , to whom Drive isdedicated-into a dad-less existence for a wh ile. Sorry, gu ys. Fortu-nately, as youve no doubt already discovered, I need you a lot morethan you need me. Then theres the threesomes mom, Jessica Anne Lerner. As always,Jessica was the first, last , and most honest sounding board for everyidea I spit out. And as always, Jessica read every word I wrote-including many thousands of them aloud while I sat in a red chaircringing at their sound. For these small reasons , and man y largerones that are none of your business, this gorgeous, gra ceful wom anleaves me slack-jawed-in awe and in love. 220
  • 221. NOTESINTRODUCTION : THE PUZZLING PUZZLES OF HARRY HARLOWAND EDWARD DECI1. Harry F. Harlow , Margaret Kuenne Harlow , and Donald R. Meyer, "Learning Mot i- vated by a Manipulation Drive ," Journal of Experimental Psychology 40 (950): 231.2. Ibid ., 233-34.3. Ha rry F. Harlow , "Mot ivat ion as a Factor in the Acquisition of New Responses, " in CurrentTheoryand Res earchon Motivation (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1953),46 .4. H arlow, in some ways, became part of the establishment. He won a National Sci- ence Medal and became presid ent of the American Psychological Association. For more abour Harlows inte restin g life, see Deborah Blum , Love at Goo Park: Harry n Harlowand theScience 0/A/ection (Cam bridge, Mass.: Perseus, 2002 ), and Jim Otta- f viani and Dylan Meconis, Wire Mothers: Harry Harlow and the Science 0/Love (Ann Arbor, Mich.: G . T. Labs, 2007).5. Edward 1. Deci, "Effects of Externall y Mediat ed Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation ," J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(971): 114.6. Edward 1. Deci, "Int rinsic Motivation , Ext rinsic Reinforcement , and Inequ it y," J ournal of Personality and Socia Psycholo 22 (972): 119- 20 . l gy
  • 222. NotesCHAPTER 1. THE RISE AND FALL OF MOTIVATION 2.0 1. "Important Notice: MSN Encarr a to Be Discontinued ," Microsoft press release (March 30, 2009) ; Ina Fried , "Microsoft Closin g the Book on Encarra ," CNET News, March 30, 2009; "Microsoft to Shut Encarta as Free Sites Alter Market," Wall StreetJ ournal, March 3 1, 2009. Up -to-date Wikipedia data are available at 2. Karim R. Lakhani and Robert G . Wolf, "Why Hackers Do What They Do : Under- standing Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects," in Per spec- tiveson Free and Op Software, edited by J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald , S. Hissam, and K . en Lakhani (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005 ), 3, 12. 3. Jurgen Blitzer, Wolfram Schrettl, and Philipp J. H . Schroeder , "Int rinsic Mot iva- tion in Open Source Software Development," Journal of Comparati e Economics 35 v (2007): 17, 4. 4. "Vermont Governor Expected to Sign Bill on Charity-Business Hybrid ," Chronicl e of Philanthropy, News Updates, April 21, 2008. 5. Muhammad Yunus, Creatinga World Without Povert : Social Business and the Future y of Capitalism (New York: Public Affairs, 2007), 23 ; Aspen Institute, Fourth Sec- tor Concept Paper (Fall 2008); "B Corporation," MIT Sloan Management Review, December 11,2008, and /declaration. 6. Stephanie Strom, "Businesses Try to Make Money and Save the World," N ew York Times, May 6,2007 . 7. Colin Camerer, "Behavioral Economics : Reunifying Psychology and Economics," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (September 1999): 10576. 8. Bruno S. Frey, Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation (Brookfield, Vt .: Edward Elgar, 1997), 118-19, ix. See also Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer, Happiness and Economics: How the Economy and Institutions Affect Wei/-Being (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002). 9. Bradford C. Johnson, James M. Manyika, and Lareina A. Yee, "T he Next Revolu- tion in Interaction," McKinsey Quarterly4 (2005): 25-26 .10. Careful readers might remember that I wrote about this general topic in A Whole New Mind: Why Rigbt-Brainers Will Rule the Future (New York: Riverhead Books, 2006) . Look for it at your local library. It s not bad.11. Teresa M. Amabile, Creativity in Context (Boulder, Colo. : Westview Press, 1996) , 119. Amabile also says that, used properly and carefully, extrinsic motivators can be conducive to creativity-a point Ill examine more in Chapter 2.12. Telework Trendlines 2009, data collected by the Dieringer Research Group, pub- lished by World atWork, February 2009 . 222
  • 223. NotesCHAPTER 2 . SEVEN REASONS CARROTS AND STICKS (O FT EN)DONT WORK .. , 1. Mark Twain , Th e Adventures o Tom Sawyer (New York: Oxford University Press, f 1998 ),2 3. 2. Mark Lepper, David Greene, and Robert Nisbett , "U nderm ining Children s Intrin- sic Interest with Extrinsic Rewards : A Test of the Overjusrificat ion Hypothesis," J ournal of Personali ty a nd Social Psychology 28 , no. 1(97 3): 129-37. 3. Edward 1. Deci , Richard M. Ryan , and Richard Koestner, "A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation ," Psychological Bulletin 125, no. 6(999): 659 . 4. Jonmarshall Reeve , Understanding M otivati on and Emotion, 4th ed. (Hoboken, N.J .: John Wile y & Sons, 2005 ), 14 3. 5. Dan Ariel y, Ur i Gneez y, George Lowenstein, and Nina Mazar, "Large Stakes and Big Mistakes," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Workin g Paper No. 05 -11, July 23, 2005 (emphasis added ). You can also find a very short summary of this and some other research in Dan Ariely, "W hat s the Value of a Big Bonus?" New York Times, November 20, 2008 . 