Drive

DriveDrive

DriveINTRODUCTION

I n the middle of the last century, two young scientists conductedexperimentsthatshouldhavechangedtheworldbutdidnot.

Harry F. Harlow was a professor of psychology at the University ofWisconsinwho,inthe1940s,establishedoneoftheworld'sfirstlaboratoriesforstudying primate behavior. One day in 1949, Harlow and two colleaguesgathered eight rhesus monkeys for a two-week experiment on learning. Theresearchersdevisedasimplemechanicalpuzzleliketheonepicturedonthenextpage.Solvingitrequiredthreesteps:pullouttheverticalpin,undothehook,andlift the hinged cover. Pretty easy for you andme, farmore challenging for athirteen-poundlabmonkey.

Harlow'spuzzleinthestarting(left)andsolved(right)positions.Theexperimentersplacedthepuzzlesinthemonkeys'cagestoobservehow

they reacted and toprepare them for tests of their problem-solvingprowess attheendofthetwoweeks.Butalmostimmediately,somethingstrangehappened.Unbidden by any outside urging and unprompted by the experimenters, themonkeys began playingwith the puzzles with focus, determination, andwhatlooked like enjoyment. And in short order, they began figuring out how thecontraptionsworked.BythetimeHarlowtestedthemonkeysondays13and14oftheexperiment,theprimateshadbecomequiteadept.Theysolvedthepuzzlesfrequentlyandquickly;two-thirdsofthetimetheycrackedthecodeinlessthansixtyseconds.

Now,thiswasabitodd.Nobodyhadtaughtthemonkeyshowtoremovethepin,slidethehook,andopenthecover.Nobodyhadrewardedthemwithfood,affection,orevenquietapplausewhentheysucceeded.Andthatrancountertothe accepted notions of how primates including the bigger-brained, less hairyprimatesknownashumanbeingsbehaved.

Scientists thenknew that twomaindrivespoweredbehavior.The firstwasthebiologicaldrive.Humansandotheranimalsatetosatetheirhunger,dranktoquench their thirst, and copulated to satisfy their carnal urges.But thatwasn'thappeninghere.Solutiondidnotleadtofood,water,orsexgratification,Harlowreported.

Buttheonlyotherknowndrivealsofailedtoexplainthemonkeys'peculiar

behavior. If biological motivations came fromwithin, this second drive camefrom without the rewards and punishments the environment delivered forbehaving in certainways. Thiswas certainly true for humans,who respondedexquisitelytosuchexternalforces.Ifyoupromisedtoraiseourpay,we'dworkharder.IfyouheldouttheprospectofgettinganAonthetest,we'dstudylonger.Ifyouthreatenedtodockusforshowinguplateorforincorrectlycompletingaform, we'd arrive on time and tick every box. But that didn't account for themonkeys' actions either. As Harlow wrote, and you can almost hear himscratching his head, The behavior obtained in this investigation poses someinteresting questions for motivation theory, since significant learning wasattained and efficient performance maintained without resort to special orextrinsicincentives.

Whatelsecoulditbe?Toanswerthequestion,Harlowofferedanoveltheorywhatamountedtoa

thirddrive:Theperformanceofthetask,hesaid,providedintrinsicreward.Themonkeys solved the puzzles simply because they found it gratifying to solvepuzzles.Theyenjoyedit.Thejoyofthetaskwasitsownreward.

Ifthisnotionwasradical,whathappenednextonlydeepenedtheconfusionandcontroversy.PerhapsthisnewlydiscovereddriveHarloweventuallycalleditintrinsic motivation was real. But surely it was subordinate to the other twodrives. If the monkeys were rewarded with raisins! for solving the puzzles,they'dnodoubtperformevenbetter.YetwhenHarlowtestedthatapproach,themonkeys actually made more errors and solved the puzzles less frequently.Introductionoffoodinthepresentexperiment,Harlowwrote,servedtodisruptperformance,aphenomenonnotreportedintheliterature.

Now,thiswasreallyodd.Inscientificterms,itwasakintorollingasteelballdownaninclinedplanetomeasureitsvelocityonlytowatchtheballfloatintotheairinstead.Itsuggestedthatourunderstandingofthegravitationalpullsonourbehaviorwasinadequatethatwhatwethoughtwerefixedlawshadplentyofloopholes. Harlow emphasized the strength and persistence of the monkeys'drivetocompletethepuzzles.Thenhenoted:

Itwouldappearthatthisdrive...maybeasbasicandstrongasthe[other]drives.Furthermore,thereissomereasontobelievethat[it]canbeasefficientinfacilitatinglearning.

Atthetime,however,theprevailingtwodrivesheldatightgriponscientificthinking.SoHarlowsoundedthealarm.Heurgedscientiststoclosedownlargesectionsofourtheoreticaljunkyardandofferfresher,moreaccurateaccountsofhumanbehavior.Hewarnedthatourexplanationofwhywedidwhatwedidwasincomplete.Hesaidthattotrulyunderstandthehumancondition,wehadtotake

accountofthisthirddrive.Thenheprettymuchdroppedthewholeidea.Rather than battle the establishment and begin offering a more complete

viewofmotivation,Harlowabandonedthiscontentiouslineofresearchandlaterbecamefamous for studieson thescienceofaffection.Hisnotionof this thirddrive bounced around the psychological literature, but it remained on theperipheryofbehavioralscienceandofourunderstandingofourselves.ItwouldbetwodecadesbeforeanotherscientistpickedupthethreadthatHarlowhadsoprovocativelyleftonthatWisconsinlaboratorytable.

In the summer of 1969, Edward Deci was a Carnegie Mellon Universitypsychology graduate student in search of a dissertation topic. Deci, who hadalready earned an MBA from Wharton, was intrigued by motivation butsuspected that scholars andbusinesspeoplehadmisunderstood it.So, tearingapagefromtheHarlowplaybook,hesetouttostudythetopicwiththehelpofapuzzle.

Deci chose theSomapuzzle cube, a thenpopularParkerBrothers offeringthat,thankstoYouTube,retainssomethingofacultfollowingtoday.Thepuzzle,shown below, consists of seven plastic pieces six comprising four one-inchcubes, one comprising three one-inch cubes. Players can assemble the sevenpieces into a few million possible combinations from abstract shapes torecognizableobjects.

ThesevenpiecesoftheSomapuzzleunassembled(left)andthenfashionedintooneofseveralmillionpossibleconfigurations.

Forthestudy,Decidividedparticipants,maleandfemaleuniversitystudents,intoanexperimentalgroup(whatI'llcallGroupA)andacontrolgroup(whatI'llcallGroupB).Eachparticipatedinthreeone-hoursessionsheldonconsecutivedays.

Here'showthesessionsworked:Eachparticipantenteredaroomandsatatatable on top of which were the seven Soma puzzle pieces, drawings of threepuzzle configurations, and copies of Time , TheNewYorker , and Playboy .(Hey, it was 1969.) Deci sat on the opposite end of the table to explain theinstructionsandtotimeperformancewithastopwatch.

Inthefirstsession,membersofbothgroupshadtoassembletheSomapiecesto replicate theconfigurationsbefore them. In thesecondsession, theydid thesamethingwithdifferentdrawingsonlythistimeDecitoldGroupAthatthey'dbe paid $1 (the equivalent of nearly $6 today) for every configuration theysuccessfully reproduced. Group B, meanwhile, got new drawings but no pay.Finally, in the third session, both groups received new drawings and had toreproduce them for no compensation, just as in session one. (See the table

below.)HOWTHETWOGROUPSWERETREATEDThe twist came midway through each session. After a participant had

assembled the Soma puzzle pieces to match two of the three drawings, Decihaltedtheproceedings.Hesaidthathewasgoingtogivethemafourthdrawingbut to choose the right one, he needed to feed their completion times into acomputer.Andthisbeingthelate1960s,whenroom-straddlingmainframeswerethenormanddesktopPCswerestilladecadeawaythatmeanthehadtoleaveforalittlewhile.

