home Exchange rates Drive is what really motivates us epub. Drive: What Really Motivates Us by Daniel Pink

Drive is what really motivates us epub. Drive: What Really Motivates Us by Daniel Pink

Do you come to work on time, obey your bosses, sit out your pants at meetings? Get an award!

Are you late? Are you arguing with the director? Didn't tie a tie? Get a fine!

Carrot and stick.

What could be more reliable for motivating employees?

Daniel Pink in his book Drive. What really motivates us” turns everything upside down. He brings out the formula of MOTIVATION 3.0!

With it, your employees will start going to work like a holiday, and staff turnover will drop to zero.

But it also has its pitfalls...

This is not a Brazilian carnival - this is the everyday workplace of Facebook employees in California.

Main pitfall

Why, then, in no less successful modern companies - Renault, Ford, Sony - do not observe such a riot of colors and liberties in production? Yes, it is also neat and clean, but Her Majesty Discipline reigns there.

Pink argues that Motivation 3.0 is ideal for knowledge workers. For mechanical work, for routine, it is not suitable or even harmful.

Assembly shop. Yes, graffiti on the walls and teddy bears would look silly here...

... as well as freestyle clothing.

antikennedy

I recently did Dan Kennedy's Hard Management books. This is an unreal "hard". Dan suggests controlling your employees as much as possible - watching them in the restrooms, searching their lockers until they see and stuff like that.

This book amazed many people and “opened their eyes”.

It is all the more surprising that, despite their different approaches, both Kennedy and Pink agree on one thing: creative workers are disgusted by control, while routine workers, on the contrary, are helped.

I think these books complement each other very well.

positive psychology

This book is a worthy successor to that trend. On Lifehacker, I have already written reviews of the books “Flow” by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and “Flexible Consciousness. New Perspectives on Adult and Child Developmental Psychology by Carol Dweck. Pink refers to them frequently.

His book is a development of these ideas.

About format

In short, "scientific pop".

What I liked and what I saw for the first time was the different resume formats at the end of the book.

Damn, that's convenient!

It would be great if there was such an outline in every book.

No, I'm not a lazy reader.

But it happens that you need to return to the book after some time, to refresh the main ideas ... Such an outline would be very helpful. And he would help with the purchase of the book. I leafed through the abstract - I liked the ideas - I bought the book.

Main ideas of the book

For people who feel sorry for 4-6 hours of reading time, I wrote out the main thoughts.

Daniel Pink

Drive. What really motivates us

Dedicated to Sophia, Elise and Saul - an amazing trio that motivates me

Interpreter I. Trifonov

Project manager S. Turco

Corrector E. Aksenova

Computer layout K. Svishchev

Cover design M. Lobov

Published under license from The Sagalyn Literary Agency and Synopsis Literary Agency.

All rights reserved. No part of the electronic copy of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including posting on the Internet and in corporate networks, for private and public use without written permission copyright owner.

Editor's choice - choice of editor-in-chief

Finally, a book has appeared that convincingly proves that the golden cage does not motivate anyone, but a person is still more complicated than a rat. In a society where the minimum basic needs are satisfied, the true stimulus to great achievement can only be intrinsic motivation, only one's own conviction of the importance of work.

Sergei Turko,

k. e. PhD, editor-in-chief of the publishing house "Alpina Publisher"

Publishing Partner Foreword

So what really motivates us?

Today, most companies, managers and employees live in a world where value external motivation extremely large: it is believed that in order to increase efficiency and increase productivity, people need to be rewarded for the good and punished for the bad. This is a kind of Motivation 2.0.

But "external rewards" can only work properly when we are talking about the algorithmic tasks that the employee solves at the workplace. Whereas, according to the consulting firm McKinsey & Co in the US, only 30% of new jobs are associated with algorithmic work, and 70% of people are waiting for activities with elements of creativity and analysis. The above statistics make us radically rethink the approach to modern management.

The most important, in my opinion, the message of Daniel Pink goes like this: “The secret to high performance and performance lies not in our biological needs or in rewards and punishments, but in our deep desire to manage our lives, develop and expand our abilities and lead a life that has purpose (purpose) and meaning.”

It is difficult to disagree with this, step by step following the author's arguments, detailed cases, numerous references to the results of psychological research, etc.

Sociologists say that having a wealth that exceeds a certain (not so fantastic) threshold does not bring people a higher level of satisfaction. How people spend their money is just as important as how much they earn. Thus, spending money on others or on a good cause increases the feeling of inner well-being. It is impossible to live a truly fulfilling life without feeling that you belong to something greater and more enduring than yourself.

Building on this, Daniel Pink suggests new system motivation for creative, creative people - 3.0. Three key element lie at its basis: freedom of choice, skill, the presence of a worthy goal. And these components arise in employees not due to the efforts of leaders, but come from within, because they are natural for thinking, intellectually and spiritually developed people. The business of the company is to realize this and create the conditions and atmosphere for their implementation. A healthy society and a healthy business organization begin with a goal-purpose and see profit as a means of moving towards that goal or as a useful by-product of achieving it.

Let's look at some of the features of our current Russian existence from the point of view of the arguments that Daniel Pink cites.

He operates with the concept of G. Mintzberg, in which a decent salary is seen more as a "hygienic" rather than a determining motivating factor. Russia is still very far from the level of development at which such a concept would become relevant.

Labor productivity in Russia is two times lower than in Mexico and Brazil, three times lower than in England and France, and four to five times lower than in Germany and the USA.

The system of education and training of personnel is going through hard times.

To implement such approaches, it is necessary to have an effective corporate and national infrastructure.

Poorly algorithmic (heuristic) types of activities exist, as a rule, in high-tech industries, such as service, innovation, inventive activities, applied sciences, R&D, etc. In Russia, these areas are not developed as well as we would like.

It is also obvious that it is necessary to have an appropriate structure of the economy, labor legislation, business climate.

To implement the Motivation 3.0 system, it is important to go through the stage of routinization and algorithmization of work processes, to have a highly qualified labor force, highly qualified management, etc.

If you do not take into account all of the above, experiments with the introduction of motivational principles, which Pink writes about, will end very sadly.

It seems that with certain trends in Russia, such a system of employee motivation may well become a reality in the near future! Individual companies (and there are many of them) are not only quite capable of applying such approaches, but are already doing it (there are known examples in the IT business, engineering, marketing, etc.)

Summing up, we can say that before you, dear readers, is a magnificent timely book that inspires and makes you think.

Sergei Anisimov,

President of the Stins Coman group of companies

Preface to the Russian edition

Likening approaches to motivation to outdated and radically new operating systems, Daniel Pink can help the reader "reboot" the mind. It turns out that numerous studies have shown that the “if, then” principle, that is, linking incentives to achievements, does not always have a positive effect, and sometimes even inhibits creativity and activity. The approach itself is interesting: let a person get satisfaction from the work itself, from creativity, and he will achieve more than when he is stimulated by awards or recognition. Pink writes about positive experiences large companies, in which 20% of the working time, with the permission and even prompting of the management, were engaged in the projects they wanted. And it was the solutions created in 20% of the time of freedom that turned out to be the most revolutionary and innovative. So, for example, it was during the period of free creativity at 3M that the famous stickers were invented, without which we now can hardly imagine office life.

True, along with “free motivation”, Pink says that all this will work only if the basic, including material, needs have already been met, and the person is engaged in intellectual and creative work. So, I think this book will be most useful to those who manage this type of people. For those who have a different type of staff, where the work is monotonous, routine, the implementation of Pink's ideas must be approached with caution.

partner and head of the Laboratory of Management Technologies SRC Lab.

Introduction

Perplexing puzzles by Harry Harlow and Edward Deci

In the middle of the last century, two young scientists conducted experiments that could change the world - but did not.

Harry Harlow was a professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin who founded one of the world's first primate behavioral laboratories in the 1940s. One day in 1949, Harlow and two of his colleagues grouped together eight rhesus monkeys for a two-week experiment on learning problems. The researchers came up with a simple mechanical puzzle like the one shown in the figure below. To solve it, it was necessary to perform three actions: pull out the vertical pin, fold back the hook and lift the hinged lid. Easy for you and me, but much harder for a six-kilogram lab monkey.

Harlow puzzle in initial position (left) and solved state (right)

The experimenters placed the puzzles in the cages to see how the monkeys would react and prepare them for the tests they would have to take in two weeks. But almost immediately something strange began to happen. Without any external stimulus or encouragement from the experimenters, the monkeys began to play with the puzzles with concentration, determination, and with noticeable pleasure. And immediately they began to guess how these cunning devices work. When it came time to test the monkeys on the 14th day of the experiment, they were already real experts. They solved the puzzles frequently and quickly, two times out of three "breaking the code" in less than 60 seconds.

And it was unexpected. No one taught the monkeys how to remove the pin, flip the hook, and lift the lid. No one rewarded them with food, petting, or even a light applause when they succeeded. And it went against conventional wisdom about how primates behave, including the less hairy and larger-brained ones known as humans.

By then, scientists knew that there were two main motivating forces that govern behavior. The first is biological needs. Humans and other animals ate to get full, drank to quench their thirst, and mated to satisfy their sexual impulses. But there was nothing of the sort here. “The decision did not lead to the satisfaction of any need: for food, water or sex,” Harlow reported.

The second of the known motive forces also did not help to explain the unusual behavior of the monkeys. If biological motivations acted from within, then the second type of incentives had an external source - these are rewards and punishments, which external environment accompanied certain behaviors. They have proven effective against people who have reacted solely to such outside forces. If we were promised a pay raise, we worked harder. If we were encouraged, in the hope that we would get an A on the exam, we spent more time studying. If we were threatened with deductions from our pay for being late or filling out forms incorrectly, we showed up to work on time and ticked all the right boxes. But this did not explain the behavior of the monkeys. As Harlow wrote (he appears to be scratching the back of his head in thought): “The behavior demonstrated in this experiment raises some interesting questions for motivation researchers, since significant progress in learning was observed and high productivity was maintained in the absence of special or external stimuli. ".

What else could be the matter?

To answer this question, Harlow proposed a completely new theory, who introduced the concept third motivating force. “The very accomplishment of the task,” he said, “served as an intrinsic reward.” The monkeys solved puzzles simply because they found it enjoyable. They were having fun. The joy of accomplishing the task was its own reward.