6. "LSE: When Performance-Related Pay Backfires," Financial, June 25, 2009. 7. Sam Glucksberg , "T he Influence of Strength of Drive on Functional Fixedness and Perceptual Recognition ," J ournal o Experimental Psychology 63 (962 ): 36--41. f Glu cksber g obtained similar results in his "Problem Solving : Response Competi- tion Under the Influence of Drive ," Psychological Reports 15 (964). 8. Teresa M. Amabile, Elise Phillips, and Mary Ann Collins, "Person and Environ - ment in Talent Development: The Case of Creativity," in Tal ent D evelopment: Pro- ceedings f rom the 19 93 H enry B. a nd J ocelyn Wall ace National Research Symposium on Tal ent D evelopment, edited by Nicholas Colangelo, Susan G. Assouline, and DeAnn 1. Ambroson (Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press, 199 3),27 3-74 . 9 . Jean Kathryn Carney, "Int rinsic Motivation and Artistic Success" (unpublished d issertation, 1986 , University of Chi cago);). W. Getze ls and Mihaly Csikszent- m ihal yi, Th e Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem-Finding in Art (N ew York: W iley, 1976).10 . Teresa M. Am abil e, Creativity in Context (Boulde r, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996 ), 119 ; J ames C. Kaufman and Robert). Sternberg, eds., Th e Int ernational Handbook of Creati vity (Cam bridg e, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 18.11. Richard Tirmuss, Th e Gift Relationship : From Human Blood to Social Policy, edited by Ann Oakl ey and John Ashton , expanded and updated edition (Ne w York: New Press, 199 7). 22 3
  • 224. No t es12. Carl Mellstrorn and Mag nus J ohann esson , "Crowd ing O ut in Blood Donation: Was Titmuss R ight ?" J ournal of the European Economic A ssociat ion 6, no. 4 (J un e 2008 ): 845- 63.13. Other research has found th at monet ary incentives are especially counterp rodu c- tive when the charitable act is public. See Dan Ar iely, Anat Bracha, and Stephan Meier, "Doing Good or Doin g W ell ? Im age Mot ivation and Monetary Incent ives in Behaving Proso ciall y," Federal Reserve Bank of B oston Workin g Paper No. 07 -9, August 2007.14. Bruno S. Frey, N ot Just for the M oney: An Economic Th eory of Personal M otivati on (Brookfield, Vt. : Edw ard Elgar, 1997), 84.15. Nicola Lacerer a and Mario Macias, "Mot ivati ng Altruism : A Field Stud y," Institute f or the Study o Labor D iscussion Paper N o. 37 70, October 28,2008 . f16. Lisa D. Ordonez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D . Galin sky, and Max H . Braver- man , "G oals Gone Wild : The System at ic Side Effects of Over-Pr escribing G oal Setting," Ha rvard Bu siness School Working Paper N o. 09 -083, Febru ary 2009.17. Peter Applebome , "W hen Grades Are Fixed in Colle ge-Entrance Derby," N ew York Ti mes, March 7, 2009 .18. Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini , "A Fine Is a Pr ice," J ournal of Legal Studies 29 (January 2000).19. Gneez y and Rusrichini , "A Fine Is a Pr ice," 3, 7 (em phasis added).20. Anton Suvorov, "Add iction to Rewards ," pr esent ation delivered at th e Euro pean Winter Meeting of the Econometric Societ y, October 25, 2003. Mimeo (2003 ) available at Anto n/add ict_new6 .pd f.21. Brian Knutson, Charles M. Adams , Gr ace W. Fong , and Dan iel Hommer, "Ant ici- pation of Increasing Monetary Reward Selectivel y Recru its Nucleus Accumbens," J ournal o N euroscience 2 1 (200 1). f22. Cam elia M . Kuhnen and Brian Knutson , "T he Neural Basis of Financial Risk Tak- ing ," Neuron 47 (September 2005 ): 768.23 . Mei Cheng, K . R. Subr am anyam , and Yuan Zh ang , "Earni ng s Gu idan ce and Mana- gerial Myopia," SSRN Worki ng Paper N o. 854515, No vember 200 5.24. Lisa D . Ordonez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D . Galinsky, and Max H. Braver- man , "G oals Gone Wild: The System ati c Side Effects of Ov er-Prescrib ing Goal Sett ing ," Ha rvard B usiness School Working Paper No . 09-083 , February 2009.25 . Rol and Benabou and J ean Tirol e, "Int rinsic and Extrinsic Moti vat ion ," Review 0/ Economic St udies 70 (2003). 22 4
  • 225. NotesCHAPTER 2A ... . AND THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCESWHEN THEY DO 1. Edward L. Deci, Richard Koestner, and Richard M. Ryan, "Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again," Review of Educa- tional Research 71, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 14. 2. Dan Ariely, "Whats the Value of a Big Bonus?" New York Times, November 20, 2008. 3. Teresa M. Amabile, Creati ity in Context (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996), 175. v 4. Deci, Ryan, and Koestner, "Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education." 5. Amabile, Creativity in Context, 117. 6. Deci, Ryan, and Koestner, "Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education." 7. Amabile, Creativity in Context, 119.CHAPTER 3. TYPE I AND TYPE X 1. Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci, "Self-Determination Theory and the Facili- tation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being," American Psychologist 55 (January 2000): 68 . 2. Meyer Friedman and Ray H . Rosenman, TypeA Behavior and YourHeart (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974), 4. 3. Ibid., 70. 4. Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise: 25th AnniversaryPrinting (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985),33-34. 5. Ryan and Deci, "Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation ofIntrinsic Moti- vation, Social Development, and Well-Being."CHAPTER 4 . AUTONOMY 1. Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, "Facilitating Optimal Motivation and Psychological Well-Being Across Lifes Domains," Canadian Psychology 49, no. 1 (February 2008) : 14. 2. Valery Chirkov, Richard M. Ryan, Youngmee Kim, and Ulas Kaplan, "Differen- tiating Autonomy from Individualism and Independence: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization of Cultural Orientations and Well-Being," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (January 2003); Joe Devine, Laura Camfield, and Ian Gough, "Autonomy or Dependence--or Both ?: Perspectives from Bangladesh ," Journal of Happiness Studies 9, no. 1 (January 2008). 225