On thewayout, he said, I shall be goneonly a fewminutes, youmaydowhateveryoulikewhileI'mgone.ButDeciwasn'treallypluggingnumbersintoan ancient teletype. Instead, hewalked to an adjoining room connected to theexperiment room by a one-way window. Then, for exactly eight minutes, hewatchedwhat people didwhen left alone.Did they continue fiddlingwith thepuzzle, perhaps attempting to reproduce the third drawing? Or did they dosomethingelsepagethroughthemagazines,checkoutthecenterfold,stareintospace,catchaquicknap?

In the first session, not surprisingly, therewasn'tmuch difference betweenwhat the GroupA andGroup B participants did during that secretly watchedeight-minute free-choice period. Both continued playing with the puzzle, onaverage,forbetweenthreeandahalfandfourminutes,suggestingtheyfounditatleastsomewhatinteresting.

On the secondday, duringwhichGroupAparticipantswere paid for eachsuccessful configuration andGroupB participantswere not, the unpaid groupbehaved mostly as they had during the first free-choice period. But the paidgroupsuddenlygotreallyinterestedinSomapuzzles.Onaverage,thepeopleinGroupAspentmorethanfiveminutesmessingwiththepuzzle,perhapsgettingahead start on that third challengeor gearingup for the chance to earn somebeermoneywhenDecireturned.Thismakesintuitivesense,right?It'sconsistentwithwhatwebelieveaboutmotivation:RewardmeandI'llworkharder.

YetwhathappenedonthethirddayconfirmedDeci'sownsuspicionsaboutthe peculiarworkings ofmotivation and gently called into question a guidingpremise ofmodern life. This time,Deci told the participants inGroupA thattherewasonlyenoughmoneytopaythemforonedayandthatthisthirdsessionwould therefore be unpaid. Then things unfolded just as before two puzzles,followedbyDeci'sinterruption.

During the ensuing eight-minute free-choice period, the subjects in thenever-been-paidGroupBactuallyplayedwiththepuzzleforalittlelongerthantheyhadinprevioussessions.Maybe theywerebecomingevermoreengaged;

maybeitwasjustastatisticalquirk.ButthesubjectsinGroupA,whopreviouslyhad been paid, responded differently. They now spent significantly less timeplayingwith thepuzzlenotonlyabout twominutes less thanduring theirpaidsession,butaboutafullminutelessthaninthefirstsessionwhentheyinitiallyencountered,andobviouslyenjoyed,thepuzzles.

InanechoofwhatHarlowdiscoveredtwodecadesearlier,Decirevealedthathuman motivation seemed to operate by laws that ran counter to what mostscientists and citizens believed.From the office to the playing field,we knewwhat got people going.Rewards especially cold, hard cash intensified interestand enhanced performance. What Deci found, and then confirmed in twoadditional studies he conducted shortly thereafter, was almost the opposite.Whenmoney isusedasanexternal reward forsomeactivity, thesubjects loseintrinsic interest for the activity, he wrote. Rewards can deliver a short-termboostjustasajoltofcaffeinecankeepyoucrankingforafewmorehours.Buttheeffectwearsoffand,worse,canreduceaperson'slonger-termmotivationtocontinuetheproject.

Humanbeings,Decisaid,haveaninherenttendencytoseekoutnoveltyandchallenges,toextendandexercisetheircapacities,toexplore,andtolearn.Butthis third drive was more fragile than the other two; it needed the rightenvironment to survive. One who is interested in developing and enhancingintrinsicmotivationinchildren,employees,students,etc.,shouldnotconcentrateonexternal-controlsystemssuchasmonetaryrewards,hewroteinafollow-uppaper.ThusbeganwhatforDecibecamealifelongquesttorethinkwhywedowhatwedoapursuitthatsometimesputhimatoddswithfellowpsychologists,gothimfiredfromabusinessschool,andchallengedtheoperatingassumptionsoforganizationseverywhere.

Itwascontroversial,Deci toldmeonespringmorning fortyyearsafter theSomaexperiments.Nobodywasexpectingrewardswouldhaveanegativeeffect.

THIS IS A BOOK about motivation. I will show that much of what webelieveaboutthesubjectjustisn'tsoandthattheinsightsthatHarlowandDecibeganuncoveringafewdecadesagocomemuchclosertothetruth.Theproblemis that most businesses haven't caught up to this new understanding of whatmotivatesus.Toomanyorganizationsnotjustcompanies,butgovernmentsandnonprofits as well still operate from assumptions about human potential andindividual performance that are outdated, unexamined, and rooted more infolklore than in science. They continue to pursue practices such as short-termincentive plans and pay-for-performance schemes in the face of mountingevidencethatsuchmeasuresusuallydon'tworkandoftendoharm.Worse,thesepracticeshave infiltratedour schools,whereweplyour futureworkforcewith

iPods,cash,andpizzacouponstoincentivizethemtolearn.Somethinghasgonewrong.

Thegoodnewsisthatthesolutionstandsbeforeusintheworkofabandofbehavioralscientistswhohavecarriedon thepioneeringeffortsofHarlowandDeciandwhosequietworkoverthelasthalf-centuryoffersusamoredynamicviewofhumanmotivation.Fortoolong,there'sbeenamismatchbetweenwhatscienceknows andwhat business does.Thegoal of this book is to repair thatbreach.

Drive has three parts. Part One will look at the flaws in our reward-and-punishmentsystemandproposeanewwaytothinkaboutmotivation.Chapter1will examinehow theprevailingviewofmotivation isbecoming incompatiblewithmanyaspectsofcontemporarybusinessandlife.Chapter2willrevealtheseven reasons why carrot-and-stick extrinsic motivators often produce theoppositeofwhat theysetout toachieve. (Following that isa shortaddendum,Chapter 2a, that shows the special circumstances when carrots and sticksactuallycanbeeffective.)Chapter3willintroducewhatIcallTypeIbehavior,away of thinking and an approach to business grounded in the real science ofhumanmotivationandpoweredbyourthirddriveourinnateneedtodirectourownlives,tolearnandcreatenewthings,andtodobetterbyourselvesandourworld.

PartTwowillexaminethethreeelementsofTypeIbehaviorandshowhowindividuals and organizations are using them to improve performance anddeepen satisfaction. Chapter 4 will explore autonomy, our desire to be self-directed.Chapter5willlookatmastery,oururgetogetbetterandbetteratwhatwe do. Chapter 6 will explore purpose, our yearning to be part of somethinglargerthanourselves.

PartThree, theType IToolkit, is a comprehensive setof resources tohelpyou create settings in which Type I behavior can flourish. Here you'll findeverything from dozens of exercises to awaken motivation in yourself andothers, todiscussionquestionsforyourbookclub, toasupershortsummaryofDrivethatwillhelpyoufakeyourwaythroughacocktailparty.Andwhilethisbookismostlyaboutbusiness,inthissectionI'lloffersomethoughtsabouthowtoapplytheseconceptstoeducationandtoourlivesoutsideofwork.