If this theory was radical, then subsequent events caused even more confusion and more active controversy. Suppose this new drive, which Harlow ended up calling "intrinsic motivation," actually exists. But, of course, it must occupy a subordinate position in relation to the other two forces. If monkeys are rewarded, for example, with raisins (!) for solving puzzles, they should undoubtedly show even better results. However, when Harlow put this approach into practice, the monkeys actually did more mistakes and less often solved puzzles. “Introducing food rewards into this experiment,” wrote Harlow, “decreased productivity. Such a phenomenon has not been described in the literature.”

So this was even weirder. Using a scientific analogy, this is tantamount to letting a steel ball roll down an inclined plane to measure its speed, and we find that it shoots up into the air instead. This led to the assumption that our understanding of the effect of gravity on behavior was wrong, that the laws, as we thought, were immutable, had many gaps. Harlow noted that the apes' desire to find solutions to puzzles was characterized by "strength and perseverance." He further wrote:

“It seems that this driving force… can be as fundamental and powerful as [other] forces. In addition, there is reason to believe that [it] can be just as effective in promoting learning.

However, at that time, two dominant motive forces held scientific thought in a strong captivity. So Harlow had to sound the alarm. He urged scientists to "forget most of our theoretical rubbish" and put forward more recent and accurate models of human behavior. He warned that our theories about why we do what we do are incomplete. He said that in order to truly understand the inner world of a person, we must take into account this third motivating force.

Later, he almost completely abandoned his idea.

Instead of fighting the establishment and offering a broader understanding of motivation, Harlow wound up this controversial line of research and later gained notoriety for his research in the psychology of attachment. His concept of a third driving force has been discussed in the psychological literature, but has remained on the fringes of behavioral science and our understanding of ourselves. It was two decades before another scientist took up the idea of Harlow, who so provocatively left his materials on a lab bench in Wisconsin.

In the summer of 1969, Edward Deci, a psychology graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University, was looking for a dissertation topic. By that time he had already received an MBA from Wharton and was keenly interested in the problem of motivation, but he suspected that scientists and business people misunderstand it. So, ripping a page out of Harlow's experimental journal, he began to explore the topic with a puzzle.

Desi chose the catfish cube, a popular Parker Brothers puzzle game at the time, which, thanks to YouTube, remains almost a cult classic to this day. The puzzle pictured below has seven pieces: six of them are made up of four dice and one is made up of three. Players can build any of several million possible combinations from these seven pieces, from abstract shapes to recognizable objects.

Seven parts of the catfish cube, individually (left) and assembled into one of the possible configurations

For his study, Deci divided the male and female university students into an experimental group (which I will call Group A) and a control group (Group B). Each subject participated in three one-hour sessions on three consecutive days. This is how the sessions went: each participant entered a room and sat down at a table on which were laid out seven puzzle pieces, drawings of three puzzle configurations, and several magazines: Time, The New Yorker and Playboy(remember, it was 1969). Desi sat on the other side of the table, explaining instructions and timing the task with a stopwatch.

In the first session, members of both groups had to assemble the pieces of the puzzle in such a way as to reproduce the configurations depicted in the drawings they proposed. In the second session, they did the same with other drawings, only this time Desi informed Group A that they would be paid $1 (equivalent to about $6 today) for each task they successfully completed. Group B at the same time received new drawings without the promise of payment. Finally, during the third session, both groups received new drawings and had to reproduce them without any compensation, as in the first session (see table below).

WORKING CONDITIONS FOR THE TWO GROUPS

In the middle of each session, the experimenter resorted to a trick. After the participant assembled two of the three figures shown in the drawings, Desi stopped the experiment. He stated that in order to determine what the fourth task would be, he needed to enter the received data into the computer. And since this was in the late 1960s, a full decade before desktop computing, when cabinet-like computers occupied entire offices, that meant he had to get out of the room for a while.

As the experimenter walked towards the door, he would say, "I'll only be away for a few minutes, you can do something for now." In fact, Desi did not enter any data into the ancient teletype. Instead, he walked into the next room, which communicated with the experiment through a one-way mirror, where for exactly eight minutes he watched what people did when they were alone. Did they keep fiddling with the puzzle, perhaps trying to reproduce the third drawing? Or were they doing something else: leafing through magazines, looking at photographs, sitting staring into space, falling into a light nap?

Not surprisingly, in the first session, there were no significant differences in the behavior of the subjects from group A and group B during this eight-minute period of covert observation, when they were given a free choice. Participants in both groups continued to play with the puzzle for an average of three and a half to four minutes, suggesting that they had some interest in it.

On the second day, when group A members were paid for each successfully completed configuration, but group B members were not, the unpaid group behaved in much the same way as the day before, when they were free to choose their occupation. But the participants who were promised to be paid suddenly for real interested in the puzzle. On average, people in group A spent more than five minutes manipulating the puzzle, probably trying to get a head start on the third task or trying to take full advantage of the chance to earn more. It's predictable, isn't it? Their behavior is consistent with our understanding of motivation: give me a reward and I will work harder.

However, what happened on the third day confirmed Deci's suspicions about the unusual functioning of motivation and subtly called into question one of the basic tenets of modern life. This time, Desi informed the subjects in group A that the money was only enough to pay for one day, so this third session would not be paid. The rest of the experiment followed the same pattern: two tasks completed, followed by Deci's intervention.

During the ensuing eight-minute break, the unpaid subjects in group B, oddly enough, played with the puzzle a little longer than in previous sessions. Maybe she fascinated them more and more, maybe it was just a statistical error. But the subjects in group A, who had previously been paid, reacted differently. Now they were spending heavily less the time to solve the puzzle is two minutes less than during the paid session, and, in addition, almost a full minute less than in the first session, when they first picked up the puzzle and clearly had an interest in it.

Confirming what Harlow had discovered two decades earlier, Deci concluded that human motivation appears to be subject to laws that run counter to the beliefs of most scientists and ordinary citizens. We knew what makes people act with full dedication, whether in the office or on playground. Rewards, especially cash, fueled interest and improved performance. What Deci found and later confirmed in two additional studies was contrary to our knowledge. “When money is used as an external reward for some activity, people lose a lively, sincere interest in this activity,” he wrote. Rewards can provide a short-term boost to performance, just as a dose of caffeine can provide a few extra hours of energy. But the effect wears off and, even worse, can reduce a person's long-term motivation to continue working.

People, said Desi, have "an innate tendency to seek new things and overcome difficulties, to develop and apply their abilities, to explore and learn." But this third driving force proved to be more fragile than the other two, and needed the right atmosphere to sustain it. “Those who are interested in developing and strengthening intrinsic motivation in children, employees, students, and so on, should not concentrate on external control systems such as monetary rewards,” he wrote in a later work. Thus began what became for Desi a lifelong effort to rethink why we do what we do. The search, which sometimes led to disputes with fellow psychologists, led to his dismissal from business school and called into question the principles of the functioning of organizations in all areas of activity.

“It was very challenging,” Deci told me one spring morning, 40 years after the catfish cube experiments. “Nobody expected that rewards could have a negative impact.”

* * *

This is a book about motivation. I want to show that our knowledge on this subject is simply wrong in many ways, and that the insights that Harlow and Deci came to decades ago are much closer to the truth. The problem is that most companies are not yet ripe for a new understanding of what really motivates us. Too many of these organizations, which still rely on ideas of human potential and personal effectiveness in their activities that have not been properly studied, rely more on folklore than on science, and are also outdated. They continue to use methods such as short-term incentive plans and pay-for-performance schemes, despite growing evidence that such measures do not usually work and are often harmful. To make matters worse, these untested methods have infiltrated our schools, where students, our future working generation, are lured with iPods, cash, and pizza coupons to "incentivize" them to learn. And this is a big mistake.

Good news is that the solution lies before us—in the work of a group of behavioral scientists who have continued the work of Harlow and Deci. Their research work, which has continued quietly over the past fifty years, is revealing a more dynamic picture of human motivation. For too long, there has been a gap between scientific knowledge and business practice. The purpose of this book is to fill this gap.

The book is divided into three parts. The first part examines the shortcomings of our reward/punishment system and proposes a new understanding of motivation. Chapter 1 explores how the dominant concept of motivation turned out to be inconsistent with many aspects of modern business and everyday life. Chapter 2 lists seven reasons why external stimuli such as carrots and sticks often backfire. (This is followed by a brief addendum, chapter 2a, which describes special circumstances where carrots and sticks can actually be effective.) Chapter 3 gives an idea of what I call behavior type I: about a way of thinking and approach to business based on real research on human motivation and driven by our third driving force - our innate need to manage our own lives, to learn and create something new, and to feel better about ourselves and the world around us.

The second part, examining the three elements of Type I behavior, shows how individuals and organizations use them to achieve better results and greater satisfaction. Chapter 4 explores autonomy, our desire for self-government. Chapter 5 analyzes skill, our drive to get better and better at what we do. Chapter 6 is dedicated to research purposefulness our desire to be part of something bigger than ourselves.

The third part is a Type I Behavior Workshop: a complete set of tips, exercises, and resources to help you create the environment in which these behaviors can occur. Here you'll find everything from recommended reading for further study of the topic, to discussion questions for your book club, to an ultra-concise summary of this book to help you produce good impression at some party. Although the book is primarily about business, in this section I will offer some thoughts on how to apply these concepts to education and to our lives outside of work.

But let's start with a thought experiment that requires you to go back in time to the days when John Major was the British Prime Minister, Barack Obama was a young law professor, you needed a modem to access the Internet and telephone line, and the word "blackberry" meant nothing but a berry.

Part one

New operating system

The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0

Imagine that it is now 1995. You are talking to an economist, a business school graduate with a degree in economics. You say, “I have a crystal ball that can see 15 years into the future. I would like to test your ability to make correct predictions."

She is skeptical, but still decides to play along with you.

“I will tell you about two new encyclopedias: one has just been published, the second will be launched in a few years. You have to predict which one will be more successful in 2010.”

“Carry your ball,” she says.

“The first encyclopedia is a product of Microsoft. As you know, Microsoft is already quite a large and profitable company. And with the release of Windows 95, scheduled for this year, it will be a colossus that will usher in a new era. It is Microsoft that will fund this encyclopedia. It will pay professional writers and editors to write articles on thousands of different topics. Well-paid managers will see to it that this project is completed on time and on budget. Microsoft would then sell this encyclopedia on CD and later on the Internet.