  • 226. Not es 3. Deci and Ryan, "Facilitati ng Optimal Mot ivation and Psycholog ical Well-Being Across Lifes Dom ains," citing many other stu dies. 4. Paul P. Baard, Edward L. Deci, and Richard M. Ryan , "Int rinsic Need Satisfaction : A Motivational Basis of Perform ance and Well-Being in Two Work Settings ,"Jour- nal o Applied Soci l Psychology 34 (2004) . f a 5. Francis Gr een, Demanding Work: The Paradox ofJ ob Quality in the Affluent Economy (Princeton, N.]. : Prin ceton Univ ersit y Press, 2006). 6. "Atlassians 20% Time Experim ent ," Atlassian Developer Blog , post by Mike Carmon-Brookes , March 10, 2008. 7. Quoted in Harvard BusinessEssentials: Managing Creativity and Innovation (Boston : Harvard Business School Press, 2003), 109 . 8. The observation comes from former 3M execut ive Bill Coyne, quot ed in Ben Cas- nocha, "Success on the Side," The A merican: TheJ ournal of the American Enterpr ise Institute, April 2009 . A nice account of 3Ms practi ces appear s in Jam es C. Collins and Jerry L. Porras, Built to Last: Successul Habits of Visionary Companies (New York: f HarperBusiness, 200 4). 9. Erin Hayes, "Googles 20 Percent Factor," ABC News, May 12, 2008.10. V. Dion Hayes, "W hat Nurses Want, " Washington Post, September 13, 2008.11. Martin Seligman, AutbenticHappiness: Using theNewPositivePsychology to Realize Your Potentialfor Lasting Fulfillment(N ew York: Free Press, 2004), 178; Paul R. Verk uil, Martin Seligman, and Terry Kang , "Count ering Lawyer Unhappiness: Pessim ism , Decision Latitude and the Zero-Sum Dilemma at Cardozo Law School," Pu blic Research Paper No. 19, September 2000 .12. Kennon M. Sheldon and Lawrence S..Kri eger, "Understanding th e N egat ive Effects of Legal Education on Law Students: A Longitudinal Test of Self-Determinat ion Theory," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (June 2007) .13. William H . Rehnquist, The Leg Profession Today, 62 Ind . L.]. 151 ,15 3 ( 987). al14. Jonathan D. Glater, "Economy Pinches the Billable Hour at Law Firm s," New York Times,January 19,2009.15. Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It (New York: Portfolio, 2008).16. Tamara]. Erickson , "Task, Not Time : Profile of a Gen Y J ob ," Harvard Busines s Review (February 2008) : 19.17. Diane Brady and Jen a McGregor, "Customer Service Champ s," Busines sWeek, March 2, 2009 .18. Martha Frase-Blunt, "Call Cent ers Come Hom e," HR Magazine 52 (J anuary 2007): 84; Ann Bednarz , "Call Centers Are H eadin g for Hom e," Network World, J anuary 30,2006. 2 26
  • 227. Note s19. Paul Restu ccia, "W hat W ill Jobs of the Future Be? Creat ivity, Self-Dir ection Val- ued ," Boston Herald, Febru ary 12, 2007 . Gary H amel , The Future o Managem f ent (Boston : Harvard Business School Press, 2007).20. Bharat Mediratta, as told to Jul ie Bick, "T he Google Way: Give Eng ineers Room ," New York Times, October 21,2007 .21 . See, for exampl e, S. Parker, T. Wall, and P. H ackson, "That s Not My Job : Devel- opi ng Flexible Emplo yee Work Orientations," A cadem of Managem y entJ ournal 40 (997): 899 -929.22. Marylene Gagne and Edward 1. Deci , "Self-Determination Theory and Work Moti- vatio n," Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 (2005) : 331-62.CH APTER 5. MASTERY 1. J ack Zenger, Joe Folkm an , and Scott Edinger, "H ow Extraordinary Leaders Double Profits," Chie Learning Offi er, July 2009. f c 2. Rik Kirkland , ed. , What Matters? TenQuestions That Will Shape Our Future (McKin- sey Management Institute, 2009 ), 80. 3. Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, Beyond Boredom and A nxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play, 25t h anniversary edition (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000), xix. 4. Ann March, "The Art of Work ," Fast Compan August 2005 . y, 5. This account comes from both an interview with Csikszentmihalyi , March 3, 2009, and from March, "T he Art of Work ." 6. Hen ry Sauerm an and Wesley Cohen , "W hat Makes Them Tick? Employee Motives and Firm Innovati on ," N BER Working Paper No. 14443 , October 2008. 7. Amy Wrzesniewski and J ane E. Dutton, "Craft ing a J ob: Revisionin g Employees as Active Crafrers of Th eir Work ," Academ of Management Review 26 (2001): 181. y 8. Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theoris: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development e (Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 1999), 17. 9. Ibid .10. Angela 1. Duckworth , Chr istoph er Peterson , Michael D. Matthews, and Dennis R. Kelly, "G rit: Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals," J ournal of Personality and SocialPsychology 92 (Ja nuary 2007) : 1087.11. K. Ander s Ericsson, Ralf T. Krampe, and Clemens Tesch Romer, "T he Role of Delibe rate Pract ice in th e Acqu isiti on of Expert Performance," Psychological Reuieu. 100 (Decem ber 1992): 363 .12. For two excellent pop ular accounts of some of this research, see Geoff Colvin , Tal- ented Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Per ormers from Everybody Else f (Ne w York: Port folio, 2008) , and Malcolm G ladwell, Outliers: The Story o Succ f ess 227