Butbeforewegetdowntoallthat,let'sbeginwithathoughtexperiment,onethatrequiresgoingbackintimetothedayswhenJohnMajorwasBritain'sprimeminister,BarackObamawasaskinnyyounglawprofessor,Internetconnectionsweredial-up,andablackberrywasstilljustafruit.

Drive

PartOne

ANewOperatingSystem

Drive

CHAPTER1

TheRiseandFallofMotivation2.0I magine it's 1995. You sit down with an economist an accomplished

businessschoolprofessorwithaPh.D.ineconomics.Yousaytoher:I'vegotacrystalballhere thatcanpeer fifteenyears into the future. I'd like to testyourforecastingpowers.

She'sskeptical,butshedecidestohumoryou.I'm going to describe two new encyclopedias one just out, the other to be

launchedinafewyears.Youhave topredictwhichwillbemoresuccessful in2010.

Bringit,shesays.The first encyclopedia comes fromMicrosoft. As you know,Microsoft is

already a large and profitable company. And with this year's introduction ofWindows95,it'sabouttobecomeanera-definingcolossus.Microsoftwillfundthisencyclopedia.Itwillpayprofessionalwritersandeditorstocraftarticlesonthousands of topics. Well-compensated managers will oversee the project toensure it's completed on budget and on time. Then Microsoft will sell theencyclopediaonCD-ROMsandlateronline.

Thesecondencyclopediawon'tcomefromacompany.Itwillbecreatedbytensofthousandsofpeoplewhowriteandeditarticlesforfun.Thesehobbyistswon'tneedanyspecialqualificationstoparticipate.Andnobodywillbepaidadollar or a euro or a yen to write or edit articles. Participants will have tocontributetheirlaborsometimestwentyandthirtyhoursperweekforfree.Theencyclopedia itself, which will exist online, will also be free no charge foranyonewhowantstouseit.

Now,yousaytotheeconomist,thinkforwardfifteenyears.Accordingtomycrystal ball, in 2010, one of these encyclopedias will be the largest andmostpopularintheworldandtheotherwillbedefunct.Whichiswhich?

In1995,IdoubtyoucouldhaveafoundasinglesobereconomistanywhereonplanetEarthwhowouldnothavepickedthatfirstmodelasthesuccess.Anyother conclusionwouldhavebeen laughable contrary tonearly everybusinessprincipleshetaughtherstudents.Itwouldhavebeenlikeaskingazoologistwhowouldwina200-meterfootracebetweenacheetahandyourbrother-in-law.Notevenclose.

Sure,thatragtagbandofvolunteersmightproducesomething.Buttherewas

nowayitsproductcouldcompetewithanofferingfromapowerfulprofit-drivencompany. The incentives were all wrong. Microsoft stood to gain from thesuccess of its product; everyone involved in the other project knew from theoutset that success would earn them nothing. Most important, Microsoft'swriters,editors,andmanagerswerepaid.Theotherproject'scontributorswerenot. In fact, it probably cost themmoney each time theyperformed freeworkinstead of remunerative labor. The question was such a no-brainer that oureconomistwouldn't even have considered putting it on an exam for herMBAclass.Itwastooeasy.

Butyouknowhowthingsturnedout.OnOctober31,2009,Microsoftpulled theplugonMSNEncarta , itsdisc

and online encyclopedia, which had been on the market for sixteen years.Meanwhile,Wikipedia that secondmodel ended up becoming the largest andmost popular encyclopedia in the world. Just eight years after its inception,Wikipediahadmorethan13millionarticlesinsome260languages,including3millioninEnglishalone.

What happened? The conventional view of human motivation has a veryhardtimeexplainingthisresult.

THETRIUMPHOFCARROTSANDSTICKSComputerswhetherthegiantmainframesinDeci'sexperiments,theiMacon

whichI'mwritingthissentence,orthemobilephonechirpinginyourpocketallhaveoperatingsystems.Beneaththesurfaceofthehardwareyoutouchandtheprograms you manipulate is a complex layer of software that contains theinstructions, protocols, and suppositions that enable everything to functionsmoothly.Mostofusdon'tthinkmuchaboutoperatingsystems.Wenoticethemonlywhentheystartfailingwhenthehardwareandsoftwarethey'resupposedtomanage grow too large and complicated for the current operating system tohandle. Then our computer starts crashing.We complain.And smart softwaredevelopers,who'vealwaysbeentinkeringwithpiecesoftheprogram,sitdowntowriteafundamentallybetteroneanupgrade.

Societies also have operating systems. The laws, social customs, andeconomic arrangements that we encounter each day sit atop a layer ofinstructions,protocols,andsuppositionsabouthowtheworldworks.Andmuchofour societal operating systemconsists of a set of assumptions abouthumanbehavior.

InourveryearlydaysImeanveryearlydays,say,fiftythousandyearsagotheunderlyingassumptionabouthumanbehaviorwassimpleandtrue.Weweretrying tosurvive.Fromroaming thesavannah togather food toscramblingforthebusheswhenasaber-toothedtigerapproached,thatdriveguidedmostofour

behavior. Call this early operating systemMotivation 1.0. It wasn't especiallyelegant,norwasitmuchdifferentfromthoseofrhesusmonkeys,giantapes,ormanyotheranimals.Butitservedusnicely.Itworkedwell.Untilitdidn't.

As humans formedmore complex societies, bumping up against strangersandneedingtocooperateinordertogetthingsdone,anoperatingsystembasedpurely on the biological drive was inadequate. In fact, sometimes we neededwaystorestrainthisdrivetopreventmefromswipingyourdinnerandyoufromstealing my spouse. And so in a feat of remarkable cultural engineering, weslowly replacedwhatwe hadwith a versionmore compatiblewith howwe'dbegunworkingandliving.

At the core of this new and improved operating systemwas a revised andmore accurate assumption: Humans are more than the sum of our biologicalurges.Thatfirstdrivestillmatterednodoubtaboutthatbutitdidn'tfullyaccountfor who we are. We also had a second drive to seek reward and avoidpunishment more broadly. And it was from this insight that a new operatingsystem call itMotivation 2.0 arose. (Of course, other animals also respond torewards and punishments, but only humans have proved able to channel thisdrivetodevelopeverythingfromcontractlawtoconveniencestores.)

Harnessingthisseconddrivehasbeenessentialtoeconomicprogressaroundthe world, especially during the last two centuries. Consider the IndustrialRevolution. Technological developments steam engines, railroads, widespreadelectricityplayeda crucial role in fostering thegrowthof industry.But sodidlesstangibleinnovationsinparticular,theworkofanAmericanengineernamedFrederickWinslowTaylor. In theearly1900s,Taylor,whobelievedbusinesseswere being run in an inefficient, haphazard way, invented what he calledscientificmanagement.HisinventionwasaformofsoftwareexpertlycraftedtorunatoptheMotivation2.0platform.Anditwaswidelyandquicklyadopted.

Workers, this approach held, were like parts in a complicatedmachine. Ifthey did the rightwork in the rightway at the right time, themachinewouldfunction smoothly. And to ensure that happened, you simply rewarded thebehavioryousoughtandpunishedthebehavioryoudiscouraged.Peoplewouldrespond rationally to these external forces these extrinsicmotivators and boththeyandthesystemitselfwouldflourish.Wetendtothinkthatcoalandoilhavepoweredeconomicdevelopment.Butinsomesense,theengineofcommercehasbeenfueledequallybycarrotsandsticks.