The birth of the second encyclopedia will not be associated with any company. It will be created by tens of thousands of people who will write and edit articles for their own pleasure. They do not need any special qualifications to participate in this project. And no one will pay them a dollar or a yen for writing and editing articles. Participants will work - some for 20, some for 30 hours a week - completely free of charge. The encyclopedia itself, which will be an online service, will also be free - those who wish to use it will not pay anything for it.

Now, you say to an economist, mentally look 15 years ahead. My crystal ball shows that in 2010 one of these encyclopedias will be the largest and most popular in the world, and the other will cease to exist. So who will win and who will lose?

I doubt that in 1995 you would have found a sober-minded economist on the planet who did not choose the first of these projects as a successful model. Any other conclusion would be simply laughable, since it contradicted almost every business principle that our economist taught her students. It would be like asking a zoologist who will win the 200 meters race: a cheetah or your brother-in-law. As they say, no options.

Of course, this motley company of volunteers could produce something. But there was no way this product could compete with the offer from a powerful company operating for profit. All the motives of these amateurs were untenable. Microsoft was going to capitalize on the success of their product; every member of the other project knew from the beginning that success would not bring any money. Most importantly, authors, editors, and Microsoft managers were paid. Nobody paid those who worked on the second project. On the contrary, these people lost money every time it was taken for free work, instead of working somewhere for pay. The answer was so obvious that our economist would never have thought to ask this question during her MBA exam. He was too light.

But you know how it all ended.

On October 31, 2009, Microsoft ended support for MSN Encarta, its CD and online encyclopedia that had been on the market for 16 years. Meanwhile, Wikipedia, the second model, eventually became the largest and most popular encyclopedia in the world. Only eight years have passed since its inception, and today it has almost 3 million articles in English and more than 10 million articles in 260 other languages.

What happened? It is very difficult to explain this result in terms of traditional views of human motivation.

The triumph of the stick and the carrot

All computers—whether it's the gigantic mainframe from Desi's experiments, the iMac I use, or the smartphone you have in your pocket—have an operating system. Beneath the surface of the devices you touch and the programs you work with lies a complex layer of software that includes instructions, protocols, and agreements that keep the entire system running smoothly. Many of us don't think much about operating systems. We only notice them when they start to fail, when the hardware and software they manage become so complex that the current operating system can't handle them. Then the computer starts to fail. We are making claims. And smart software developers, always busy patching holes in their program, sit down to write a radically improved, new version of the program.

Society also has its own operating system. The laws, traditions, and economic mechanisms that we encounter every day sit on top of a layer of instructions, protocols, and assumptions about how the world around us works. And to a large extent, our social operating system consists of beliefs about human behavior.

At the earliest time - I mean very a long time ago, say 50,000 years ago, the basic idea about human behavior was simple and precise. We had to survive. In every action, from scouring the savannah for food to fighting for bushes to hide from a saber-toothed tiger, this motive almost completely determined our behavior. Let's call it operating system Motivation 1.0. It was not particularly elegant and did not differ much from similar systems adopted by rhesus monkeys, great apes, or other animals. But she served us faithfully. She worked like clockwork. Until it lost its effectiveness.

As people formed more complex societies, faced with outsiders and realized the need for cooperation to achieve their goals, the operating system, based solely on biological needs, no longer met the increased requirements. In fact, sometimes we needed ways containment these needs to keep me from trying to steal your dinner and you from stealing my wife. And so, having achieved an outstanding feat of cultural engineering, we gradually replaced the existing system with a new version that is more compatible with our ways of working and lifestyle.

At the core of this new and improved operating system was a revised and refined notion that humans are more than the sum of biological needs. This first motivating force was still important, there is no doubt about it, but it did not give a complete answer to the question of who we are. We also had a second basic incentive: to seek pleasure and avoid punishment in the broadest sense. It was from this epiphany that a new operating system emerged, let's call it Motivation 2.0. (Of course, other animals also respond to rewards and punishments, but only humans have been able to harness this motivational force to develop everything from contract law to convenience stores.)

The ability to capitalize on this second driving force has been essential to economic progress throughout the world, especially over the last two centuries. Take the industrial revolution. Technical improvements - steam engines, railways, the ubiquitous distribution of electricity - played an exceptional role in stimulating production. But so did less tangible innovations, notably the work of an American engineer named Frederick Winslow Taylor. In the early 1900s, Taylor, who believed that businesses were run irrationally and haphazardly, came up with what he called "scientific management." His invention was a form of "software" specifically designed to run on top of the Motivation 2.0 platform. And it has become widespread and widespread.

Workers in this approach were seen as parts of a complex machine. If they did their job correctly and on time, the machine functioned flawlessly. And to ensure that, you simply rewarded the behavior you wanted and punished the behavior you thought was unacceptable. People would respond rationally to these external influences, these external stimuli, and would succeed, just like the system as a whole. We tend to think that coal and oil fueled economic growth. But in a certain sense, the engine of commerce was set in motion by carrots and sticks.

Operating system Motivation 2.0 lasted a very long time. In fact, it has penetrated our lives so deeply that many of us are hardly aware of its existence. The fact is that for as long as our memory can stretch, we have been shaping the structure of our organizations and our own lives in accordance with its main position: in order to increase efficiency, increase productivity and promote excellence, you need to reward the good and punish the bad. .

Despite the increased complexity and loftiness of the goals of the new system, the idea of a person in Motivation 2.0 was not particularly noble. She implied that, by and large, human beings are no different from horses, and that we can get us moving in the right direction by waving a juicier carrot in front of our nose or threatening a thicker whip. But what this operating system lacked in enlightenment more than made up for in efficiency. She worked well, even exceptionally well. Until it stopped working altogether.

Over time, with the complexity of the economy, with the increasing requirements for the qualifications of people who had to master new, more advanced skills, the approach based on Motivation 2.0 began to meet some resistance. In the 1950s, Abraham Maslow, formerly a student of Harry Harlow, developed a new, humanistic direction in psychology that abandoned the idea that human behavior, like rats, is solely a desire to receive positive stimuli and avoid negative ones. In 1960, MIT professor Douglas McGregor borrowed some of Maslow's ideas to apply them to business. McGregor questioned the concept of fundamental human inertia, according to which, without external rewards and punishments, we could not achieve anything. People are driven by other, higher motives. And these motives could be beneficial to business if leaders and big businessmen recognized their importance. Thanks in part to McGregor's work, companies have evolved. Appearance requirements have become less strict, work schedules more flexible. The leaders of many organizations have looked for ways to give people more autonomy and encourage them to professional growth. These improvements eliminated some of the shortcomings of the system, but in general came down to a modest improvement rather than a major update, and thus contributed to the release of the Motivation 2.1 version.

So, the general approach remained unchanged, because, in the end, it was easy to understand, easy to control and implemented without problems. But in the first ten years of this century, during a period of deep stagnation in business, technology, and social development, we found that this solid, old operating system was performing badly. It freezes - often and unpredictably. She forces people to look for workarounds to compensate for her shortcomings. And most importantly, it turns out to be incompatible with many aspects of modern business. And if we look deeper into these incompatibility issues, we will realize that modest patching changes will not solve this problem. What we need is a full scale update.

Three incompatibility issues

Motivation 2.0 still serves some purposes well. But she's not reliable. Sometimes it works, but in many cases it is ineffective. And knowing its defects will help determine which parts to keep and which to discard when we update it. Its shortcomings fall into three broad categories. Our current operating system has become much less compatible, and at times directly conflicts with the way we organize their activities; what we thinking about its activities; what are terms our activities.

How we organize our activities

Let's return to the encyclopedic duel between Microsoft and Wikipedia. According to the postulates underlying Motivation 2.0, the result we have is simply impossible. The triumph of "Wikipedia" seems to refute the laws of behavioral science.

However, if this encyclopedia, created from beginning to end by amateur volunteers, were the only example of its kind, we could dismiss it as an aberration, an exception that only proves general rule. But it's not. On the contrary, Wikipedia represents the most powerful and innovative business model of the 21st century: an open-source project with open access.

For example, when you turn on your home computer and go online to check the weather or order new shoes, you might be using Firefox, a free and open-source Internet browser created almost exclusively by volunteers around the world. Workers who do not receive payment, giving away their product for nothing? It can't be viable. Their motives are illogical, they contradict the system. However, Firefox currently has over 150 million users.

Walk into the IT department of a large company anywhere in the world and ask for a tour. It may very well be that the corporate servers of this company run on Linux - software created by an army of freelance programmers and distributed for free. One in four corporate servers are running Linux these days. Then ask the employee to explain how their company's website works. Apache is probably working behind the beautiful interface of the site - software for open source web servers, created and maintained by a large group of volunteers from around the world. Apache has a 52% market share for enterprise web servers. In other words, in companies that usually rely on external incentives to manage their employees, some of the most important systems run on software created by outsiders who do not seem to need these incentives.

This includes not only tens of thousands of software development projects from around the world. Today you can find public domain cookbooks, public domain textbooks, open projects in the field of automotive design; open medical research; free legal advice, open photo repositories; free prosthetics; public credit unions, cola, produced according to a recipe that is freely available, and for those who do not have enough soft drinks, beer produced according to the same principle.

This new way of organizing one's activities does not preclude the possibility of external rewards. The people contributing to the open source movement did not take a vow of poverty. Participation in these projects can help many of them build their reputation and hone their professional skills, which in turn will allow them to earn more. Entrepreneurs have created new and sometimes highly profitable companies that help organizations implement and use open source software applications in their work.

But ultimately, just as much as the old business models relied on extrinsic motivation, open source depends on intrinsic motivation, as has been demonstrated by several scientists. MIT management professor Karim Lakhani and Boston Consulting Group consultant Bob Wolf surveyed 684 open source developers, predominantly from North America and Europe, to find out why they are involved in such projects. Lahani and Wolff identified a range of motives, but found that “pleasure-based intrinsic motivation, that is, associated with the creative experiences that accompany work on a given project, is the strongest and most common motivating force” . The researchers found that the vast majority of programmers, they said, often reached the optimal state for problem solving, known as flow. In addition, three German economists who studied open source projects around the world concluded that their participants are driven by "a set of predominantly internal motives", in particular "the pleasure derived from successfully solving a problem in software" and "the desire to give a gift to the programming community » . In the Motivation 2.0 system, impulses of this kind simply have no place.