  • 228. Note s (New York: Littl e, Brown , 2008). Both books are recomm end ed in the Type I Toolk it .13. Daniel F. Chambliss, "T he Mundanity of Excellence: An Ethn ogr aph ic Report on Stratification and Olympic Swimmers, " Sociological Theory 7 (989).14. Du ckworth et al., "G rit ."15. Dweck , Self-Theori s, 4 1. e16. Clyde Haberman, "David Halberstam, 73, Reporter and Auth or, Dies," New York Times, April 24 , 2007 .17. The passage is quoted in David Galenson , Painting Outsidethe Lines: Patterns of Cre- ativity in Modern Art (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Un iversity Press, 2001), 53. See also Daniel H. Pink , "What Kind of Genius Are You?" Wired 14 .07 (July 2006 ).18. This study is explained in detail in Chapters 10 and 11 of Csikszentrnihalyis Beyond Boredomand Anxiety, which is the source of all quotations here.19. Csikszencmihalyi, BeyondBoredom and Anxiety, 190.CHAPTER 6 . PURPOSE 1. United Nations Statistics Division , GenderInfo 200 7, Table 3a (200 7). Available at /genderinfo/. 2. "O ldest Boomers Turn 60 ," U .S. Census Bureau Facts for Features , N o. CB06-FFSE .01-2, january 3, 2006. 3. Gary Hamel, "Moon Shots for Management," Harvard Business Review, Februa ry 2009): p. 91. 4. Sylvia Hewlett, "T he Me Generation Gives Way to the We Generation," Finan- cial Times,june 19,2009. 5. Marjorie Kelly, "N ot just for Profit ," strategy-ebusiness 54 (Spring 2009): 5. 6. Kelly Holland, "Is It Time co Re-Train B-Schools?" New York Times, March 14, 2009; Katharine Mangan , "Survey Finds Widespread Cheating in M.B.A . Pro- grams ," Chronicle of HigherEduc ation, September 19,2006. 7. See the MBA Oath website , /h istory. 8. Hamel, "Moon Shots for Management," p. 93. 9. Full disclosure: I worked for Reich for a few years in the early 1990s . You can read a short accounc of this idea at Robert B. Reich, "The Pronoun Test for Success," Washington Post,july 28 ,1993.10. "Evaluati ng Your Business Eth ics: A Harvard Professor Explains Why Good People Do Unethical Thin gs," Gallup ManagementJournal (June 12, 2008). Available at http://gmj .gallup. com/concenc/ 107 527/evaluating-your-business-ethics.aspx. 228
  • 229. Notes11. Elizabeth W. Dunn, Lara B. Ankin, and Michael I. Norton, "Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness, " Science 21 (March 2008).12. Drake Bennett, "Happiness: A Buyers Guide ," Boston Globe, August 23, 2009 .13. Tait Shanafelt et al., "Career Fit and Burnout Among Academic Faculty," Archives of InternalMedicine 169, no. 10 (May 2009): 990-95 .14. Christopher P. Niemiec, Richard M. Ryan, and Edward L. Deci, "The Path Taken: Consequences of Attaining Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aspirations," Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009): 291-306.15. Ibid. 229
  • 230. INDEXPage numbersset in italics indicateillustrations .Accountab ility, 106-7 Amabile , Teresa, 30, 73, 168; andAchievement , 58, 190; beliefs and, 120; algorithmic tasks, 46; and goals and , 121-22; individual, creativity, 44-45 , 65, 67 , 116 155-56; intrinsic motivation The Amateurs: The Storyof FourYoungMen and , 79; mastery and, 127; and Their Questfor an Olympic purpose and , 144 Gold Medal, Halberstam, 191Adams, Scott , 99 Anderson, Brad, 100Addict ion, extr insic rewards and, 53-56 Anderson, Max, 138The Adventuresof TomSawyer, Twain, Anderson , Ray, 78n 36-37, 211 Anxiety, profit goals and , 143-44Adversity, responses to, 122-23 Apache, 22Affirmativ e action, eth ics and , 140 Ariely, Dan , 40, 41 ,62; Predi tably cAkerlof, George, 172 Irrational 27 ,Aknin, Lara, 14 1 Art, autonomy and, 106Algorithm ic tasks, 29-30; extr insic Artists : and mastery, 126-27; rewards and , 46 motivations, 45, 65Allowances, for child ren, 177-78 Aspirations of college graduates, 142-44Alpine Access, 103 Asymptote, mastery as, 126-27 , 208,Altrui sm , rewards and , 48-49 210
  • 231. IndexAtlassian, 92-94, 96-97, 105, 176 BeyondBoredom and Anxiety: ExperiencingAuden, W. H., 109, 115 Flowin Workand Play,Australia, software company, 92-94 Csikszentmihalyi, 119 , 187Autonomous motivation, 90-91 Bharat, Krishna, 96Autonomy, 207; business management Big Picture Learning , 180-81 and, 85-108; childs allowances Billable hours, 99-100 and, 177; in childs homework, Biological drives, 3, 18 175; contingent rewards and, 38; Blood donors, motivation, 47-49 control and, 110; and creativity, Boston Globe, 141 66; and motivation, 64; need for, Brain, response to rewards, 55 72, 73; in organizations, 162-65; Breen, Bill, The Futureof Management, 200 and performance, 133; and Bucheit , Paul , 96 purpose, 140, 141; ROWE and, Buffett, Warren, 78n 199; Type I behavior and, 80, 201 Built to Last, Collins and Porras, 198Autotelic experiences, 113-14; work Business management: and autonomy , and, 129-30. See also "Flow" 85-108; goals of, 138-39; McGregor s approaches to,Baaed, Paul, 91 195-96; premises of, 76;Baby-boom generation, 131-33; and problems of, 72; as technology, purpose, 134, 144-45,208 88-89,200Baseline rewards, 35,60,66, 209 Business model, open source, 21-23, 25Bazerman, Max, 139-40 Business organizations, 23-24;B Corporations, 25, 136 management of, 76; andBecker, Gary, 116 motivation, 9; policies of,Behavior: good, rewards and, 47-49; 139-41; and purpose, 134; Type motivations for, 2-3; negative I toolkit for, 162-73. Seealso consequences, 52-53; types A Business management and B, 75; types I and X, 77-81-unethical, 56, 139, extrinsic Cadet Basic Training, 123-24 motivation and, 50-51. Seealso Call centers, 101-4 Type I behavior; Type X behavior Candle problem, 42-44, 42,43, 56,Behavioral economics, 26-28 61-62,61Behavioral science: self-determination Carmon-Brookes, Mike, 92-94, 96-97 theory, 71-74; work categories, Carrot-and-stick. SeePunishment; 29 RewardsBeliefs, and achievements, 120 Carse, James P., Finiteand Infinite Games:Benabou, Roland, 73 A Vision of Life as Play andBest Buy, 100-101 Possibility, 185-86 232