The Motivation 2.0 operating system has endured for a very long time.Indeed,itissodeeplyembeddedinourlivesthatmostofusscarcelyrecognizethat it exists. For as long as any of us can remember, we've configured ourorganizationsandconstructedourlivesarounditsbedrockassumption:Theway

to improve performance, increase productivity, and encourage excellence is torewardthegoodandpunishthebad.

Despiteitsgreatersophisticationandhigheraspirations,Motivation2.0stillwasn'texactlyennobling.Itsuggestedthat,intheend,humanbeingsaren'tmuchdifferentfromhorsesthat thewaytogetusmovingintherightdirectionisbydanglingacrunchiercarrotorwieldingasharperstick.Butwhatthisoperatingsystemlackedinenlightenment,itmadeupforineffectiveness.Itworkedwellextremelywell.Untilitdidn't.

Asthetwentiethcenturyprogressed,aseconomiesgrewstillmorecomplex,and as the people in them had to deploy new, more sophisticated skills, theMotivation 2.0 approach encountered some resistance. In the 1950s,AbrahamMaslow, a former student of Harry Harlow's at the University of Wisconsin,developed the field of humanistic psychology, which questioned the idea thathumanbehaviorwaspurelytheratlikeseekingofpositivestimuliandavoidanceof negative stimuli. In 1960, MIT management professor Douglas McGregorimportedsomeofMaslow's ideas to thebusinessworld.McGregorchallengedthe presumption that humans are fundamentally inert that absent externalrewards and punishments, we wouldn't do much. People have other, higherdrives, he said. And these drives could benefit businesses if managers andbusiness leaders respected them. Thanks in part to McGregor's writing,companiesevolvedabit.Dresscodesrelaxed,schedulesbecamemoreflexible.Manyorganizationslookedforwaystograntemployeesgreaterautonomyandtohelp them grow. These refinements repaired some weaknesses, but theyamountedtoamodestimprovementratherthanathoroughupgradeMotivation2.1.

Andsothisgeneralapproachremainedintactbecauseitwas,afterall,easytounderstand,simpletomonitor,andstraightforwardtoenforce.Butinthefirstten years of this century a period of truly staggering underachievement inbusiness, technology,andsocialprogresswe'vediscovered that thissturdy,oldoperatingsystemdoesn'tworknearlyaswell.Itcrashesoftenandunpredictably.It forces people to devise workarounds to bypass its flaws.Most of all, it isproving incompatiblewithmany aspects of contemporarybusiness.And ifweexamine those incompatibility problems closely, we'll realize that modestupdatesapatchhereortherewillnotsolvetheproblem.Whatweneedisafull-scaleupgrade.

THREEINCOMPATIBILITYPROBLEMSMotivation2.0 still serves somepurposeswell. It's just deeplyunreliable.

Sometimes itworks;many times it doesn't.Andunderstanding itsdefectswillhelp determine which parts to keep and which to discard as we fashion an

upgrade. The glitches fall into three broad categories. Our current operatingsystemhasbecomefarlesscompatiblewith,andattimesdownrightantagonisticto:howweorganizewhatwedo;howwethinkaboutwhatwedo;andhowwedowhatwedo.

HowWeOrganizeWhatWeDoGobacktothatencyclopedicshowdownbetweenMicrosoftandWikipedia.

The assumptions at the heart of Motivation 2.0 suggest that such a resultshouldn't even be possible. Wikipedia's triumph seems to defy the laws ofbehavioralphysics.

Now,ifthisall-volunteer,all-amateurencyclopediaweretheonlyinstanceofitskind,wemightdismissitasanaberration,anexceptionthatprovestherule.Butit'snot.Instead,Wikipediarepresentsthemostpowerfulnewbusinessmodelofthetwenty-firstcentury:opensource.

Fireupyourhomecomputer,forexample.WhenyouvisittheWebtochecktheweatherforecastorordersomesneakers,youmightbeusingFirefox,afreeopen-sourceWebbrowser createdalmost exclusivelybyvolunteers around theworld. Unpaid laborers who give away their product? That couldn't besustainable.The incentives are allwrong.YetFirefox nowhasmore than 150millionusers.

Orwalk into the ITdepartmentofa largecompanyanywhere in theworldandaskforatour.Thatcompany'scorporatecomputerserverscouldwellrunonLinux, software devised by an army of unpaid programmers and available forfree.Linuxnowpowersoneinfourcorporateservers.Thenaskanemployeetoexplain how the company's website works. Humming beneath the site isprobablyApache,freeopen-sourceWebserversoftwarecreatedandmaintainedbyafar-flungglobalgroupofvolunteers.Apache'sshareofthecorporateWebserver market: 52 percent. In other words, companies that typically rely onexternal rewards tomanage their employees run someof theirmost importantsystemswith products created by nonemployeeswho don't seem to need suchrewards.

Andit'snotjustthetensofthousandsofsoftwareprojectsacrosstheglobe.Today you can find: open-source cookbooks; open-source textbooks; open-sourcecardesign;open-sourcemedicalresearch;open-sourcelegalbriefs;open-source stock photography; open-source prosthetics; open-source credit unions;open-sourcecola;andforthoseforwhomsoftdrinkswon'tsuffice,open-sourcebeer.

This newway of organizingwhatwe do doesn't banish extrinsic rewards.Peopleintheopen-sourcemovementhaven'ttakenvowsofpoverty.Formany,participation in these projects can burnish their reputations and sharpen their

skills,whichcanenhancetheirearningpower.Entrepreneurshavelaunchednew,and sometimes lucrative, companies to help organizations implement andmaintainopen-sourcesoftwareapplications.

But ultimately, open source depends on intrinsicmotivationwith the sameferocity that older business models rely on extrinsic motivation, as severalscholars have shown.MITmanagement professor Karim Lakhani and BostonConsultingGroup consultant BobWolf surveyed 684 open-source developers,mostly in North America and Europe, about why they participated in theseprojects.Lakhani andWolfuncovered a rangeofmotives, but they found thatenjoyment-basedintrinsicmotivation,namelyhowcreativeapersonfeelswhenworking on the project, is the strongest and most pervasive driver. A largemajority of programmers, the researchers discovered, reported that theyfrequently reached the state of optimal challenge called flow. Likewise, threeGerman economistswho studied open-source projects around theworld foundthat what drives participants is a set of predominantly intrinsic motives inparticular, the fun . . .ofmastering thechallengeofagivensoftwareproblemandthedesiretogiveagift totheprogrammercommunity.Motivation2.0haslittleroomforthesesortsofimpulses.

What'smore,opensourceisonlyonewaypeoplearerestructuringwhattheydoalongneworganizational linesandatopdifferentmotivationalground.Let'smove from software code to the legal code. The laws in most developedcountries permit essentially two types of business organizations profit andnonprofit. One makes money, the other does good. And the most prominentmember of that first category is the publicly held corporation owned byshareholdersandrunbymanagerswhoareoverseenbyaboardofdirectors.Themanagers and directors bear one overriding responsibility: to maximizeshareholdergain.Other typesofbusinessorganizationssteerbythesamerulesof the road. In theUnited States, for instance, partnerships, S corporations,Ccorporations,limitedliabilitycorporations,andotherbusinessconfigurationsallaim toward a common end. The objective of those who run them practically,legally,insomewaysmorallyistomaximizeprofit.

Letmegivearousing,heartfelt,andgratefulcheerforthesebusinessformsand the farsighted countries that enable their citizens to create them.Withoutthem,ourliveswouldbeinfinitelylessprosperous,lesshealthy,andlesshappy.But in the last fewyears,severalpeoplearoundtheworldhavebeenchangingtherecipeandcookingupnewvarietiesofbusinessorganizations.