In addition, open source is just one of the ways people are restructuring their activities around new organizational principles and motives. Let's move from programming to the legal realm. The laws in most developed countries generally allow for the existence of two types of formal organizations: commercial and non-commercial. Some make money, others do good. And the most prominent representative of the first category is a public corporation owned by shareholders and managed by executives overseen by a board of directors. Managers and directors have one most important responsibility - to provide shareholders with the maximum profit. Other types of business structures are guided in their activities by the same principles. For example, in the United States partnerships, S corporations, C corporations, companies with limited liability and other forms of business are all subordinated to the same task. The goal of those who manage them - practically, legally, morally in a sense - is to maximize profit.

I am sincerely glad that there are such organizational forms and progressive countries in which citizens have the opportunity to create these organizations. Without them, our life would not be so prosperous, safe and happy. But in the last few years, different people in different countries began to change the rules and create recipes for new organizational structures.

For example, in April 2008, Vermont became the first U.S. state to recognize a new type of business called the non-profit limited liability company. Abbreviated as L3C, this organization is a corporation, but not as we usually think of it. As one report explains, “L3C operates in a similar way to a commercial organization, generating at least a modest income, but its primary goal is to deliver significant public benefit.” Three other American states followed Vermont's lead. For example, in North Carolina, one L3C is buying up abandoned furniture factories across the state, upgrading them to meet modern environmental requirements, and leasing them at low rates to struggling furniture manufacturers. The company hopes to capitalize on this, but its real goal is to help breathe new life into a weakening region.

Meanwhile, Nobel laureate Mohammed Yunus began to work on the concept of the so-called "social business". These are companies that raise capital, develop products, and sell them on the open market, but do so for the sake of fulfilling a larger social mission, or, as he puts it, "replacing the principle of maximizing profit with the principle of social benefit." The Fourth Sector Network in the United States and Denmark is establishing "organizations for the public good" - a hybrid that, according to its representatives, represents a new category of organizations that are both economically viable and serve the goals of society. One example: Mozilla, the company that gave us Firefox, is founded as "an organization working for the public good." And three American entrepreneurs came up with the "B corporation," a name that means companies should amend their charters to change incentives in favor of long-term value and the public good instead of short-term economic gain.

Of course, neither open-source projects nor “not just for profit” ventures, which were previously unimaginable, have yet to become the norm. And they will not send the joint-stock company to the dustbin of history. But the very fact of their appearance tells us something important about where we are going. “There is already a whole movement, although it is not yet taken seriously,” he told the journalist. The New York Times lawyer specializing in non-profit organizations. One of the reasons for this is probably that the goal of traditional forms of entrepreneurship - maximizing profits - fits perfectly with the Motivation 2.0 system. While new organizations aim to provide maximum benefit- which does not fit into this outdated operating system, because it tramples on its main principles.

What do we think about our activities

When I was taking my first economics class in the early 1980s, our teacher—a brilliant lecturer who held her audience as well as General Paton—made one important clarification before she drew her first indifference curve in chalk on the blackboard. Economics, she explained, does not study money. She studies behavior. Throughout the day, each of us constantly evaluates the benefits and costs of our actions and then decides how to act. Economists study not what people say, but what they do, because we do what is best for us. We are rational calculators, calculating our own economic interests.

When I studied law a few years later, a similar idea appeared on the horizon again. The new field of law and economics at that time proceeded from the premise that precisely because of our unsurpassed ability to look after our own interests, laws and regulations often make it more difficult than easy to obtain reasonable and fair results. I survived law school in no small part because I found the talisman phrase and used it in my exams: “In a world of perfect information and low transaction costs, parties in a negotiation process will strive for the best possible outcome.”

Then, about ten years later, events took such an unusual turn that they made me question much of what I had worked so hard for and studied with a huge amount of borrowed money. In 2002, the Nobel Committee awarded its economics prize to a man who wasn't even an economist. And he was given the most prestigious award in the field, basically for discovering the fact that we don't represent extremely rational calculators, programmed to calculate their own economic interest, and that the parties often do not seek achieve the best possible result for you. Daniel Kahneman, an American psychologist who received the Nobel Prize in Economics that year for his work with Amos Tversky, an Israeli psychologist, helped change the way we think about ourselves. And one consequence of this new way of thinking is that it calls into question many of the tenets of Motivation 2.0.

Kahneman and other behavioral economists agreed with my professor that economics is the study of human economic behavior. They just thought we were putting too much emphasis on economic component and pay little attention human. In their opinion, a super-rational person with a calculator instead of a brain does not exist in reality. It's just a convenient fiction.

AT real life our behavior is much more complex than that described in textbooks, and often contradicts the idea that we are purely rational beings. We do not save enough money for retirement, although this is evident in our economic interests. We cling to bad investments longer than we should, because we feel the pain of losing money much more acutely than the joy of acquiring the same amount of them. Give us two TVs to choose from and we'll choose one of them; add a third, unremarkable option, and we'll change our choice. In short, we're irrational, and that's entirely predictable, says economist Dan Ariely, author of a book that offers a casual and entertaining overview of behavioral economics.

The problem in our case is that Motivation 2.0 assumes that we are the same robotic seekers. maximum benefit, which I studied a couple of decades ago. Indeed, the very concept of external incentives is based on the fact that we will always respond rationally to them. But most economists are no longer convinced of this. Sometimes these incentives work. Often they don't work. And in many cases, their use is accompanied by negative consequences. In short, a new understanding of our activities from the point of view of the economy is difficult to reconcile with Motivation 2.0.

Also, if people act out of illogical, outdated reasons, why can't they act out of reasons that make sense and reach their potential? If we are predictably irrational—and we obviously are—why shouldn't we also be predictably eccentric?

If you think that this is a stretch, remember some examples of our strange behavior. We leave profitable positions for low-paid, but giving us the opportunity to more clearly understand the meaning of our work. We learn to play the clarinet on the weekends without expecting that it will help us earn money (Motivation 2.0) or find a mate (Motivation 1.0). We play with puzzles even if we don't get a few raisins or dollars for solving them.

Some scholars are already pushing the boundaries of behavioral economics to assimilate these ideas. The most prominent of these is Bruno Frei, an economist at the University of Zurich. Like behavioral economists, he is convinced that we need to go beyond the concept Homo Oeconomicus(“economic man” is a fiction representing people as robots seeking to maximize their own benefit). He proposes to move in a slightly different direction - to what he calls Homo Oeconomicus Maturus(or "mature economic man"). "This figure," he says, "is more 'mature' in the sense that it is endowed with a more perfect motivational structure." In other words, in order to fully understand economic behavior people, we have to get used to the idea that conflicts with Motivation 2.0. As Fry writes, “intrinsic motivation has great value in all kinds economic activity. It is inconceivable that people are motivated solely or even predominantly by external stimuli.

What are the conditions of our activity

If you are leading other people, take a quick look over your shoulder. There is a ghost looming there. His name is Frederick Winslow Taylor (remember we talked about him in this chapter?) and he whispers something in your ear. “The job,” Taylor says in a barely audible voice, “consists mostly of simple, not particularly interesting tasks. The only way to get people to do them is to properly stimulate them and carefully supervise them.” In the early 1900s, Taylor was basically right. Today, for the inhabitants of most countries, this is no longer entirely true. Yes, some people are still busy with routine, uninspiring and externally controlled work. But a surprisingly large number of people are doing more complex, more interesting, and more independent work. And this type of work is a direct challenge to Motivation 2.0.

Let's start with the complex. Behavioral scientists often divide the activities we engage in at work or school into two categories: "algorithmic" and "heuristic." When you solve an algorithmic problem, you follow a set of set instructions, following a single path that leads to a single correct result. That is, it is a job that has an algorithm for its implementation. With the heuristic task, the opposite is true. Precisely because there is no algorithm for it, you must experiment, use various possibilities and find non-standard solutions. The job of a grocery store cashier is mostly algorithmic. Basically you are doing the same operation over and over again. Development advertising campaign- mostly heuristic work. You must create something new.

During the 20th century, most of the work was algorithmic, and it was not only the kind of work that consisted of driving the same screws in the same way all day long. Even after we switched from blue collars to white collars, the tasks we performed often remained routine. That is, most of the activity is in the field accounting, in jurisprudence, in financial sector, in programming and other areas - could be reduced to a scenario, to a specification, to a formula, a sequence of steps that led to the desired result. But today, in almost all of North America, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, white-collar routine work is disappearing. It is transferred to where its implementation is cheaper. In India, Bulgaria, the Philippines, and elsewhere, workers who receive less pay basically execute some algorithm, calculate the correct solution, and immediately send it from their computer to someone on the other side of the Earth.

But the transfer of activities abroad is only one of the reasons for the reduction in the number of people employed in algorithmic work that requires left-brain activity. In the same way that draft animals and forklifts supplanted simple manual labor, computers today make it easier to perform simple intellectual work. So, in parallel with outsourcing, which is just beginning to gain momentum, software is being improved that can perform professional functions based on algorithms better, faster and cheaper than we do. This means that your CPA cousin, if he does mostly routine work, faces competition not only from his colleagues in Manila who are willing to work for less pay, but also from the usual computer program capable of preparing tax returns, which can download by anyone by paying $30. According to the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., in the United States, only 30% of new jobs are in algorithmic work, while 70% of new employees are in heuristic work. Key Reason: Routine work can be outsourced or automated, which usually cannot be done with creative work requiring an application mental strength, non-standard activities .

This fundamentally changes our understanding of motivation. Researchers such as Teresa Amabile at Harvard Business School have found that extrinsic rewards and punishments—both carrots and sticks—can work great when applied to algorithmic problems. But they can be devastating for heuristics. This type of task is a search non-standard solutions or the creation of products that people did not even suspect the need for, depends entirely on Harlow's third motivating force. Amabile calls this the principle of intrinsic motivation for creativity. She writes: “Intrinsic motivation promotes creativity; controlling extrinsic motivation is detrimental to him." In other words, the main tenets of Motivation 2.0 are in fact negatively affect on the effectiveness of the heuristic, right-hemispheric activity on which modern economies depend.

Work is now more enjoyable, in part because it has become more creative and less routine. And this also goes against the provisions of Motivation 2.0. This operating system is based on the belief that work can not be pleasant in itself, and that is why we must seduce people with external rewards and threaten them with external punishments. One of psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's unexpected discoveries, which we will discuss more in Chapter 5, is that people are much more likely to have "optimal experiences" at work than at leisure. But if work is, by definition, fun for more and more people, then the extrinsic incentives that underpin Motivation 2.0 are becoming less and less relevant. Moreover, as Deci pointed out 40 years ago, adding extrinsic rewards to initially interesting tasks can often stifle motivation and reduce performance.