  • 232. IndexCasinos, 55-56 motivations and , 30; rewardsCezanne, Paul t 126-27 and, 42-46, 65-68Challenges , 169, as opportunities, 188 Creativity: Flowand the Psychology ofChambliss, Daniel t 124-25 Discovery and Invention,Charitable acts, monetary incentives and, Csikszentmihalyi, 187 224n 13 Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, 31, 73,Charitable giving, as corporate policy, 141 109-10, 112-16, 128-30, 143;Chen , jenova, 118 Beyond Boredom and Anxiety, 119;Children : chores for, 177-78; and "flow" Creativity, 187; FindingFlow: state , 130; motivation of, 174-84 The Psychology of Engagement withCoe, Sebastian , 114 Everyday Lift, 187; Flow: TheCollins ,jim, 198; and Drucker , Peter F., Psychology of Optmal Experience, i 196-97; Goodto Great, 198 186-87; GoodWork: WhenColvin, Geoff, TalentIs Overrated: What Excellence and Ethics Meet, 189; Really Separates World-Class measurement of "flow," 153-54; Performers from Everybody Else, 186 and purpose, 134Comm issioned an, 4 5, 65 Customer service representatives, 101-4Compensation, motivat ional, 170-73Competence , need for, 72 The Daily Drucker, Drucker, 197Competing f orthe Future, Hamel , 200 Damon , William, GoodWork:WhenCompet it ion, within groups , 168 Excellence and EthicsMeet, 189Comp lexity of work, 29 Deci, Edward L., 31, 39,70-72,80,Compliance, 112; Motivation 2.0 and, 111 142-43, 170; and autonomy,Computers, 17; and intellectual labor, 30 89-90,91; and extrinsicConduct , code of, and purpose , 138 aspirations, 142-43; andCont ingent rewards, 38- 39, 42; and intrinsic motivation, 8-9, 62, creati vity, 44-45 . See also 66-67,106; IntrinsicMotivation, "If-t hen" rewards 71; Soma puzzle study, 5-9,Contro l: autono my and , 110; bosses 35; Why WeDo What WeDo: and 165-66; management and, Understanding Self-Motivation, 187 88- 92 Decision latitude, 98Cont rolled mot ivation, 90 Decision-making, rewards and, 55Conversation starters, 212- 15 Deliberate practice, 158-59, 186; masteryCooperatives, 136-37 and, 208Cornell University, autonomy study, 91 Discussion guide , 212-15Cowell, Simon, 78n Disutility, work as, 31Creativity, 116; extrinsic motivators and, DIY (do it yourself) report cards, 177 170, 222 n 11; freedom in, 90; Dopamin e, rewards and , 55 23 3
  • 233. IndexDrives , motivational, 2-3 Erving , julius, 125Drucker, Peter F., 196-97 Ethical standards, 139-40DumbingUs Down, Gatto, 183 Excellence , mundanity of, 125Duncker, Karl, 42 Exercise, physical, Type I, 202Dunn, Elizabeth, 141 Experience Sampling Method , 114Dutton, jane, 119 External drives, 3, 18-19Dweck, Carol, 73; and effort, 125; External fairness of compensation, 171 Mindset: The New Psychology External motivations, and algorithmic of Success, 187-88; and praise tasks, 30 for children, 178-79; and External rewards, Type X behavior and , self-theories, 120-23 77-78 Extrinsic aspirations, 142-44Echo boomers. See Young adults Extrinsic motivations, 10, 18-19; andEconomic bubbles, 57 creativity, 222n11; ethicalEconomics: and behavior, 25-27; standards as, 140 ; and human modern, views of, 116 irrationality, 27; managementEducators, Type I toolkit, 174-84 and, 88; negative effects, 49-59;Effort: mastery and, 125,208; open source and, 22 ; positive self-theories and, 122 results, 60-69; Type X behaviorEmployees: and mastery, 119; and and, 77-78, 211 organizational goals, 165; Extrinsic rewards, 37-41; artists and , views of, 76, 91-92 45-46; and short-term thinking,Empowerment, Ill; notion of, 91-92 58; unexpected, 66-67Encyclopedias, online, 16-17Engagement, 112; autonomy and, 110; Fairness in compensation, 171 and "Bow," 115; and mastery, Falk, Stefan, 117 207; Motivation 3.0 and, III Farquhar, Scott, 92, 94Enjoyment-based intrinsic motivation, 23 FastCompany magazine, 117Eno, Brian, 158 Federer , Roger, 58Entity theory of intelligence, 121, 123; FedEx days, 93, 97 , 169 ,209; for effort and, 122 children, 176Entrepreneurs: and autonomy, 95, 104; Feedback: critical, mastery and, 159; praise and open-source software, 22; as, 178, 179; for students, 177 and purpose, 136 Ferris, joshua, Then WeCameto the End,Environmental drive , 3. Seealso 188-89 Punishment; Rewards The Fifth Disciplne: The Art and iErickson, Tamara, 100-101 Practice of the LearningEricsson, Anders, 124, 158-59 Organization, Senge, 194 234