Forexample, inApril2008,VermontbecamethefirstU.S.state toallowanewtypeofbusinesscalledthelow-profitlimitedliabilitycorporation.DubbedanL3C, thisentity isacorporationbutnotaswe typically thinkof it.Asone

reportexplained,anL3Coperate[s]likeafor-profitbusinessgeneratingatleastmodestprofits,butitsprimaryaim[is]tooffersignificantsocialbenefits.ThreeotherU.S.stateshavefollowedVermont's lead.AnL3CinNorthCarolina,forinstance,isbuyingabandonedfurniturefactoriesinthestate,updatingthemwithgreentechnology,andleasingthembacktobeleagueredfurnituremanufacturersatalowrate.Theventurehopestomakemoney,butitsrealpurposeistohelprevitalizeastrugglingregion.

Meanwhile,NobelPeacePrizewinnerMuhammadYunushasbeguncreatingwhathecallssocialbusinesses.Thesearecompaniesthatraisecapital,developproducts, and sell them in anopenmarket but do so in the serviceof a largersocialmissionorasheputs it,with theprofit-maximizationprinciple replacedbythesocial-benefitprinciple.TheFourthSectorNetworkintheUnitedStatesand Denmark is promoting the for-benefit organization a hybrid that it saysrepresents a new category of organization that is both economically self-sustainingandanimatedbyapublicpurpose.Oneexample:Mozilla, theentitythatgaveusFirefox, isorganizedasafor-benefitorganization.AndthreeU.S.entrepreneurs have invented the B Corporation, a designation that requirescompanies to amend their bylaws so that the incentives favor long-termvalueandsocialimpactinsteadofshort-termeconomicgain.

Neither open-source production nor previously unimagined not only forprofitbusinessesareyetthenorm,ofcourse.Andtheywon'tconsignthepubliccorporationtothetrashheap.Buttheiremergencetellsussomethingimportantabout where we're heading. There's a big movement out there that is not yetrecognizedasamovement,alawyerwhospecializesinfor-benefitorganizationstoldTheNewYorkTimes.One reasoncouldbe that traditionalbusinessesareprofit maximizers, which square perfectly with Motivation 2.0. These newentities are purpose maximizers which are unsuited to this older operatingsystembecausetheyfloutitsveryprinciples.

HowWeThinkAboutWhatWeDoWhen I took my first economics course back in the early 1980s, our

professor a brilliant lecturer with a Patton-like stage presence offered animportant clarification before she'd chalked her first indifference curve on theblackboard. Economics, she explained, wasn't the study of money. It was thestudyofbehavior.Inthecourseofaday,eachofuswasconstantlyfiguringthecost and benefits of our actions and then deciding how to act. Economistsstudiedwhatpeopledid,ratherthanwhatwesaid,becausewedidwhatwasbestforus.Wewererationalcalculatorsofoureconomicself-interest.

WhenIstudiedlawafewyearslater,asimilarideareappeared.Thenewlyascendantfieldoflawandeconomicsheldthatpreciselybecauseweweresuch

awesome self-interest calculators, laws and regulations often impeded, ratherthan permitted, sensible and just outcomes. I survived law school in no smallpart because I discovered the talismanic phrase and offered it on exams: In aworldofperfectinformationandlowtransactioncosts,thepartieswillbargaintoawealth-maximizingresult.

Then, about a decade later, came a curious turn of events that made mequestionmuchofwhatI'dworkedhard,andtakenonenormousdebt,tolearn.In2002,theNobelFoundationawardeditsprizeineconomicstoaguywhowasn'teven an economist. And they gave him the field's highest honor largely forrevealing that we weren't always rational calculators of our economic self-interest and that thepartiesoftendidn'tbargain toawealth-maximizing result.Daniel Kahneman, an American psychologist who won the Nobel Prize ineconomicsthatyearforworkhe'ddonewithIsraeliAmosTversky,helpedforceachangeinhowwethinkaboutwhatwedo.Andoneoftheimplicationsofthisnewway of thinking is that it calls into questionmany of the assumptions ofMotivation2.0.

Kahnemanandothers in the fieldofbehavioraleconomicsagreedwithmyprofessorthateconomicswasthestudyofhumaneconomicbehavior.Theyjustbelievedthatwe'dplacedtoomuchemphasison theeconomicandnotenoughonthehuman.Thathyperrationalcalculator-brainedpersonwasn'treal.Hewasaconvenientfiction.

Playagamewithmeand I'll try to illustrate thepoint.Supposesomebodygivesmetendollarsandtellsmetoshareitsome,all,ornonewithyou.Ifyouacceptmyoffer,webothgettokeepthemoney.Ifyourejectit,neitherofusgetsanything.IfIofferedyousixdollars(keepingfourformyself),wouldyoutakeit?Almostcertainly.IfIofferedyoufive,you'dprobablytakethat,too.Butwhatif I offered you two dollars?Would you take it? In an experiment replicatedaround theworld,most people rejected offers of two dollars and below. Thatmakesno sense in termsofwealthmaximization. Ifyou takemyofferof twodollars,you'retwodollarsricher.Ifyourejectit,yougetnothing.Yourcognitivecalculator knows two is greater than zero but because you're a human being,your notions of fair play or your desire for revenge or your simple irritationoverridesit.

In real lifeourbehavior is farmorecomplex than the textbookallowsandoften confounds the idea thatwe're purely rational.We don't save enough forretirementeventhoughit's toourcleareconomicadvantagetodoso.Wehangontobad investments longer thanweshould,becausewefeel farsharperpainfromlosingmoneythanwedofromgainingtheexactsameamount.Giveusachoiceof two television sets,we'llpickone; toss inan irrelevant thirdchoice,

and we'll pick the other. In short, we are irrational and predictably so, sayseconomist DanAriely, author of Predictably Irrational , a book that offers anentertainingandengagingoverviewofbehavioraleconomics.

ThetroubleforourpurposesisthatMotivation2.0assumeswe'rethesamerobotic wealth-maximizers I was taught we were a couple of decades ago.Indeed, the very premise of extrinsic incentives is that we'll always respondrationally to them. But even most economists don't believe that anymore.Sometimesthesemotivatorswork.Oftentheydon't.Andmanytimes,theyinflictcollateraldamage.Inshort,thenewwayeconomiststhinkaboutwhatwedoishardtoreconcilewithMotivation2.0.

What'smore,ifpeopledothingsforlunk-headed,backward-lookingreasons,why wouldn't we also do things for significance-seeking, self-actualizingreasons?Ifwe'repredictablyirrationalandweclearlyarewhycouldn'twealsobepredictablytranscendent?

If thatseemsfar-fetched,considersomeofourotherbizarrebehaviors.Weleave lucrative jobs to take low-paying ones that provide a clearer sense ofpurpose.Wework tomaster the clarinet onweekends althoughwe have littlehope ofmaking a dime (Motivation 2.0) or acquiring amate (Motivation 1.0)fromdoing so.Weplaywithpuzzles evenwhenwedon't get a few raisinsordollarsforsolvingthem.