Once again, some basic ideas suddenly turn out to be not so unshakable. Here is an interesting example: Vocation Vacations (free labor during vacation). It's a business where people pay their hard earned money... to work elsewhere. They use their vacation time to try their hand at being a chef, a bike shop owner, or an animal shelter manager. The emergence of this and similar ventures suggests that work, which economists have always thought was "a burden" (something we should avoid unless we get paid for it), is becoming a "joy" (something , which can be achieved even in the absence of tangible benefits).

Finally, since work is considered to be something dreary, Motivation 2.0 implies that people need to be watched over so that they do not shirk. This idea, too, is becoming less relevant and, in many ways, less feasible. Consider, for example, that there are more than 18 million businesses in America alone, which the US Census Bureau calls "non-employment businesses," that is, businesses that do not have paid jobs. Since people in these enterprises have no subordinates, they do not need to manage or motivate anyone. Well, since they don't have bosses, there is no one to guide and motivate them. They are in control of themselves.

It's the same with people who technically don't work for themselves. In the United States, 33.7 million people work from home at least one day a month, and 14.7 million do so every day, removing a significant portion of the workforce from management scrutiny. Under these conditions, people are forced to independently manage their own work. Although many organizations do not take such measures, in general they are becoming more compact and less hierarchical. In an attempt to reduce costs, they are cutting down on a bloated management team. This means that the remaining managers have to watch more people, and as a result, they look less closely at each individual employee.

When organizational hierarchies flatten, companies need people who motivate themselves. This is forcing many organizations to become more like, uh, Wikipedia. No one “manages” the participants in this project. No one sits staring at the ceiling and trying to figure out how to "motivate" them. That's why it works. Routine, not very interesting activities require guidance; non-standard, more creative work depends on self-management. One business leader who didn't want us to mention his name was quite blunt about it. When he conducts a job interview, he tells potential employees: "If you need me to motivate you, I most likely will not hire you."

* * *

In summary, Motivation 2.0 suffers from a triple incompatibility problem. It fits very poorly with the work organization principles that many new business models adhere to, given that we are intrinsically motivated to strive for high goals, and not just to maximize personal gain. It does not fit the 21st century economists' understanding of human activity, as economists are finally beginning to understand that we are all-round human beings, not economic robots living for one purpose. And, perhaps most importantly, it is difficult to reconcile with much of what we actually do at work, because more and more people find themselves engaged in creative, interesting and independent work, and not hopelessly routine, monotonous and in need of external labor control. All of these compatibility issues alert us that something is wrong with our operating system.

But in order to find out exactly what the problem is, and to do important step Before building a new operating system, we need to take a closer look at the defects themselves.

Seven reasons why the carrot and stick method (often) doesn't work...

D a seen object will continue to move, and an object at rest will remain stationary unless it is acted upon by an external force.

This is Newton's first law. Like its other laws, it is simple and elegant, and this is part of its strength. Even people like me, who barely mastered the school physics course, are able to understand it and use it to explain the phenomena of the outside world.

Motivation 2.0 is somewhat similar to it. It is based on two simple ideas.

Rewarding a behavior usually leads to its reinforcement. Punishment for behavior usually leads to its extinction.

And just as Newton's principles help explain the world around us or calculate the trajectory of a thrown ball, the principles of Motivation 2.0 can help us understand the social environment and predict the trajectory of human behavior.

But at the subatomic level, Newtonian physics runs into problems. There, in the world of hadrons, quarks and Schrödinger's cats, everything becomes strange and incomprehensible. The cold rationality of Isaac Newton gives way to the extravagant unpredictability of Lewis Carroll. And in this regard, we can also draw some analogies with Motivation 2.0. When rewards and punishments collide with our third drive, a kind of behavioral quantum mechanics kicks in and strange things start to happen.

Of course, the starting point of any discussion of motivation in the workplace is a simple fact of life: people have to earn a living. Salary, contract pay, some allowances, and a few perks make up what I call "basic remuneration." If the basic remuneration of a person is inadequate or biased, then all his attention will be completely absorbed by thoughts about the inferiority of his position or anxiety about his financial situation. You won't get the predictability of extrinsic motivation or the quirkiness of intrinsic motivation. You won't get any motivation at all.

But once we cross that threshold, carrots and sticks can make a difference, right? opposite what we set out to achieve. Mechanisms designed to increase motivation can suppress it. Tactics aimed at stimulating creativity can lead to its reduction. Programs to encourage good deeds can lead to their disappearance. At the same time, instead of containing negative behavior, rewards and punishments can, on the contrary, release it and provoke the growth of fraud, the development of addiction and dangerous rigidity of thinking.

All this is very unusual. And it does not manifest itself under any circumstances (which we will discuss in more detail in the appendix to this chapter). But, as Edward Deci's experiment with catfish cubes shows, many of the methods that we do not doubt are effective give paradoxical results: the consequences can be exactly the opposite of what we expected. These are the defects of the Motivation 2.0 system. And they show up in everything we do.

Fewer desired outcomes

One of the most famous scenes in American literature offers us an important lesson about human motivation. In the second chapter of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Tom faces an unbearably boring task: to whitewash Aunt Polly's fence with a total area of 75 square meters. It cannot be said that this assignment made him very happy. “Life seemed empty to him, and existence a heavy burden,” writes Mark Twain.

But just at that moment, when Tom almost lost all hope, he was visited by inspiration. "Nothing more and nothing less than a real dazzling inspiration." When his friend Ben, passing by, starts mocking Tom about his sad fate, Tom behaves unexpectedly. Brush driving over a fence is not a terribly chore, but a fantastic privilege, a source of, uh, intrinsic motivation. The job turns out to be so exciting that when Ben asks to be allowed a few strokes, Tom refuses. He doesn't give in until Ben gives him his apple in exchange for this rare opportunity.

The other boys soon arrive, all of whom fall into Tom's trap and end up whitewashing the fence - several layers - instead of him. From this episode, Twain derives a key principle of motivation, namely: "that Work is what a person SHOULD do, and Play is what he is not obliged to do." Further he writes:

“There are rich gentlemen in England who like to drive a mail-coach drawn by four horses in the summer, because this privilege costs them big money; but if they were offered payment for this occupation, then the game would turn into work and lose all interest for them.

In other words, rewards can play the role of a philosopher's stone in behavioral alchemy: they can turn an interesting task into a tedious routine. They can turn play into work. And by reducing intrinsic motivation, they can negate performance, creativity, and even impeccable behavior. Let's call this the Sawyer effect. A series of intriguing experiments across countries highlights four areas in which this effect manifests itself, and once again demonstrates the gap between scientific knowledge and entrepreneurial practice.

intrinsic motivation

Behavioral scientists like Deci discovered the "Sawyer effect" almost forty years ago, although they didn't use the term. Describing the paradoxical consequences of the use of external incentives, they used such a concept as the "hidden costs of incentives." The term even gave its name to the first book written on the subject, a 1978 collection edited for publication by psychologists Mark Lepper and David Green.

One of Lepper and Green's early studies (which they did with Robert Nisbett) has achieved classic status and is one of the most cited in the literature on motivation. Three researchers followed a group of preschoolers for several days and identified children who preferred to spend their free time drawing. They then set up an experiment to see how rewards would affect activities that these children apparently enjoyed.

The experimenters divided the children into three groups. The first is the “expected reward” group. They showed each child a blue-ribboned “Game Winner” certificate with their name written on it and asked if they would agree to draw to win the award. The second is the “unexpected reward” group. The researchers simply asked these children if they wanted to draw. If they agreed, then at the end of the session, the scientists handed each of them a letter "Winner of the game." The third is the “no encouragement” group. The researchers asked these children if they wanted to draw, but they were not promised or given anything.

Two weeks later, during a free choice of activities, teachers handed out paper and markers, while the researchers secretly observed the students. The children who had previously been included in the groups of "unexpected encouragement" and "no encouragement" drew as much and with the same pleasure as before the experiment. But the children in the first group, who expected and then received the reward, showed much less interest in drawing and spent much less time on it as a result. The Sawyer effect came into play. Even after two weeks, these attractive prizes - so common in classrooms and offices - have turned the game into work.

It should be clarified that it is not necessarily the rewards per se that have stifled children's interest in drawing. Remember, if children weren't expecting a reward, receiving it had very little effect on their intrinsic motivation. Only conditional rewards—if you do that, you get that—had a negative impact. Why? If-then rewards require people to give up some of their autonomy. Like gentlemen who drive carriages for money and not for pleasure, they lose some control over their own lives. And this can cut off the source of their motivation, depriving the activity of any pleasure.

Lepper and Green repeated this experiment a few more times and got similar results. Over time, other researchers have encountered similar results in studies conducted with adults. Again and again they found that under the influence of external rewards - especially conditional, expected, "if-then" rewards - the third motivating force goes out like a candle in the wind.

These findings were so incredible—after all, they challenged the standard methodology used by most companies and schools—that in 1999, Deci and two colleagues reanalyzed three decades of research on the subject to confirm their findings. “A close examination of the effects of rewards across 128 experiments suggests that material incentives tend to have a mostly negative effect on intrinsic motivation,” they found. “When institutions—families, schools, companies, and sports teams—focus on short-term goals and find it necessary to control people’s behavior, they cause significant and irreparable harm.”

Try to encourage your child to do math by paying him for each page of solved problems from the book of exercises, and he will almost certainly become a more diligent student for a while, but will lose interest in mathematics for the rest of his life. Take an industrial designer who loves his job and try to make him perform better by making his reward dependent on the success of the product, and he will almost certainly work like a maniac for a while, but in the long run his interest in his work will decrease. As one of the most authoritative books on behavior puts it: “People use rewards hoping to benefit from increasing motivation and influencing the behavior of another person, but in doing so they often incur unforeseen and invisible losses, undermining that person’s intrinsic motivation for this activity.”

This is one of the most proven discoveries made in the social sciences, and also one of the most ignored. Despite the efforts of a few skilled and passionate popularizers, notably Alfie Kohn, whose prophetic book Punished by Reward lays a devastating indictment on external stimuli, we persist in trying to motivate people through this method. Maybe we are afraid to abandon Motivation 2.0, despite its obvious shortcomings. We may not be able to wrap our heads around the bizarre quantum mechanics of intrinsic motivation.