  • 234. IndexFinancial incentives , and performance, The Future of Management, Hamel and 4 1-42 Breen, 200Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagem with Everyda Life, ent y Galenson , David , 126 Csikszentmihalyi , 187 Gardn er, How ard , 73; GoodWork: WhenFinite and Infinite Games, Case, 185-86 Excellence and Ethics Meet, 189Firefox, 22 Gatto , John Taylor, Dumbing Us Down, 183Fitness plan , Type I, 20 1-2 General ized anxiety disorder, 127-29"Five Dangerous Things You Should Let Generation Y, 135-39 Your Ch ildren Do," Tulley, 181 Georgetown University Hospital, 97Fixed mindset , 121n , 187-88 Gladwell, Malcolm , Outliers: The StoryofFlaste , Richard , Why We Do What We Success, 190 Do: Understanding Self-Motivation, Glossary, 209-11 187 Glucksberg, Sam, 43-44, 61-62Flex time , 92 Gneezy, Uri, 51-5 3Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Goals, 49- 51, 201 ; of college graduates, Csikszenrmihalyi, 186-87 142-44; in "flow," 115; individual"Flow" (mental state ), 114-19; and performance review, 157; anxiety, 128-29; children and , organizational , setting of, 165; 130; mastery and , 120 , 125 , publicly held companies and, 207-8; measurement of, 153-54; 57; purpose and, 135-37, 208; open-source projects and, 23 ROWEs and, 87; self-fulfilling,flOw (video game) , 118 113, 114; self-theories and,Flowchart , rewards use, 69 121-22; Type X behavior and,Flow-friendl y environments, 117-19 123fM:RI (funct ional magnetic resonance Godin , Seth , 95 imagi ng), reward study , 55 Goldilocks tasks , 118-19, 129 ,208,"For-benefit" organizations, 24-25, 136 209-10; for groups, 168-69Fourt h Secror Ne twork, 24 Good behavior, rewards and , 47-49Freedom: creative , 90 , 193; human , 108 Goodto Great, Collins , 198Freud , Sigmu nd , 113 Good Work: When Excellen and Ethics ceFrey, Brun o, 28 , 73 Meet, Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi,Friedman, Meyer, 74-75 , 77 and Damon, 189Friedman, Milron, 116 Goodwin, Doris Kearns , Team of Rivals:Fry, Art , 95 The Political Genius of AbrahamFunctio nal fixedn ess, 43 Lincoln, 190-91Functio nal magn et ic resonance imagin g Google,96 (fM: I), reward study, 55 R Grad es, stu dent s and, 176-77 235
  • 235. IndexGreen, Francis, 91 Human condition, intrinsic mot ivationGreen Cargo, 117, 118 and,4Greene , David, 37-39 Human nature, 88-90; and autonomy, 108Grit, mastery and , 124-25,208 Human needs, universal, 72Grouplers, 105 The HumanSideof Enterprise, McGregor,Groups, Goldilocks tasks for, 168-69 76 , 195 , 196Growth rnindser, 121n, 187-88 Humanistic psychology, 20Gunther,)eff, 85-88,100 "H urry sickness," 75Halberstarn, David, The Amateurs: The Identity, good work and , 189 Storyof FourYoung Menand Their "If-then " rewards, 38-39, 80 , 145 ,210; Quest for an Olympic Gold Medal, and addiction, 53-54; allowances 191 as, 178; and altruism, 49 ; andHamel, Gary, 88; TheFuture ofManagement, creativity, 44-45, 46 , 65-66, 68 ; 200; and management, 138-39, Hsieh and, 102; and mastery, 58; 200; and wealth maximization, praise as, 178 , 179; and routine 134 tasks, 62-64; and thinking , 56Happiness: fulfilling work and, 190; Incentives, and performance, 4~2 money and, 14~ 1 Incremental theory of intelligence, 12 1,Harlow, Harry E, 221n4; primate 123; effort and, 122 behavior study, 1-4 Independence , autonomy and, 90Harvard BusinessSchool students, 137-38 India, extrinsic incentives test, 4~1Health, Type I behavior and, 80 Individuals: and autonomy , 107-8; TypeHeart disease, incidence of, 74-75 I toolkit for, 153-61Heuristic tasks, 29; rewards and, 30, Industrial Revolution, 19 43-44,46 "Infinite games, " 185-86Hewlett, Sylvia, 135 Informational motivators , 67-68Home Education Magazine, 183 Innovation, 90Homeschooling, 183 Intellectual challenge, productivity and ,Homeshoring, 103-4 117Homework, for children, 175 Intelligence, beliefs about, 121-23Homo Oeconomicus Maturus (Mature Interest, capacity for, 72 Economic Man), 28 Internal fairness of compensation, 171Household chores, and allowances, Intrinsic aspirations , 142 177-78 Intrinsic goals, 202How the Mighty Fall, Collins, 198 Intrinsic motivation, 3-4, 8-9, 204; andHsieh, Tony, 102-3, 107 achievement, 79; and coworkers,Human behavior, 18-20, 73 106; creativity and, 30,46; 236
  • 236. Index enjoyment based, 23; goals Lederhausen , Mats, 134 and , 51; Motivation 2.0 and, Legal codes, 23 35; Olympic athletes and, 191; Lepper, Mark, 37-39 in organi zations, 167; positive Life expectancy of baby boomers, 132 feedback and, 67; rewards and , Lifetime, standard patterns, 156 37-40; Twain and , 36-3 7; Type Lincoln , Abraham, 154, 190-91 I behavior and , 77, 2 11 Linux, 22Intrinsic Motivation, Deci, 7 1 Littky, Dennis, 180Irrationality, human , 27-28 LiveOps , 103 Low-profit limited liability (L3C)J etBlue , 103 corporations, 24, 136Jung , Carl , 112 Luce, Clare Booth, 154Kahneman , Daniel , 26 McGregor , Douglas, 20, 78, 157,Kelley, Tom , 90 195-96; and corporate leadership,Kelly, Mar jorie, 136-37 75-77; The Human Side ofKenned y, John E , 154 Enterprise, 76, 195 , 196Kimle y-Horn and Associates, 163 McKinsey & Co., 30Know ledge workers , autonomy of, 197 McKnight, William, 94-96Knutson, Brian, 54-56 Management, as technology , 88-89, 200.Koestne r, Richard , 62 Seealso Business managementKohn, Alfie, Punishedby Rewards The : "Managing Oneself, " Drucker, 197 Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Maslow, Abraham , 20 Plam, As , Praise, and OtherBribes, Mastery, 58, 109-30, 158-60,207-8; 39, 192 achievement and, 79; athletic,Kunitz , Stanley, 135 192-93; and creativity, 66; goals and, 50; homework and,Lakhani , Kar im , 23 175 ; Type I activity, 202 ; Type ILanguage: of growth, 188 ; Type I, 165 behavior and , 80 , 201Laws, and economic self-int erest, 25-26 Mastery asymptote, 210Lawyers, 98- 100 Mature Economic Man (HomoOe conomicusLeadership, of corporations, probl ems of, Maturus), 28 75-77 Maverick: The Success Story Behind theLearning : extrinsic rewards and, 39; Worlds Most Unusual Workpl ce, a intri nsic mot ivation and, 4; Semler, 193-94 short-term rewards and, 58 MBA Oath, 138Learning goals, 12 1- 22 Meddiu s, 86-87"Learn ing orga nizations," 194 Medir atr a, Bharat , 105 237
