Summary of the Book

The book postulates that rewards do not work since people tend to gain more motivation from internal factors compared to external factors. Extrinsic motivation reaches a point where it kills intrinsic motivation something that results in reduced motivation levels. When something like money is used as an external reward, the people will lose intrinsic motivation for that particular activity.  Pink asserts that most managers believe extrinsic motivators can be a useful tool for controlling people. However, Pink argues that there is scientific evidence showing that extrinsic motivation factors do not ensure performance improvements in the long-run.

Pink brings out the opinion that the carrot and stick approach does not work anymore. There are several reasons why the approach no longer works. Among them is the increase in complexity. The work that people indulge in these days has become more complex, less directed, constantly evolving, heuristic and less routine. As a result, there is need for using different motivation and management approaches. Other reasons why the carrot and stick approach no longer works include internet driven open sourcing, reduction in algorithmic work, changing management structures, and changes in corporate focus.

The book also outlines various flaws that are associated with extrinsic motivators. Pink postulates that extrinsic motivators tend to diminish performance, can crowd-out favorable behavior, can extinguish intrinsic motivation, can encourage shortcuts and cheating, can foster short-term thinking, can be addictive and can crush creativity. These are aspects that show the downside of extrinsic motivation and why managers should not rely on these motivation factors. Instead, they should focus on emphasizing the use of intrinsic motivation, which has lasting positive effects.

Pink tries to differentiate between intrinsic and extrinsic driven individuals. He refers to extrinsic driven people as type X, and intrinsic driven people as type I. Type X are motivated by external factors like a status symbol, money, fame among other things. These people can be successful, but are likely to be affected by the insatiable appetite of gaining more “stuff”. The motivation tends to evaporate quickly, and one is left to long for the bigger car, the next pay rise among other things. Type I’s motivation usually comes from within when they want to accomplish a meaningful activity. Here, success tends to be assessed by the task at hand as opposed to any added-on reward. These people normally demonstrate better interpersonal relationships, higher self-esteem, and greater mental and physical well-being. People driven by intrinsic motivation are likely to perform better than those driven by extrinsic motivation in the long-run. This is because people have an innate inner drive that makes them desire to be self-determined, autonomous and connected with each other.  According to Pink, the behavior associated with intrinsic driven individuals is triggered by autonomy, purpose and mastery.

When it comes to autonomy, people desire autonomy in the areas of time, team, task and techniques. When people have a perceived control, they are usually happy due to the free-will and choices that are available to them. Autonomy tends to have a significant effect on attitude, job satisfaction and performance.  Purpose, on the other hand, brings out a passion that makes people more engaged and motivated. Mastery on its part stems from the desire that people have for developing and growing to help them become good at something.  Mastery brings a sense of personal satisfaction, but there needs to be engagement and passion for mastery to happen.

Demonstration of Pink’s Theories in the Film “Lean on Me”

Lean on Me is a fictional film based on a true story and was produced in 1989. The film revolves around Joe Clark, who was transferred to East Side High School as he was viewed as a suitable candidate to deliver the school from the problems it was facing. Clark undertook the capacity of the principal, and this meant he was in charge of everything and everyone at East Side High School. Clark had initially worked at this institution before he was fired. The school was now marred with poor student performance in tests, the use of drugs had skyrocketed, and gang violence had spiraled too. Clark’s arrival at the institution inspired hope among the students.

There are various instances where Pink’s theory has been demonstrated in the film. When Joe Clark was tasked with the responsibility of being the principal of East Side High, he was accorded the relevant autonomy. This worked quite well since he felt an aspect of job satisfaction that helped in fostering improvements in the institution. The autonomy allowed Clark to do things his own way. He came with rules that he thought would work for the institution and there was no one to rescind these rules. He started off by dismissing students that were well known for their bad behaviors, something that no one else had thought of doing before he came in. His strategies worked well since the overall behavioral prospects in the institution changed significantly. The students that were acting as destruction to the others were not there hence the others would now learn in peace.

The need for mastery by human beings has also been demonstrated in the film. When Clark came in, he showed the students the importance of changing their ways to ensure that they put the desired emphasis on their academics. The students paid attention to Clark and took whatever he was telling into adequate considering. They started taking their studies seriously. It was evident that now every student was determined to master the relevant concepts that would enable them to attain desirable grades for the basic skills test. Every student seemed to be determined, and they all took the initiative of helping each other. The motivation instigated by the desire to master the relevant concepts worked positively. After taking the basic skills test, the average score was 75%, which was within the required threshold set by the school district stakeholders. This was an improvement from the 33% that had prevailed in the institution in the previous test.