Or perhaps there is a better reason. Even if controlling if-then rewards have the Sawyer effect, maybe they make people perform better? If so, then they probably aren't that bad. So let's ask ourselves the question: do external rewards improve performance? To find out, four economists traveled to India.

High efficiency

One of the difficulties of laboratory experiments investigating the effects of extrinsic motivators such as money is their cost. If you expect to pay people for some activity, you must offer them a more or less significant amount. And in the United States or Europe, where the standard of living is quite high, an amount that seems significant for one individual, multiplied by dozens of participants, can result in unacceptably high bills for scientists studying human behavior.

Partly out of a desire to get around this problem, a quartet of economists, including Dan Ariely, whom I mentioned in the last chapter, set up a laboratory in the Indian city of Madurai to study the impact that external incentives have on performance. Since the cost of living in rural India is much lower than in North America, the researchers were able to offer subjects large rewards without risking going broke themselves.

They recruited 87 participants and asked them to play a variety of games, such as throwing tennis balls at a target, solving anagrams, memorizing sequences of numbers, and others that required motor skills, creativity, or concentration. To test the impact of incentives, the experimenters offered three types of rewards for achieving certain levels of performance.

A third of the participants could receive a small reward of 4 rupees (which was about 50 US cents at the time and equaled a day's wages in Madurai) for reaching a certain level of performance. The second third could earn an average reward - 40 rupees (about $ 5, that is, two weeks' earnings). And another third could receive a very large reward - 400 rupees (about $ 50 - approximate earnings for five months).

What happened? Was it possible to predict the level of efficiency by the amount of remuneration?

Yes. But not in the way you might expect. As it turned out, people who were offered a medium-sized bonus did not perform any better than those who received a small reward. What about the members of the Rs 400 super stimulus group? They performed the worst. In almost all indicators, they lagged behind the participants who received low and medium rewards. Presenting the results of the study in a report to the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, the scientists wrote: “In eight of the nine tasks we monitored in three experiments, higher incentives deterioration results".

Let's take a closer look at this conclusion. Four economists—two from MIT, one from Carnegie Mellon University, and one from the University of Chicago—take on research for the Federal Reserve, one of the most powerful economic players in the world. But instead of confirming the simple business principle that higher rewards lead to better results, they seem to be proving it wrong. And not only American researchers come to these paradoxical conclusions. In 2009, experts from the London School of Economics - the alma mater of 11 Nobel laureates - analyzed the performance of 51 corporations in which the salary of employees depended on labor efficiency. Here is the conclusion of these economists: "We believe that financial incentives ... may ultimately have a negative impact on overall performance." On both sides of the Atlantic, there is a gap between what science knows and what business does.

“Many existing institutions offer very large incentives to those who solve problems of the same type that we used,” write Ariely and his colleagues. “Our results cast doubt on [this] practice. Our experiment suggests… that one cannot be sure that introducing or increasing incentives will consistently improve performance.” On the contrary, in many cases, conditional incentives - that lifeline of all managers trying to motivate employees - can be a "losing strategy."

Despite the opinion of respected authors, few of us devote our working time throwing tennis balls or guessing anagrams. What about more creative tasks that have more to do with what we actually do at work?

Creativity

Few tests are as good for a quick test of problem solving as the Candle Problem test. Invented by psychologist Carl Dunker in 1935, the test is used in a wide variety of experiments in the behavioral sciences. Try it again and see what you get.

You are sitting at a table against a wooden wall, and the experimenter gives you the items shown below: a candle, a box of buttons, and a box of matches.

Candle problem. Initial conditions

Candle problem solved

Your task is to attach the candle to the wall so that the wax does not drip onto the table or onto the floor. Think about how you would solve this problem. Many start by trying to attach the candle to the wall with tacks. But nothing comes of it. Some try to light a match, melt the side of the candle, and attach it to the wall. This doesn't help either. But after spending five or ten minutes, most people find the solution, which you can see below.

The key is to overcome the so-called "functional fixity". You look at the box and see only one function in it - a container for buttons. But, after thinking, you, in the end, guess that this box can perform another function - candle stands. Using the expressions from the previous chapter, the solution is not algorithmic (follow a given path), but heuristic (abandon habitual patterns to find a non-standard strategy).

What happens if you give people a conceptual challenge like this and offer them a reward for being quick to solve it? Sam Glucksberg, a psychologist now at Princeton University, tested this decades ago by measuring how fast two groups of participants completed tasks with a stopwatch. He told one group that he would keep track of how long they worked, simply to determine the norm: how long it usually takes a person to solve a similar puzzle. He offered incentives to the second group. If, according to the results of the test, the subject fell into the group of the best, which consisted of 25% of the participants who showed the shortest time among all those tested, he received $ 5. If the participant's time was the best, the reward was $25. Adjusted for inflation, this was quite decent money that could be obtained for a few minutes of work, in short, an excellent incentive.

The results of the experiment showed that the subjects, motivated by the reward, took an average of three and a half minutes to solve the problem. more than participants who did not receive remuneration. Contrary to all the tenets of Motivation 2.0, a stimulus designed to sharpen thinking and activate creativity ultimately dulled thinking and stifled creativity. Why? Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus. This is useful when there is a clearly marked path to solve the problem. They help us look ahead and act faster. But the influence of “if-then” motivators is detrimental if you need to solve a problem like the problem with a candle. As the experiment showed, rewards narrowed people's focus and prevented them from looking at things more broadly, which would allow them to find new uses for known objects.

Apparently, something similar happens in cases where it is required not so much to solve an existing problem as to constantly create something new. Teresa Amabile, a professor at Harvard Business School and one of the leading researchers on creativity, has conducted many experiments examining the impact of contingent rewards on the creative process. For one of the studies, she, along with two colleagues, attracted 23 professional artists from the United States, who worked both on commission and “for the soul”. They asked the artists to randomly select ten paintings painted for sale and painted for themselves. Amabile and her team then took the work to a group of qualified artists and experts who knew nothing about the study and asked them to evaluate the work in terms of creativity and technical skill.

“The results were simply amazing,” the scientists wrote. – Commissioned works were rated as much less creative than non-commissioned works, although they were rated equally in terms of technical quality. Moreover, the artists themselves admitted that they feel much more constrained when working on commission than when they write for themselves. One artist they interviewed describes the Sawyer effect in action:

“Not always, but in most cases, when you paint a picture for someone else, it becomes more of a “work” than a pleasant pastime. When I write for myself, I feel exclusively the joy of creativity and I can work all night without even noticing it. When working on a commissioned painting, you have to restrain yourself and try to do what the client wants.

Another long-term study of artists found that preoccupation with extrinsic rewards can, ironically, be a hindrance to ultimate success. In the early 1960s, researchers conducted a survey among second and third year art students at the Art Institute of Chicago, finding out their attitude to work and the leading type of motivation: internal or external. Using this data as a starting point, another researcher followed the fate of these students in the early 1980s, determined to find out how their careers developed. Here is one of the most interesting findings, especially relevant for men: “The less evidence of extrinsic motivation was noted in the process of studying at art school, the more significant was the professional success in art, both a few years after graduation, and almost twenty years later. ". Intrinsically motivated painters and sculptors, whose main reward was the joy of discovery and the solution of creative problems, were able to survive the hard times - and the lack of money and recognition that are an almost inevitable companion of a career as an artist. And this gave rise to another paradox behind the looking glass of the third motive power. “Those artists who painted and sculpted more for the pleasure of the creative process than for outside rewards created works that were more socially accepted,” the study says. “It was those who least pursued external awards that ended up getting them.”

Of course, this result is not valid for all types of problems. Amabile and others have found that extrinsic stimuli can be effective in performing algorithmic tasks that depend on following a known path to its logical conclusion. But for right-brain activities that require flexibility, ingenuity, or vision, conditional rewards can be dangerous. Employees thus encouraged often find it difficult to notice what is happening on the periphery and find original solutions. And this is also one of the hard established facts in the area of social sciences, subjected over the years to repeated checks and detailed studies conducted by Teresa Amabile and other scientists. For artists, scientists, inventors, students, and many others, intrinsic motivation is the desire to do something because it is interesting, exciting, and challenging— necessary condition achievement of creative heights. But the "if-then" incentives that are a staple of most companies' management strategy tend to stifle rather than stimulate creative thinking. And as the economy moves towards more heuristic, right-brain work and most of us have to deal with our own versions of the candle problem, this is perhaps the most troubling gap between scientific knowledge and entrepreneurial practice.

Good deeds

Philosophers and physicians have long debated whether donors should be paid to donate blood. Some have argued that blood, like tissues or organs of the human body, is a special case and we should not be able to buy or sell it in the same way as a barrel of crude oil or a box of bearings. Others have argued that excessive scrupulousness is inappropriate here, since the payment for the surrender of this substance will ensure an adequate supply of it.

But in 1970, British sociologist Richard Titmuss, who studied blood donation in the United Kingdom, made a bold suggestion. Paying for blood donations is not just immoral, he said. It is also irrational. If Britain decides to pay its citizens to donate, this is in fact will reduce blood supply in the country. No doubt, it was an eccentric thought. The economists laughed. And Titmuss never tested his idea in practice; it was just a philosophical premonition.

But a quarter of a century later, two Swedish economists decided to see if Titmuss was right. Having started an intriguing field experiment, they visited regional center blood transfusion in Gothenburg and found 153 women there who were interested in donating blood. Then—and this seems to have become a tradition among motivation researchers—they divided the women into three groups. The experimenters told the members of the first group that blood donation was voluntary. These participants were able to donate blood, but received no payment. The second group of scientists offered a different instruction. If these participants donate blood, they will each receive 50 SEK (about $7). The third group heard a new variation on the second offer: a reward of 50 SEK with the option to immediately donate it to a children's cancer fund.

Of the first group, 52% of the women ultimately decided to donate their blood. Undoubtedly, they were altruists who wanted to do a good deed for their fellow citizens even in the absence of compensation.

And the second group? Motivation 2.0 suggests that this group might be a little more interested in donating. They volunteered, and this indicated the presence of intrinsic motivation. Getting a few crowns in addition to this could further strengthen this momentum. But, as you probably already guessed, this is not what happened at all. In this group, only 30% of women decided to donate blood. Instead of increasing the number of blood donors, the payment offered to people reduced this number is almost half.