  • 237. Ind exMent al health , Type I behavior and, 80 207; "flow" and , 129 ; McGregorMicrosoft , encyclopedia by, 15-17 and, 196; MBA Oath, 138 ;Millennials. See Young adults Mont essori schools and , 182 ;Mindset, mastery as, 120-23, 208 and purpose, 134, 135, 136,Mindset: The New Psychology o Success, f 137,208; team and , 105 ; Dweck , 121n , 187-88 techn iqu e and , 104Mission , good work and , 189 Mozart , Wolfgan g Amadeus, 78nMLab,200 Mozilla , 24-2 5Mondrag6n Corporaci6n Cooperat iva, 137 MSN Encarta, 15-17Money: charitable acts and , 224n1 3; and Mycoskie, Blake, 135-36 happiness, 140-41; as motivation, 79,87 ,93,170 Needs : human , auto nom y as, 90;Monitoring of work , 31-32 psycholog ical, 72-73Montessori , Maria , 182 Negative behavior, mot ivat ions and , 35Montessori Schools, 182-83 Negative effect of rewards , 8-9Motion, Newtons law, 34- 35 Nelson , George , 98Motivation: beliefs about , 9, 10; Newton, Isaac, 34-3 5 understanding of, 145-46 N iemiec, Chr istopher, 142Mot ivation 1.0 , 18,210 Nisbett, Robert, 37Motivation 2.0, 18-21,34-35, 145 , Nobel Prize in Econom ics, 26 205,210; and accountability, Noncommissioned art , 4 5-46, 65 107; artists and , 106; behavior Non-employer businesses , 31 type, 77 ; billable hours, 99 ; and Noninstrurnenral activit ies, 128-29 compliance , 111 ; and "flow," 116; Nonprofit organizations, 23 "for-benefit" organizations and, Nonroutine work , 210 25; heuristic tasks and, 30-31; Nontangible rewards , 67 human irrationality and, 27; and Nonwinnable games , 185 human needs, 72; and intrinsic Norton, Michael, 141 motivation, 23, 28; problems of, "N ot only for profit " enterprises, 137 32-33,35-36; punishment and , "N ow that " rewards , 66-67, 68 , 210; 53; and purpose , 133-34, 135, peer-to-peer, 163 136 ; and work , 3 1Motivation 2.1, 20 , 91 Oblique cards, 158Motivation 3.0, 77,89,206, 2 10; and Off-site days, organizat ional, 169 accountability, 107; Ad assian, 93; Office hours , Type I emplo yers, 16 5-66 auronomy and, 97; billable hours Offshoring of algorithmic tasks , 29-30 and , 99-100; compensation , Olympic athletes, mot ivation , 191 170-73 ; and engagement, 111, Once a Runner, Parker, 192- 93 238
  • 238. IndexOpen source, business model , 21-23, 25 Positive feedback, 67-68Open-source projects, teams and, 106 Positive psychology movement, 73Operating systems , 17-20 Posters, motivational, individual, 160-61Optimal experiences, 186--87; work and, 31 Post-it notes, 95Organization of businesses, purpose and, Praise, 67-68; for children, 178 136 Predictably Irrational, Ariely, 27Organizations: and autonomy, 107; and Pressfield, Steven, The War of Art: Break "flow" state of workers, 129-30; Throughthe Blocksand Win Your and goals, 51; health gauge , 139; InnerCreative Battles, 193 and motivation, 9, 20-21; Primate behavior, study of, 1-2 publicly held corporations, Principal-agent theory, 54 23-24,5 7-58; purpose and, Pro-social spending, 141 144,208; Type I, 195-200; Problem-solving, candle problem, 42-44 Type I toolkit for, 162-73 Productivity, intellectual challenge and,Orkur, 96 117Outliers: The Storyof Success, Gladwell, 190 Professionalism, Ervings view, 125 Profit, corporations organized for, 23-24Pain , mastery and, 123-25, 208 Profit goals, 142-44Parents, Type I toolkit, 174-84 Profit motive, 134-35, 144Parent-teacher conferences, 177 "Pronoun test" of organizations, 139,Parker, John 1. , Jr., Once a Runner, 192-93 16&-67Peer-to-peer awards, 163 Proudfoot, Alec, 96People , management of, 88-92 Psychological needs, innate, 72-73Performance : incentives and, 40-42; Psychology,Csikszentmihalyi and, 112-14 Type I metrics , 173 Publicly held corporations, 23-24, 57-58Performance goals , 121-22 Puget Sound Community School, 182Performance reviews, personal, 157-58 Punishedby Rewards: The Trouble with GoldPersonal fulfillment , engagement and, 112 Stars, Incentive Plans, As, Praise,Pessim ism , lawyers and, 98 and OtherBribes, Kohn, 39, 192PHH Arval , 103 Punishment, as motivation, 3, 18-19,Pink , Dan iel H., A Whole New Mind: 34-35,51-53; and algorithmic Why Rigbt-Brainer Will Rule the s tasks , 30; flaws, 59 Future, 222n1O Purpose, 64, 131-46, 208; of homework,Play, 37-40; nature of, Twain and, 3&-37 ; 175 ; individual, 154-56; Lincoln study of, 113; work as, 130, 211 and, 190 ; organizational, 166 ;Policies of busine ss organizations, teamwork and, 168-69; Type I 139-41 ; and purpose , 208 behavior and, 80-81, 201Porras, J erry, Built to Last, 198 Purpose goals, 142 239
