In one of my previous posts, I claimed that Malcolm Gladwell is my prophet (Jesus makes the list too, although strangely or intelligently I remain irreligious). I must add another prophet to the roster: the author, Dan H. Pink.
Dan H. Pink, whose latest book, Drive, takes a question like "what motivates people, what drives us?" and turns the readers' world upside down with obscure, but scientifically derived proof; he shows that how we motivate people in school and in corporate settings, is just wrong.
We all know how business works; you go to work, sometimes accomplishing tasks you do or don't like, you're managed, you pass go, collect $200 (or more in a paycheck, if lucky) and hopefully you don't need a get-out-of-jail-free-card. No, but seriously, the concept is pretty easy. The lucky few are those that love what they do.
Pink calls this system Motivation 2.0. It's more complex than our basic needs of survival, Motivation 1.0, which include the need to eat, find shelter, get clothed and breed. Motivation 2.0 is all about carrots and sticks. You do something good, you get paid (a carrot) and if you don't do what you should you get a punishment (a stick). The whole belief that Motivation 2.0 works off is that people don't want to work, they don't want to be challenged, and that in all circumstances people will most often shirk from work and remain passive.
But Pink lays out a substantial argument against this. He claims that science proves that people want to be engaged, they want to work, they want to have purpose. We are not passive beings, but give us the right task, or allow us to take a task and complete it our own way on our own time with the people of our choosing, and you'll find that people are actually motivated to do that kind of work. Pink makes the claim that given the baseline reward--- a salary, a way to make a living, people are motivated largely by the type of work they can do. They are motivated when they can approach work that is meaningful for them, that is challenging and engaging. Workers in these circumstances typically bypass the chance to change work, even if it comes at a $10,000 or $20,000 bonus.
Perhaps this is why CEOs typically ask for more and more outlandish sums of money to do their jobs; the work doesn't engage them, or they didn't choose the work because they love it. Instead, they are motivated by money, and no matter what sum of money they are given, the money high wears off, leaving them still unmotivated and therefore jonesing for their next bonus increase.
I know Pink is right, and it's not just because he and his editorial team researched dozens of behavioral studies that suggested people are motivated by the independence they have in their tasks, the way they can get better and better at something, the purpose they find in their work. I know Pink is right because my hope everyday is that I will be compensated a living wage to work at a job I LOVE. The first thing I look at in happiness is not the dollar figure, but the work.
After all, if we all have to work to make a living and we give more time of our lives to work than to sleeping or making babies or chatting with girlfriends, then it only makes sense that our motivation stems from the ability for us to do what we love instead of making a shitload of money. The most precious and finite thing we have on this earth is time. How do you want to spend it? I bet most would find more motivation in spending that time doing something they enjoy than bringing home more money. I know I would.
Bring it on Pink! I call for you and Gladwell to continue researching about the ways we can make life and this world more happy and enjoyable.
No comments:
Post a Comment