Meanwhile, the third group, which had the opportunity to immediately donate the money received to charity, reacted in much the same way as the first group: 53% of the participants became blood donors.

Ultimately, Titmuss' hunch seemed to be correct. Adding a monetary incentive did not increase the number of people exhibiting the desired behavior. It led to their reduction. The reason is that he distorted the very meaning of the altruistic act and "forced out" the inner desire to do something good. A good deed is the ultimate meaning of blood donation. It gives "a feeling that money can't buy," according to the pamphlets of the American Red Cross Society. This is why the number of voluntary blood donors invariably increases during natural disasters and other disasters. But if the government pledged to pay people to help their neighbors during these crises, the donation could die out.

Yet in this Swedish example, the offer of a reward was not in itself destructive. Being able to immediately donate the 50 crowns received instead of putting it in your pocket negated this effect. And this is also extremely important. The point is that rewards are not necessarily bad. For example, when the Italian government gave paid days off to blood donors, blood donations increased. The law removed the barrier that stood in the way of altruism. So, although some of the adherents of this view will convince you of the inherent evil of external rewards, you should know that this is simply not empirically true. It is true that confusing incentives with intrinsically interesting, creative or noble goals, introducing them without understanding anything about the intricacies of motivation, is a very dangerous game. When used in these kinds of situations, if-then incentives usually do more harm than good. By excluding the ingredients of true motivation—self-reliance, mastery, purposefulness—they limit us in terms of what we can accomplish.

More unwanted results

In the universe of the third motivator, where everything is turned upside down, rewards can lead to the extinction of the behaviors they are designed to reinforce. But that's not all. Inappropriate use of extrinsic stimuli can have another side effect: they can develop behaviors that we consider undesirable. And here practical activity also lags behind the achievements of science. And scientists tell us that carrots and sticks can encourage negative behavior, be addictive, and encourage short-term thinking at the expense of long-term thinking.

Unethical behavior

What could be more useful than having a goal in front of you? From the very first days, teachers, coaches and parents advise us to set goals and work hard to achieve them, and they do it for good reason. Having a goal is really helpful. The scientific literature shows that goals, by helping us disconnect from distractions, can motivate us to put in more effort, work longer, and achieve more.

Recently, however, a group of experts from the Harvard Business School, Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, the University of Arizona's Eller College of Management, and the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School have questioned the validity of this widely held recommendation. “Goal setting should not be offered as a miracle worker over the counter to improve performance, but rather should be selectively prescribed, labeled with a warning, and used under medical supervision,” they wrote. The goals that people set for themselves and that are oriented towards achieving excellence are usually useful. But goals imposed by others—sales targets, quarterly profits, test scores, and so on—can sometimes have dangerous side effects.

Like all external stimuli, goals focus our attention. This is one of the reasons why goal setting can be effective, it helps to focus the mind. But as we already know, focused attention has its costs. For complex or abstract problems, offering a reward can limit the breadth of thought needed to find innovative solutions. In addition, if an external goal is a priority, especially a short-term one with a predictable outcome that promises significant gains, its presence may interfere with the perception of one's own behavior in a broader context. As leading business school educators write, “Ample evidence indicates that, in addition to motivating constructive effort, goal setting can encourage unethical behavior.”

Examples of this are legion, the researchers note. Sears sets a sales quota for its auto repair shop staff, and workers respond by cheating customers and charging for extra, unnecessary repairs. Enron's profit targets are high, and the drive to get things done at any cost may have been the catalyst for the company's downfall. Ford is determined to release a car of a given weight at a given price and by the target date, so it neglects safety tests and releases the dangerous Ford Pinto.

The problem with making an external reward the single most important goal is that some people generally prefer to take the shortest path to get there, even if the path is quite muddy.

Indeed, most of the scandals and misbehavior that seem to be part of modern life are about trying to take shortcuts to success. Executives manipulate quarterly earnings to get a performance bonus. School counselors forge grades on academic transcripts so that their students can get into college. Athletes take steroids to show good results, which promise them big prizes.

Compare this approach with the behaviors exhibited by intrinsically motivated people. Where the action itself is the reward, whether it be education, customer satisfaction, self-realization, there are no short cuts. The path leading to such a goal cannot be immoral. In a sense, it is simply impossible to act unethically, because not your competitor will suffer, but you yourself.

End of introductory segment.

Corporations with a special type of taxation prescribed in section S of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States. - Note. ed.

Standard corporation with ordinary taxation. - Note. ed.

Another name for this discipline is the economic analysis of law. - Note. ed.

Dan Ariely. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. N.Y., 2008. Russian edition: Ariely D. Positive irrationality. How to capitalize on your illogical actions. - M., 2010.

Note. ed.: Let me quote the passage from the novel where this transformation is described.

“What, old man, you have to work, huh?<…>

Tom looked closely at Ben and asked:

What do you call work?

“You don’t think it’s work, does it?”

Tom began to whitewash again and answered casually:

“Well, maybe work, maybe not work. All I know is that Tom Sawyer likes her.

“Come on, it’s as if you like whitewashing so much!”

The brush still moved evenly along the fence.

- Like? Why not? I suppose it's not every day that our brother gets to whitewash the fence.

After that, the whole thing was presented in a new light. Ben stopped chewing on the apple. Tom carefully moved the brush back and forth, stopping from time to time to admire the result, adding a stroke, another, admiring the result again, and Ben followed his every movement, showing more and more interest in the case. (M. Twain. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Per. N. Daruses).

The two-pronged definition of the Sawyer effect is the result of methods that can turn play into work or work into play.

Kohn A. Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes. N.Y., 1993.

The 119 men who took part in the experiment showed somewhat different results. The money offer had no statistically significant effect, positive or negative, on the decision to donate blood.

Dedicated to Sophia, Elise and Saul - an amazing trio that motivates me

Interpreter I. Trifonov

Project manager S. Turco

Corrector E. Aksenova

Computer layout K. Svishchev

Cover design M. Lobov

Published under license from The Sagalyn Literary Agency and Synopsis Literary Agency.

Editor's choice - choice of editor-in-chief

Sergei Turko,

k. e. PhD, editor-in-chief of the publishing house "Alpina Publisher"

Publishing Partner Foreword
So what really motivates us?

Today, most companies, managers and employees live in a world where extrinsic motivation is extremely important: it is believed that in order to increase efficiency and increase productivity, people need to be rewarded for good and punished for bad. This is a kind of Motivation 2.0.

But “external rewards” can only work properly when it comes to algorithmic tasks that an employee solves in the workplace. Whereas, according to the consulting firm McKinsey & Co in the US, only 30% of new jobs are associated with algorithmic work, and 70% of people are waiting for activities with elements of creativity and analysis. The above statistics make us radically rethink the approach to modern management.

It is difficult to disagree with this, step by step following the author's arguments, detailed cases, numerous references to the results of psychological research, etc.

Based on this, Daniel Pink proposes a new motivation system for creative people - 3.0. Three key elements underlie it: freedom of choice, skill, having a worthy goal. And these components arise in employees not due to the efforts of leaders, but come from within, because they are natural for thinking, intellectually and spiritually developed people. The business of the company is to realize this and create the conditions and atmosphere for their implementation. A healthy society and a healthy business organization begin with a goal-purpose and see profit as a means of moving towards that goal or as a useful by-product of achieving it.

Let's look at some of the features of our current Russian existence from the point of view of the arguments that Daniel Pink cites.

Labor productivity in Russia is two times lower than in Mexico and Brazil, three times lower than in England and France, and four to five times lower than in Germany and the USA.

The system of education and training of personnel is going through hard times.

To implement such approaches, it is necessary to have an effective corporate and national infrastructure.

It is also obvious that it is necessary to have an appropriate structure of the economy, labor legislation, business climate.

To implement the Motivation 3.0 system, it is important to go through the stage of routinization and algorithmization of work processes, to have a highly qualified workforce, highly qualified management, etc.

If you do not take into account all of the above, experiments with the introduction of motivational principles, which Pink writes about, will end very sadly.

Summing up, we can say that before you, dear readers, is a magnificent timely book that inspires and makes you think.

Sergei Anisimov,

President of the Stins Coman group of companies

Preface to the Russian edition

By likening approaches to motivation to outdated and radically new operating systems, Daniel Pink can help the reader "reboot" the mind. It turns out that numerous studies have shown that the “if, then” principle, that is, linking incentives to achievements, does not always have a positive effect, and sometimes even inhibits creativity and activity. The approach itself is interesting: let a person get satisfaction from the work itself, from creativity, and he will achieve more than when he is stimulated by awards or recognition. Pink writes about the positive experience of large companies in which 20% of the working time, with the permission and even prompting of management, was engaged in the projects they wanted. And it was the solutions created in 20% of the time of freedom that turned out to be the most revolutionary and innovative. So, for example, it was during the period of free creativity at 3M that the famous stickers were invented, without which we now can hardly imagine office life.

partner and head of the Laboratory of Management Technologies SRC Lab.

Introduction
Perplexing puzzles by Harry Harlow and Edward Deci

In the middle of the last century, two young scientists conducted experiments that could change the world - but did not.

Harlow puzzle in initial position (left) and solved state (right)

The second of the known motive forces also did not help to explain the unusual behavior of the monkeys. If biological motivations acted from within, then the second type of incentives had an external source - these are rewards and punishments with which the external environment accompanied certain types of behavior. They have proven effective against people who have reacted solely to such outside forces. If we were promised a pay raise, we worked harder. If we were encouraged, in the hope that we would get an A on the exam, we spent more time studying. If we were threatened with deductions from our pay for being late or filling out forms incorrectly, we showed up to work on time and ticked all the right boxes. But this did not explain the behavior of the monkeys. As Harlow wrote (he appears to be scratching the back of his head in thought): “The behavior demonstrated in this experiment raises some interesting questions for motivation researchers, since significant progress in learning was observed and high productivity was maintained in the absence of special or external stimuli. ".

What else could be the matter?

To answer this question, Harlow proposed an entirely new theory that introduced the concept third motivating force. “The very accomplishment of the task,” he said, “served as an intrinsic reward.” The monkeys solved puzzles simply because they found it enjoyable. They were having fun. The joy of accomplishing the task was its own reward.

“It seems that this driving force… can be as fundamental and powerful as [other] forces. In addition, there is reason to believe that [it] can be just as effective in promoting learning.

Later, he almost completely abandoned his idea.

