I am suggesting the the concept of “motivation” is so embedded in a particular theory of human behavior that it would be best to drop it altogether. This leaves us with two well accepted and more fundamental psychological concepts—”instinctual drives” and “stimulus response”—and one social concept that has been around for a while but has not received a great deal of attention—”shared intentions”.

Instinctual drives are genetically determined. They are exhibited as a characteristic of an organisms genome which should be taken to include both physiological and behavioral programming. A birds chick’s flight “learning” behavior is a good example. So to is the sign behavior observed in various animal mating rituals. So to is the hunting behavior of cats. And so to, is the human infant’s language acquisition behavior, BUT once language is acquired, it becomes a whole new game for the human.

Stimulus-Response is an autonomic function that bypasses cognitive behavior. It is built-in at a physiological level. An example is drawing away from a potentially dangerous heat source or becoming “single-minded” with food cognition when extreme hunger threatens survival.

Intention is a characteristic of human behavior. (There is some evidence that supports rudimentary intentionality in some other organisms.) Intentionality is based in theory and prediction. It is a meaning construct in which humans organize their action in a manner that they believe will predictively result in some desired outcome, or some outcome trajectory. It can also be called “purpose” with a small ‘p”. W. E. Deming referred to this using the term “aim”.

Given these three components and in the absence of the concept of “motivators”, we are able to build theory that explains the behavior of all creatures, and more specifically the unique behavioral characteristics of humans. In other words, human action (as opposed to reaction) is built atop instinctual and stimulus-response behavior, but human behavior is qualitatively transformed through the social construction of linguistically realized, theory-based, intentionality.

In short, people do what they do based upon their intentions which are constructed in interaction with other humans. This process produces the world of meaning in which what is right and proper, desirable and undesirable, comes to be known. This is why W. E. Deming said, “Money is not a motivator”, and why the use of motivators, positive and negative, produce so many unanticipated and contradictory outcomes.

I know that the view I am presenting is difficult to grasp, but during the time of its emergence, so was the body of psychological theory that introduced the idea of motivation. The idea of motivation seems obvious to us today, only because we have been steeped in it for generations—schools, workplace, community, and family.

So, Dan Pink correctly points out, that the effects predicted by phycological-motivational theory are not born out in experiments. But as I said in my initial post, ginning up a different set of motivators is not the solution when dealing with failed theory.

So, do you guys think financial incentives are good for thinking problems? Do you disagree that Autonomy, Purpose, and Mastery are not the right set of motivators for these types of problems? If you do not agree, I am interested to hear your counter argument.

I get it that you don’t like Pink’s rhetorical style based on the insights you shared in your critique of his rhetoric. I look forward to your equally insightful, but more relevant point of view on motivation.

Thanks,

Gerald

Well said! You have understood my meaning precisely. As you note, the rhetorical rule-of-threes device can be delightfully euphonious but style and substance are best when combined into a meaningful whole.

You might enjoy my post “Liars, Blowhards, Con Artists, and Management Consultants”

Marc

Thank you for calling attention to the video and for your helpful commentary as to what is nauseous about it.

I agree that Pink has something wrong. Indeed, he seems to demonstrate before our eyes how good ideas get usurped by the wrong headed. He presents intrinsic motivation as if it is a new and better way of manipulating people – what extrinsic motivation attempts to do.

He fails to make the case for intrinsic motivation as being a search for meaning. Almost any task can become meaningful – even, as Frankle suggests, the most awful tasks imaginable.

The autonomy, mastery and purpose trilogy is one of those all too common number tricks that often crop up in American ‘how-to’ pitches. (six secrets for XX etc). They don’t actually relate as a list of means to an end. A sense of purpose as a social construct is meaningful and deeply motivating. Serving it might result in mastery, whereas autonomy is perhaps a state of inner freedom that enables people to serve in the first place. Pink debases our use of language and makes it all the harder to communicate these valuable ideas.

Regards

John