The motivation that comes with purpose as mentioned in the book has been demonstrated in the film too. It is showcased when Clark is arrested by the order coming from the mayor’s office. When he was arrested, the board was deliberating on the way forward and how to remove him from the position of East Side High principal. By this time, Clark had already developed a positive interpersonal relationship with the students. The students now liked him due to the impact he had brought to their lives. The students demonstrated outside the mayor’s office after Clark was arrested. They had purposed to see their principal released.  The students could not listen to any of the propositions that were being made. They were motivated by the purpose of seeing their principal released as they all protested in unison. Clark had helped them improve their way of life both from a personal and academic perspective. This meant they wanted his guidance even more. The fact that they had a purpose while demonstrating ensured that they did not listen to anyone that tried to make them compromise on what they wanted. Their efforts were successful as Clark was released when it was now apparent that they were not going to back down.

The opposite of Pink’s theories has also been demonstrated, and the result was negative. The mayor did not like the way that Joe Clarke led the institution, and he was determined to see him kicked from the institution. He used threats and other external forces to help remove Clark from his position as the principal of the school. All his efforts back-fired as they did not attain the desired outcome. Clark learned of his plans even before they were executed since he had people from the mayor’s circle that provided him with the information. This is an indication of how trying to create external motivation is likely to fail.

Compare/Contrast Pink’s Theory with Maslow’s Hierarchy Theory

Both Pink’s theory and Maslow’s theory confer that there are specific set of needs that must be actualized to motivate human beings to act in a desired manner. Maslow postulates a hierarchy of needs that include physiological, safety, belonging/love, esteem and self-actualization needs (Miner, 2015). Physiological needs include physical requirements for survival such as water, food, shelter and clothing. Safety needs come in the form of job security, insurance policies, protection from unilateral authorities among others. Belonging comes in where people desire acceptance from varied social groups. Esteem, on the other hand, stems from people’s desire to feel respected while self-actualization involves people realizing their full potential. Pink’s theory on its part asserts that people are motivated if the needs for autonomy, purpose and mastery are actualized.

The main difference between the two theories is that Maslow’s theory is more specific with regards to these needs. To begin with, the needs from Maslow’s theory are hierarchical; where one need precedes the other. The needs are outlined in a pyramid fashion where the most important need is at the bottom while the least important is at the top (Furnham, 2012). The same thing cannot be said about Pink’s theory. Pink has only outlined the needs of autonomy, purpose and mastery. There is no order of how these needs ought to be taken care of. Maslow outlines that an individual has to actualize one need before they can move to the other need. Fulfilling one need now creates the desire to fulfill the other need. When someone actualizes the physiological needs, now that is when they desire to actualize safety needs (Furnham, 2012). Pink’s theory on its part has not made such an explanation.  The aspects of autonomy, purpose and mastery have been treated equally. Pink has not shown which of these needs is more important. The theory has also has not shown if it is important to actualize any of them first before actualizing the others.

Review of the Book

The book has some valuable points that can be used by different stakeholders involved with the management of people. Among the points that intrigued me was the one that Pink asserts that the carrots and sticks models are no longer effective in the current business world. This part caught my eye due to the examples that were used to make the point. Pink has shown how extrinsic motivation has limited effects in the long-run and that is why intrinsic motivation should be emphasized more.

The book also asserts that when human beings are given the possibility to achieve mastery, autonomy and purpose, there will be no need of using other crude incentives as a motivating factor. Pink has given favorable examples to prove this point. Under autonomy, he uses the Google example where the employees are free to use 20% of their time to pursue things that interest them, and this has resulted in great innovations in the company.

Pink has tried to prove why some efforts to motivate employees by the management have ended up being fruitless. It is because extrinsic motivation can only be effective up to a certain point. It only works in the short-run and fails to work in the long-run compared to motivation that comes from within (Danielson, 2010).

The book has also gone along to break down the types of works that could be motivated by the carrots and sticks models and those that cannot be motivated that way. According to me, this represents a weakness in the book. This is because I wonder how one could treat parts of a single organization differently and subsequently make these parts to blend together. Applying a hybrid system when dealing with employees can be extremely difficult in the implementation process. The workforce is already diverse, and the management needs to create uniformity to reduce the relevant eminent conflicts (Stern, 2010). As a result, treating the employees differently comes out as a discriminatory tendency and brings more revolt from the employees.

I would also criticize the book with regards to the research conducted. When it comes to cited research, the book is very light in this area but heavy in anecdotes. This seems to be an ordinary issue with books revolving around management and self-improvement. My preferences are those books that have been grounded in robust research as this means they will not be easily disproven with time. Most of the content from the book has originated from basic research. When a research concentrates on select anecdotes, it works to show elements of bias (Stern, 2010). It would have been good if the book went ahead to explore opposing views of what was being proposed.

 References

Danielson, D. (2010). Book Review: Drive by Daniel H. Pink. Entrepreneur. Retrieved 8 October 2017, from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/218852

Furnham, A. (2012). The Psychology of Behaviour at Work: The Individual in the Organization. Psychology Press.

Miner, J. (2015). Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. Routledge.

Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us. New York: Riverhead Books.

Stern, S. (2010). Book review: ‘Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us’ by Daniel Pink. LAtimes. Retrieved 8 October 2017, from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/08/business/la-fi-books-20100808

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?