In the summer of 1969, Edward Deci, a psychology graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University, was looking for a dissertation topic. By then he had already received an MBA from Wharton and was keenly interested in the problem of motivation, but he suspected that scientists and business people misunderstood it. So, ripping a page out of Harlow's experimental journal, he began to explore the topic with a puzzle.

Seven parts of the catfish cube, individually (left) and assembled into one of the possible configurations

WORKING CONDITIONS FOR THE TWO GROUPS

Confirming what Harlow had discovered two decades earlier, Deci concluded that human motivation appears to be subject to laws that run counter to the beliefs of most scientists and ordinary citizens. We knew what motivates people to act with full dedication, whether in the office or on the playground. Rewards, especially cash, fueled interest and improved performance. What Deci found and later confirmed in two additional studies was contrary to our knowledge. “When money is used as an external reward for some activity, people lose a lively, sincere interest in this activity,” he wrote. Rewards can provide a short-term boost to performance, just as a dose of caffeine can provide a few extra hours of energy. But the effect wears off and, even worse, can reduce a person's long-term motivation to continue working.

“It was very challenging,” Deci told me one spring morning, 40 years after the catfish cube experiments. “Nobody expected that rewards could have a negative impact.”

* * *

The good news is that the solution lies before us, in the work of a group of behavioral scientists who have continued the work of Harlow and Deci. Their research work, which has continued quietly over the past fifty years, is revealing a more dynamic picture of human motivation. For too long, there has been a gap between scientific knowledge and business practice. The purpose of this book is to fill this gap.

The book is divided into three parts. The first part examines the shortcomings of our reward/punishment system and proposes a new understanding of motivation. Chapter 1 explores how the dominant concept of motivation has become incompatible with many aspects of modern business and everyday life. Chapter 2 lists seven reasons why external stimuli such as carrots and sticks often backfire. (This is followed by a brief addendum, chapter 2a, which describes special circumstances where carrots and sticks can actually be effective.) Chapter 3 gives an idea of what I call behavior type I: about a way of thinking and approach to business based on real research on human motivation and driven by our third driving force - our innate need to manage our own lives, to learn and create something new, and to feel better about ourselves and the world around us.

The third part is a Type I Behavior Workshop: a complete set of tips, exercises, and resources to help you create the environment in which these behaviors can occur. Here you'll find everything from recommended reading for further exploration of the topic, to discussion questions for your book club, to an ultra-concise summary of this book to help you make a good impression at a party. Although the book is primarily about business, in this section I will offer some thoughts on how to apply these concepts to education and to our lives outside of work.

But let's start with a thought experiment that requires you to go back in time to the days when John Major was the British prime minister, Barack Obama was a young law professor, you needed a modem and a telephone line to access the Internet, and the word "blackberry" did not mean nothing but berries.

Harry F. Harlow, Margaret Kuenne Harlow, Donald R. Meyer, "Learning Motivated by a Manipulation Drive," Journal of Experimental Psychology (1950), p. 231.

Harry F. Harlow, "Motivation as a Factor in the Acquisition of New Responses," In Current Theory and Research on Motivation, (University of Nebraska Press, 1953), p. 46.

Harlow has, to a certain extent, become part of the scientific establishment. He received the National Medal of Scientific Merit and became President of the American Psychological Association. For more on the life and work of G. Harlow, see: Deborah Blum. Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection (Perseus, 2002); Jim Ottaviani & Dylan Meconis. Wire Mothers: Harry Harlow and the Science of Love (G. T. Labs, 2007).

Edward L. Deci, "Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1971). Vol. 18, p. 114.

Edward L. Deci, "Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Reinforcement, and Inequity," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1972). Vol. 22, p. 119–120.

Publishing Partner Foreword

So what really motivates us?

Today, most companies, managers and employees live in a world where the importance of extrinsic motivation is extremely high: it is believed that in order to increase efficiency and increase productivity, people need to be rewarded for good and punished for bad. This is a kind of Motivation 2.0.

It is difficult to disagree with this, step by step following the author's arguments, detailed cases, numerous references to the results of psychological research, etc.

Based on this, Daniel Pink proposes a new motivation system for creative, creative people - 3.0. Three key elements underlie it: freedom of choice, skill, having a worthy goal. And these components arise in employees not due to the efforts of leaders, but come from within, because they are natural for thinking, intellectually and spiritually developed people. The business of the company is to realize this and create the conditions and atmosphere for their implementation. A healthy society and a healthy business organization begin with a goal-purpose and see profit as a means of moving towards that goal or as a useful by-product of achieving it.

Let's look at some of the features of our current Russian existence from the point of view of the arguments that Daniel Pink cites.

Labor productivity in Russia is two times lower than in Mexico and Brazil, three times lower than in England and France, and four to five times lower than in Germany and the USA.

The system of education and training of personnel is going through hard times.

To implement such approaches, it is necessary to have an effective corporate and national infrastructure.

Poorly algorithmic (heuristic) activities exist, as a rule, in high-tech industries, such as service, innovation, inventive activities, applied sciences, R&D, etc. In Russia, these areas are not developed as well as we would like.

It is also obvious that it is necessary to have an appropriate structure of the economy, labor legislation, business climate.

If you do not take into account all of the above, experiments with the introduction of motivational principles, which Pink writes about, will end very sadly.

Summing up, we can say that before you, dear readers, is a magnificent timely book that inspires and makes you think.

Sergei Anisimov,
President of the Stins Coman group of companies

What motivates people when there is little money

About Daniel Pink's book "Drive" in five minutes. It has an unexpected conclusion: salaries and bonuses make us less productive.

Two types of tasks

There are two types of work tasks - algorithmic and heuristic.

Algorithmic are solved using a well-defined sequence of actions that give a predictable result. Tighten the nut, dig a hole fill up a car at a gas station model 1954. In the Western world, a person has to perform less and less algorithmic tasks, because they are automated or given to third world countries.

Heuristic problems, there is no ready-made known solution. Solving them, a person experiments and invents. Design, programming, analysis, customer service - these things require creativity and skill. The Western economy is increasingly dependent on solving such problems.

Old Motivation 2.0

Motivation 2.0 is the motivation of the industrial society, the principle of carrot and stick. It is based on the assumption that a person is lazy and does not want to work, so he needs to be stimulated. Good behavior is rewarded with salaries and bonuses, bad behavior is punished with fines. Both rewards and punishments come from outside. Carrot and stick:

Sell 1000 boxes by the end of the month and you'll get a bonus.
Talk to the client for no more than 5 minutes. If you talk longer, your performance rating goes down.

When Motivation 2.0 is applied to algorithmic tasks, a great result is obtained. The employee sees the goal, understands the process and concentrates all his strength to cope as quickly as possible. In the era of industrialization, such motivation went with a bang.

But when motivation 2.0 is applied to heuristic tasks, the result is worse. A person cycles on the goal and follows the most obvious path. And the heuristic task is also heuristic, that there is no solution on the obvious path. A person is closed on the goal, cannot look at the task from the other side, is stupid and produces a mediocre result. Psychologists have been experimenting since the 1940s, testing this effect this way and that, and every time they come to the same conclusion:

Money stifles creativity.
Such is the post-industrial paradox

Set a goal for the programmer to complete the program by Friday. Promise a bonus, 300 thousand or even 500 thousand. On the night before the deadline, everything will break down for him, he will lose backup copies of the code, and the program, even if it sees the light, will be all of crutches, props and clumsy moves with which the programmer plugs holes in the raw architecture. Ask the programmer afterwards if he is proud of his work.

An increase in salary does not make an employee more creative and motivated. This is the same employee, only more expensive. And if he is given a sales plan, he will also begin to fear for his place, because of which he will stop making bold and correct decisions. Extra money will not make an employee more valuable. It will become more valuable when an interesting task lights up.

This is Motivation 3.0.

New Motivation 3.0

This is the motivation of the post-industrial society. It is based on the assumption that a person himself wants to work and be valuable, create something important and become a master of his craft. Motivation 3.0 drives a person from the inside and does not accept strict external control.

A person with a motivation of 3.0 selflessly plays computer games, goes to vocal lessons or reads books about psychology, demands to send him to advanced training courses, subscribes books from Amazon, reads articles on the Internet all night long, digs himself into Wikipedia, writes code for his own project. And he doesn't think about money.

Motivation 3.0 is manifested in those things that are sincerely important to a person. In this he himself achieves mastery, without external control and financial incentives.

Motivation 3.0 in business

Knowing all of the above, it will be strange to hire people who work only for money. They will not do anything outstanding in fear of losing their money place. And as soon as they are offered more, they will fly away to competitors. Hire people who share common goals with you. Hire those who want to become the best in the world. Hire people for jobs they don't need a stick for and are willing to do for free. Always agree on money.

Same for employees: don't go to work just for the money. It is clear that everyone has to pay the rent and repay the loan. But it’s one thing to work hard at a hated job for a bag of money, and quite another to be inspired to do what you love and get a bag a little less.

By the way, bags of money appear themselves when you reach mastery. And mastery comes only in those areas to which you are ready to give yourself with all your heart, without money and recognition.

Putting money at the forefront is the last century.

About the book

This, of course, is a pale reflection of everything beautiful and amazing that is in Pink's book. Joking aside, the first half of the book is better written than any other adventure novel. Then, however, Pink begins to teach everyone how to live, and there I already lost him. However, the book is worth it.

Drive is what really motivates us epub. Drive: What Really Motivates Us by Daniel Pink

Main pitfall

antikennedy

positive psychology

About format

Main ideas of the book

Editor's choice - choice of editor-in-chief

Preface to the Russian edition

* * *

The triumph of the stick and the carrot

Three incompatibility issues

How we organize our activities

What do we think about our activities

What are the conditions of our activity

* * *

Fewer desired outcomes

intrinsic motivation

High efficiency

Creativity

Good deeds

More unwanted results

Unethical behavior

Editor's choice - choice of editor-in-chief

Publishing Partner Foreword So what really motivates us?

Preface to the Russian edition

Introduction Perplexing puzzles by Harry Harlow and Edward Deci

* * *

So what really motivates us?

Old Motivation 2.0

Money stifles creativity.Such is the post-industrial paradox

New Motivation 3.0

Motivation 3.0 in business

About the book

Publishing Partner Foreword
So what really motivates us?

Introduction
Perplexing puzzles by Harry Harlow and Edward Deci

Money stifles creativity.
Such is the post-industrial paradox