  • 239. IndexPurpose maxim izers, business model s, 25 Roosevelt , Frankl in D., 154Puzzle, Harlow s, 1-4, 2 Rosenman , Ray, 74-7 5 Rout ine work , 2 11; rewards and, 62--64Quarterly earnings , 57, 58 ROWE (results-only work environment ),Quarterly goals , 173 86-88,100, 199 ,21 0- 11 Rules of Tbumb, Webber , 159-60Rationale, for routine tasks, 64 Running , 20 1Reading list, Type I, 185-200 Rusrichini, Aldo , 51-5 3Recognition, as motivation, 79-80 Ryan, Richard , 91 ,107,108; andReggio Emilia philosophy of education, extrins ic aspirat ions, 142-44 ; 183 and intrinsic mot ivat ion , 62;Rehnquisr, William, 99 self-determination theory,Reich, Robert B., 121 , 139, 166-67 7 1-7 2, 89- 90Relatedness, need for, 72, 73Relationships, profit goals and, 144 Sabbaticals , 156Relevance of studies , 179 Sagrneisrer, Stefan, 104 , 156Renewable resource, Type I behavior as, 80 Salieri, Anton io, 78nRepetition, mastery and, 159 SaludCoop , 137Report cards, 176-77 Sawyer Effect, 37-40, 119, 129, 2 11;Ressler, Cali, 86, 101, 199; and flex time , artists and , 4 5; and rout ine 92; ROWE experiment, 100; Why tasks ,62 WorkSuch and Howto Fix It, 199 Schmidt, Peter , 158Results-only work environment (ROWE), Scholder, Fritz, 119 86-88, 100, 199 ,210-11 Schools, 9; motivation of children ,Rewards: and algorithmic tasks, 30; 174-77; Type I, 180-83 baseline, 35; and creative thinking, Science, and motivation, 145 44-46; effective, 206; extrinsic, Scientific management , 19 and heuristic tasks, 31; flaws, 59; Schwab, Klaus, 115-16 flowchart for use, 69; hidden costs, Self-determination, need for, 73 37-40; and intrinsic motivation, Self-determination theory (SDT), 7 1- 74, 3-4,8-9; as motivation, 3, 18-19, 89-90 34-35, 170; negative effects, Self-direction, 89 , 92 ; Type I behavior 49-59; open source and, 22; and , 80-81 ; of workers , 3 1-32 positive results, 60-69; problems Self-interest, economic , 25-26 of, 205; SDT and, 72; of self, 202; Self-management, Drucker and , 196-97 young adults and, 135 Self-mastery, freedom and, 193Rhesus monkeys , puzzle for, 1-4,2 Self-motivation: Collins and, 198 ; DeciRochester , New York, 70 and ,187 240
  • 240. IndexSelf-organ ized teams , 106 Talent is Overrated: What Really SeparatesSelf-theories, 120-23 World-Cla Performers from ssSeligman, Mart in, 73 , 98 Everybody Else, Colvin , 186Sernco, 193-94 Task, and autonomy, 94-98Semler, Ricardo: Maverick: The Success Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 19,28-29 Story Behind the Worlds Most Teachers, Type I toolkit, 174-84 Unusual Workplace, 193-94; The Teamof Rivals: The PoliticalGeniusof Seven-D Weekend 194 ay , Abraham Lincoln Goodwin, ,Senge , Peter M., The Fifth Discipline: The 190-91 Art and Practice of the Learning Teams, autonomy and , 104-6; Organization, 194 Goldilocks tasks for, 168-69The Seve n-Day Weekend, Semler, 194 Technique , autonomy and , 101-4Shirky, Clay, 167 Telecommuting, 32Short cuts , 51 thatgamecompany, 118Short-term thinking , 56-58 Then We Cameto the End, Ferris, 188-89Shortz , Will , 124 Theories of management, 195-96;Skill ing , Jeff, 78n X and Y, 76-77Skinner , B. E , 113 Third drive. SeeIntrinsic motivationSocial benefit , businesses for, 24 Thompson, Jody , 86 ,100,199; and flexSocial businesses, 24 time, 92; ROWE experiment,"Socially responsible " businesses, 137 100; Why WorkSucksand How toSociet ies, operat ing systems, 17-20 Fix It , 199Software: and intellectual labor, 30; open Three 3M, autonomy at , 94-96 source, 22 Time, autonomy and, 98-101Soma puzzle cube, 5-9,5 , 35 The Tinkering School, 181Springsteen, Bruce , 78n Titmuss, Richard , 47Standards, good work and , 189 TOMS shoes, 135-36Stern berg, Robert , 73- 74 Toolkit , Type I, 149-200Stigler, George, 116 Transcendence , 27Stric kland, Bill , 140 TrurnpvDonald.YdnStu de nts : self-evaluati on, 177; as Tulley, Gever, 181 teachers, 184 Tversky, Amos , 26Success: Gladwell and, 190 ; int rinsic Twain, Mark, The Adventuresof Tom mot ivat ion and , 79 Sawyer, 36-37 , 2 11Sud bu ry Valley School , 181 "20 percent rime, " 94, 96-97, lOS, 211 ;Suvorov, Ant on , 53-54 organizations and , 162-63Sweden, blood donor experiment , Type A behavior, 75 ; Type X and , 80 47-48 Type B behavior, 75 247
  • 241. IndexType I behavior , 10, 77-81 ,89,1 23, Websites: design of, 167; for motivational 20 1,206-7,2 11; autonomy and , posters, 161 ; schools, 183 94 , 98 ; by bosses, 165-66; Welch , J ack, 78 n indiv idual, 153-61; lawyers and , White-collar work , 29-30 98 ; mastery and , Ill , 120 ; Whole Foods, 10 5 purpose and , 133 A Wh ole New M ind: W hy Rigbt-B rainersType I Fitness Plan , 201- 2 Will Rule the Future, Pink,Type I organizations, 101 222 n10Type I reading list , 185-200 Why We Do What We D o: UnderstandingType I Toolkit , 10, 149-200 Self-M otivation, Deci and Flaste ,Type X behavior, 77-81, 123,206,211 ; 187 and "flow," 116 ; and purpose , Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It , 133-34 Ressler and Thompson, 199 Wikipedia, 16-1 7, 21 , 32Unethical behavior, 56, 139 ; extrinsic W infrey, Oprah, 78n motivation and , 50-51 W. 1. Gore & Associates, 105Unexpected rewards , 66-67 Wolf , Bob, 23United States Military Academy, West Woods , Tiger , 127 Point, 123-24 Work , 76; autonomy and , 94-98;University of Rochester, 70-71,142 definitions, 101 ; and "Bow"Unschooling, 183 state , 129 ; and play, 37-40, 130,Utility, work as, 31 211; fulfillin g , 190 ; good , 189; management theor ies, 195-96;Vermont, L3C corporations, 24 motivations and , 30-32;Video games , "flow" experiences, 118 nature of, Twain and , 36-37;Vocation Vacations , 31 nonroutine, 2 10; routine, 211;Volunteerisrn, 134 Taylors idea, 28-29 Workforce , engagement of, IIIWages, above average, 172 Workplace: and mot ivation , 167;Waldorf schools, 183 Moti vation 3.0-style, 102-3The War 0/Art: Break Through the Blocks Wrzesniewski , Amy, 119 and Win Your Inner Creative Battles, Pressfield, 193 Yellen, Janet, 172Washor, Elliot , 180 Young adults, and purpose , 135-39, 1Weakne sses, work on , mastery and, 159 Yunus , Muhammad, 24Wealth maximization, 134Web server software, open source, 22 Zappos .com , 102- 3Webber, Alan , Rules of Tbumb , 159-60 Zen of compensation, 170-73 24 2