Some scholars are alreadywidening the reach of behavioral economics toencompasstheseideas.ThemostprominentisBrunoFrey,aneconomistattheUniversity of Zurich. Like the behavioral economists, he has argued that weneed to move beyond the idea of Homo Oeconomicus (Economic Man, thatfictionalwealth-maximizingrobot).Buthisextensiongoesinaslightlydifferentdirection towhat he callsHomoOeconomicusMaturus (orMature EconomicMan). This figure, he says, ismoreÔmature' in the sense that he is endowedwithamore refinedmotivational structure. Inotherwords, to fullyunderstandhumaneconomicbehavior,wehavetocometotermswithanideaatoddswithMotivation2.0.AsFreywrites,Intrinsicmotivationisofgreatimportanceforalleconomicactivities.Itisinconceivablethatpeoplearemotivatedsolelyorevenmainlybyexternalincentives.

HowWeDoWhatWeDoIfyoumanageotherpeople,takeaquickglanceoveryourshoulder.There's

a ghost hovering there.His name is FrederickWinslowTaylor remember himfrom earlier in the chapter? and he's whispering in your ear.Work, Taylor ismurmuring, consists mainly of simple, not particularly interesting, tasks. Theonlywaytogetpeopletodothemis toincentivizethemproperlyandmonitorthem carefully. In the early 1900s, Taylor had a point. Today, inmuch of the

world, that's less true. Yes, for some people work remains routine,unchallenging, and directed by others. But for a surprisingly large number ofpeople, jobs have become more complex, more interesting, and more self-directed.AndthattypeofworkpresentsadirectchallengetotheassumptionsofMotivation2.0.

Beginwithcomplexity.Behavioralscientistsoftendividewhatwedoonthejob or learn in school into two categories: algorithmic and heuristic. Analgorithmic task is one in which you follow a set of established instructionsdown a single pathway to one conclusion. That is, there's an algorithm forsolvingit.Aheuristictaskistheopposite.Preciselybecausenoalgorithmexistsfor it, you have to experiment with possibilities and devise a novel solution.Workingasagrocerycheckoutclerkismostlyalgorithmic.Youdoprettymuchthesamethingoverandoverinacertainway.Creatinganadcampaignismostlyheuristic.Youhavetocomeupwithsomethingnew.

During the twentieth century,mostworkwasalgorithmic andnot just jobswhere you turned the same screw the sameway all day long. Evenwhenwetradedbluecollarsforwhite,thetaskswecarriedoutwereoftenroutine.Thatis,we could reduce much of what we did in accounting, law, computerprogramming,andotherfieldstoascript,aspecsheet,aformula,oraseriesofsteps that produced a right answer. But today, in much of North America,WesternEurope,Japan,SouthKorea,andAustralia,routinewhite-collarworkisdisappearing. It's racing offshore to wherever it can be done the cheapest. InIndia, Bulgaria, the Philippines, and other countries, lower-paid workersessentially run the algorithm, figure out the correct answer, and deliver itinstantaneouslyfromtheircomputertosomeonesixthousandmilesaway.

But offshoring is just one pressure on rule-based, left-brain work. Just asoxenandthenforkliftsreplacedsimplephysical labor,computersarereplacingsimpleintellectuallabor.Sowhileoutsourcingisjustbeginningtopickupspeed,software can already perform many rule-based, professional functions better,morequickly,andmorecheaply thanwecan.Thatmeans thatyourcousin theCPA, if he's doingmostly routinework, faces competition not just from five-hundred-dollar-a-month accountants in Manila, but from tax preparationprogramsanyonecandownloadforthirtydollars.TheconsultingfirmMcKinsey&Co. estimates that in theUnitedStates, only 30 percent of job growth nowcomes fromalgorithmicwork,while70percentcomes fromheuristicwork.Akey reason: Routinework can be outsourced or automated; artistic, empathic,nonroutineworkgenerallycannot.

The implications for motivation are vast. Researchers such as HarvardBusiness School's Teresa Amabile have found that external rewards and

punishmentsbothcarrotsandstickscanworknicelyforalgorithmic tasks.Butthey can be devastating for heuristic ones. Those sorts of challenges solvingnovel problems or creating something the world didn't know it was missingdependheavilyonHarlow'sthirddrive.Amabilecallsittheintrinsicmotivationprincipleofcreativity,whichholds,inpart:Intrinsicmotivationisconducivetocreativity; controlling extrinsicmotivation is detrimental to creativity. In otherwords,thecentraltenetsofMotivation2.0mayactuallyimpairperformanceoftheheuristic,right-brainworkonwhichmoderneconomiesdepend.

Partlybecauseworkhasbecomemorecreativeand less routine, ithasalsobecomemoreenjoyable.That,too,scramblesMotivation2.0'sassumptions.Thisoperatingsystemrestsonthebeliefthatworkisnotinherentlyenjoyablewhichispreciselywhywemustcoaxpeoplewithexternalrewardsandthreatenthemwith outside punishment. One unexpected finding of the psychologistMihalyCsikszentmihalyi,whomwe'll encounter inChapter5, is thatpeoplearemuchmorelikelytoreporthavingoptimalexperiencesonthejobthanduringleisure.Butifworkisinherentlyenjoyableformoreandmorepeople,thentheexternalinducements at the heart ofMotivation 2.0 become less necessary.Worse, asDecibegandiscoveringfortyyearsago,addingcertainkindsofextrinsicrewardsontopofinherentlyinterestingtaskscanoftendampenmotivationanddiminishperformance.

Once again, certain bedrock notions suddenly seem less sturdy. Take thecuriousexampleofVocationVacations.Thisisabusinessinwhichpeoplepaytheirhard-earnedmoney...toworkatanotherjob.Theyusetheirvacationtimeto test-drivebeingachef, runningabike shop,oroperatingananimal shelter.The emergence of this and similar ventures suggests that work, whicheconomistshavealwaysconsideredadisutility(somethingwe'davoidunlesswereceivedapaymentinreturn),isbecomingautility(somethingwe'dpursueevenintheabsenceofatangiblereturn).

Finally, because work is supposed to be dreary,Motivation 2.0 holds thatpeople need to be carefully monitored so they don't shirk. This idea, too, isbecominglessrelevantand,inmanyways,lesspossible.Consider,forinstance,that America alone now has more than 18 million of what the U.S. CensusBureau calls nonemployer businesses businesses without any paid employees.Since people in these businesses don't have any underlings, they don't haveanybody tomanage ormotivate.But since they don't have bosses themselves,there'snobodytomanageormotivatethem.Theyhavetobeself-directed.

Sodopeoplewhoaren't technicallyworking for themselves. In theUnitedStates, 33.7 million people telecommute at least one day a month, and 14.7milliondo soeverydayplacinga substantialportionof theworkforcebeyond

thegazeofamanager,forcingthemtodirecttheirownwork.Andevenifmanyorganizationshaven'toptedformeasureslikethese,they'regenerallybecomingleaner and less hierarchical. In an effort to reduce costs, they trim the fattymiddle. Thatmeansmanagers oversee larger numbers of people and thereforescrutinizeeachonelessclosely.

As organizations flatten, companies need people who are self-motivated.That forces many organizations to become more like, er, Wikipedia. Nobodymanages the Wikipedians. Nobody sits around trying to figure out how tomotivate them. That's why Wikipedia works. Routine, not-so-interesting jobsrequire direction; nonroutine,more interestingwork depends on self-direction.Onebusiness leader,whodidn'twant tobe identified, said itplainly.Whenheconducts job interviews, he tells prospective employees: If you need me tomotivateyou,Iprobablydon'twanttohireyou.

TO RECAP, Motivation 2.0 suffers from three compatibility problems. Itdoesn'tmeshwith thewaymanynewbusinessmodelsareorganizingwhatwedo because we're intrinsically motivated purpose maximizers, not onlyextrinsicallymotivatedprofitmaximizers. Itdoesn'tcomportwith theway thattwenty-first-centuryeconomicsthinksaboutwhatwedobecauseeconomistsarefinally realizing that we're full-fledged human beings, not single-mindedeconomicrobots.Andperhapsmostimportant,it'shardtoreconcilewithmuchofwhatweactuallydoatworkbecauseforgrowingnumbersofpeople,workisoften creative, interesting, and self-directed rather than unrelentingly routine,boring,andother-directed.Takentogether,thesecompatibilityproblemswarnusthatsomething'sgoneawryinourmotivationaloperatingsystem.

Butinordertofigureoutexactlywhat,andasanessentialstepinfashioninganewone,weneedtotakealookatthebugsthemselves.

Drive

CHAPTER2

SevenReasonsCarrotsandSticks(Often)Don'tWork...Anobject inmotionwill stay inmotion, andanobject at restwill stayat

rest,unlessactedonbyanoutsideforce.That'sNewton's first lawofmotion.LikeNewton's other laws, this one is

elegant and simple which is part of its power. Even people like me, whobumbledthoughhighschoolphysics,canunderstanditandcanuseittointerprettheworld.

Motivation2.0issimilar.Atitsheartaretwoelegantandsimpleideas:Rewardinganactivitywillgetyoumoreofit.Punishinganactivitywillget

youlessofit.And just as Newton's principles can help us explain our physical

environmentorchart thepathofa thrownball,Motivation2.0'sprinciplescanhelpuscomprehendoursocialsurroundingsandpredictthetrajectoryofhumanbehavior.

But Newtonian physics runs into problems at the subatomic level. Downthereinthelandofhadrons,quarks,andSchršdinger'scatthingsgetfreaky.Thecool rationality of Isaac Newton gives way to the bizarre unpredictability ofLewisCarroll.Motivation2.0 is similar in this regard, too.Whenrewardsandpunishments encounter our third drive, something akin to behavioral quantummechanicsseemstotakeoverandstrangethingsbegintohappen.

Of course, the starting point for any discussion of motivation in theworkplaceisasimplefactoflife:Peoplehavetoearnaliving.Salary,contractpayments, some benefits, a few perks are what I call baseline rewards. Ifsomeone'sbaselinerewardsaren'tadequateorequitable,herfocuswillbeontheunfairnessofhersituationandtheanxietyofhercircumstance.You'llgetneitherthe predictability of extrinsic motivation nor the weirdness of intrinsicmotivation.You'llgetverylittlemotivationatall.

Butoncewe'repast that threshold,carrotsandstickscanachievepreciselytheoppositeoftheirintendedaims.Mechanismsdesignedtoincreasemotivationcandampen it.Tactics aimedat boosting creativity can reduce it.Programs topromotegooddeedscanmakethemdisappear.Meanwhile,insteadofrestrainingnegativebehavior,rewardsandpunishmentscanoftensetitlooseandgiverisetocheating,addiction,anddangerouslymyopicthinking.

This isweird.And it doesn't hold in all circumstances (aboutwhichmore

afterthischapter).ButasEdwardDeci'sSomapuzzleexperimentdemonstrates,manypracticeswhoseeffectivenesswetakeforgrantedproducecounterintuitiveresults:Theycangiveuslessofwhatwewantandmoreofwhatwedon'twant.ThesearethebugsinMotivation2.0.Andtheyrisetothesurfacewhetherwe'repromisingrupeesinIndia,chargingshekelsinIsrael,drawingbloodinSweden,orpaintingportraitsinChicago.

LESSOFWHATWEWANTOneofthemostenduringscenesinAmericanliteratureoffersanimportant

lesson inhumanmotivation. InChapter2ofMarkTwain'sTheAdventuresofTom Sawyer , Tom faces the dreary task of whitewashing Aunt Polly's 810-square-foot fence. He's not exactly thrilled with the assignment. Life to himseemedhollow,andexistencebutaburden,Twainwrites.

But just when Tom has nearly lost hope, nothing less than a great,magnificent inspiration bursts upon him.When his friendBen ambles by andmocksTomforhissorrylot,Tomactsconfused.Slappingpaintonafenceisn'tagrim chore, he says. It's a fantastic privilege a source of, ahem, intrinsicmotivation. The job is so captivating that when Ben asks to try a fewbrushstrokeshimself,Tomrefuses.Hedoesn'trelentuntilBengivesuphisappleinexchangefortheopportunity.

Soon more boys arrive, all of whom tumble into Tom's trap and end upwhitewashing the fence several times over on his behalf. From this episode,Twain extracts a key motivational principle, namely that Work consists ofwhateverabodyisOBLIGEDtodo,andthatPlayconsistsofwhateverabodyisnotobligedtodo.Hegoesontowrite:

There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger-coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line, in the summer, because theprivilegecoststhemconsiderablemoney;butiftheywereofferedwagesfortheservice,thatwouldturnitintoworkandthentheywouldresign.

In other words, rewards can perform a weird sort of behavioral alchemy:They can transform an interesting task into a drudge.They can turn play intowork. And by diminishing intrinsic motivation, they can send performance,creativity,andevenupstandingbehavior toppling likedominoes.Let'scall thisthe Sawyer Effect. A sampling of intriguing experiments around the worldreveals the four realms where this effect kicks in and shows yet again themismatchbetweenwhatscienceknowsandwhatbusinessdoes.

IntrinsicMotivationBehavioral scientists likeDeci begandiscovering theSawyerEffect nearly

fortyyearsago,althoughtheydidn'tusethatterm.Instead,theyreferredtothecounterintuitive consequences of extrinsic incentives as the hidden costs of

rewards. That, in fact, was the title of the first book on the subject a 1978research volume that was edited by psychologists Mark Lepper and DavidGreene.

OneofLepperandGreene'searlystudies(whichtheycarriedoutwithathirdcolleague,RobertNisbett)hasbecomeaclassicinthefieldandamongthemostcited articles in the motivation literature. The three researchers watched aclassroomofpreschoolersforseveraldaysandidentifiedthechildrenwhochosetospendtheirfreeplaytimedrawing.Thentheyfashionedanexperimenttotesttheeffectofrewardinganactivitythesechildrenclearlyenjoyed.

The researchers divided the children into three groups. The first was theexpected-award group. They showed each of these children a Good Playercertificateadornedwithablueribbonandfeaturingthechild'snameandaskedifthechildwanted todrawinorder to receive theaward.Thesecondgroupwasthe unexpected-award group. Researchers asked these children simply if theywanted to draw. If they decided to, when the session ended, the researchershandedeachchildoneoftheGoodPlayercertificates.Thethirdgroupwastheno-award group.Researchers asked these children if theywanted to draw, butneither promised them a certificate at the beginning nor gave themone at theend.

Twoweekslater,backintheclassroom,teacherssetoutpaperandmarkersduring thepreschool's freeplayperiodwhile the researchers secretlyobservedthestudents.Childrenpreviouslyintheunexpected-awardandno-awardgroupsdrewjustasmuch,andwiththesamerelish,astheyhadbeforetheexperiment.But children in the first group the oneswho'd expected and then received anawardshowedmuchlessinterestandspentmuchlesstimedrawing.TheSawyerEffecthadtakenhold.Eventwoweekslater,thosealluringprizessocommoninclassroomsandcubicleshadturnedplayintowork.

Tobeclear, itwasn'tnecessarilytherewardsthemselvesthatdampenedthechildren's interest.Remember:Whenchildrendidn'texpectareward,receivingone had little impact on their intrinsicmotivation.Only contingent rewards ifyoudo this, thenyou'll get thathad thenegative effect.Why? If-then rewardsrequire people to forfeit some of their autonomy. Like the gentlemen drivingcarriagesformoneyinsteadoffun,they'renolongerfullycontrollingtheirlives.Andthatcanspringaholeinthebottomoftheirmotivationalbucket,draininganactivityofitsenjoyment.

LepperandGreenereplicatedtheseresultsinseveralsubsequentexperimentswith children. As time went on, other researchers found similar results withadults.Overandoveragain,theydiscoveredthatextrinsicrewardsinparticular,contingent,expected,if-thenrewardssnuffedoutthethirddrive.

These insightsproved socontroversial after all, theycalled intoquestionastandard practice of most companies and schools that in 1999 Deci and twocolleaguesreanalyzednearlythreedecadesofstudiesonthesubjecttoconfirmthefindings.Carefulconsiderationofrewardeffectsreportedin128experimentsleadtotheconclusionthattangiblerewardstendtohaveasubstantiallynegativeeffect on intrinsic motivation, they determined. When institutions families,schools,businesses,andathleticteams,forexamplefocusontheshort-termandoptforcontrollingpeople'sbehavior,theydoconsiderablelong-termdamage.

Trytoencourageakidtolearnmathbypayingherforeachwork-bookpageshecompletesandshe'llalmostcertainlybecomemorediligentintheshorttermandloseinterestinmathinthelongterm.Takeanindustrialdesignerwholoveshisworkandtrytogethimtodobetterbymakinghispaycontingentonahitproduct and he'll almost certainly work like a maniac in the short term, butbecome less interested in his job in the long term.As one leading behavioralscience textbook puts it, People use rewards expecting to gain the benefit ofincreasinganotherperson'smotivationandbehavior,butinsodoing,theyoftenincur the unintentional and hidden cost of undermining that person's intrinsicmotivationtowardtheactivity.

Thisisoneofthemostrobustfindingsinsocialscienceandalsooneofthemost ignored.Despite theworkofafewskilledandpassionatepopularizers inparticular,AlfieKohn,whoseprescient1993book,PunishedbyRewards,laysout a devastating indictment of extrinsic incentives we persist in trying tomotivate people this way. Perhaps we're scared to let go of Motivation 2.0,despite its obvious downsides. Perhaps we can't get our minds around thepeculiarquantummechanicsofintrinsicmotivation.

Orperhapsthere'sabetterreason.Evenif thosecontrollingif-thenrewardsactivatetheSawyerEffectandsuffocatethethirddrive,maybetheyactuallygetpeople toperformbetter. If that's the case,perhaps they'renot sobad.So let'sask:Doextrinsicrewardsboostperformance?FoureconomistswenttoIndiatofindout.

HighPerformanceOne of the difficulties of laboratory experiments that test the impact of

extrinsic motivators like cash is the cost. If you're going to pay people toperform,youhavetopaythemameaningfulamount.AndintheUnitedStatesorEurope,wherestandardsof livingarehigh,anindividuallymeaningfulamountmultiplied by dozens of participants can rack up unsustainably large bills forbehavioralscientists.

In part to circumvent this problem, a quartet of economists includingDanAriely,whomImentionedin the lastchaptersetupshopinMadurai, India, to

gauge the effects of extrinsic incentives on performance. Because the cost oflivinginruralIndiaismuchlowerthaninNorthAmerica,theresearcherscouldofferlargerewardswithoutbreakingtheirownbanks.

They recruited eighty-seven participants and asked them to play severalgames for example, tossing tennis balls at a target, unscrambling anagrams,recallingastringofdigitsthatrequiredmotorskills,creativity,orconcentration.Totestthepowerofincentives,theexperimentersofferedthreetypesofrewardsforreachingcertainperformancelevels.

One-thirdoftheparticipantscouldearnasmallreward4rupees(atthetimeworth around 50 U.S. cents and equal to about a day's pay in Madurai) forreaching their performance targets.One-third could earn amedium reward 40rupees (about $5, or two weeks' pay). And one-third could earn a very largereward400rupees(about$50,ornearlyfivemonths'pay).

What happened? Did the size of the reward predict the quality of theperformance?

Yes. But not in the way you might expect. As it turned out, the peopleofferedthemedium-sizedbonusdidn'tperformanybetterthanthoseofferedthesmall one. And those in the 400-rupee super-incentivized group? They faredworstofall.Bynearlyeverymeasure,theylaggedbehindboththelow-rewardandmedium-rewardparticipants.Reporting the results for theFederalReserveBankofBoston, theresearcherswrote, Ineightof thenine tasksweexaminedacrossthethreeexperiments,higherincentivesledtoworseperformance.

Let'scirclebacktothisconclusionforamoment.FoureconomiststwofromMIT, one from Carnegie Mellon, and one from the University of Chicagoundertake research for the Federal Reserve System, one of themost powerfuleconomic actors in the world. But instead of affirming a simple businessprinciplehigherrewardsleadtohigherperformancetheyseemtorefuteit.Andit'snotjustAmericanresearchersreachingthesecounterintuitiveconclusions.In2009,scholarsattheLondonSchoolofEconomicsalmamaterofelevenNobellaureates in economics analyzed fifty-one studies of corporate pay-for-performance plans. These economists' conclusion: We find that financialincentives. . .canresultinanegativeimpactonoverallperformance.OnbothsidesoftheAtlantic,thegapbetweenwhatscienceislearningandwhatbusinessisdoingiswide.

Manyexistinginstitutionsprovideverylargeincentivesforexactlythetypeof taskswe used here,Ariely and his colleagueswrote.Our results challenge[that] assumption. Our experiment suggests . . . that one cannot assume thatintroducingorraisingincentivesalwaysimprovesperformance.Indeed,inmanyinstances, contingent incentives that cornerstone of how businesses attempt to

motivateemployeesmaybealosingproposition.Of course, procrastinating writers notwithstanding, few of us spend our

working hours flinging tennis balls or doing anagrams. How about the morecreativetasksthataremoreakintowhatweactuallydoonthejob?

CreativityForaquicktestofproblem-solvingprowess,fewexercisesaremoreuseful

than the candle problem.DevisedbypsychologistKarlDuncker in the 1930s,the candle problem is used in a wide variety of experiments in behavioralscience.Followalongandseehowyoudo.

Yousitatatablenexttoawoodenwallandtheexperimentergivesyouthematerialsshownbelow:acandle,sometacks,andabookofmatches.

Thecandleproblempresented.Yourjobistoattachthecandletothewallsothatthewaxdoesn'tdriponthe

table. Think for a moment about how you'd solve the problem.Many peoplebeginbytryingtotackthecandletothewall.Butthatdoesn'twork.Somelightamatch,meltthesideofthecandle,andtrytoadhereittothewall.Thatdoesn'tworkeither.Butafterfiveortenminutes,mostpeoplestumbleontothesolution,whichyoucanseebelow.

Thecandleproblemsolved.Thekey is toovercomewhat'scalled functional fixedness.You lookat the

box and see only one function as a container for the tacks. But by thinkingafresh,youeventuallyseethattheboxcanhaveanotherfunctionasaplatformforthecandle.Torepriselanguagefromthepreviouschapter, thesolutionisn'talgorithmic (following a set path) but heuristic (breaking from the path todiscoveranovelstrategy).

What happenswhen you give people a conceptual challenge like this andofferthemrewardsforspeedysolutions?SamGlucksberg,apsychologistnowatPrincetonUniversity, testedthisafewdecadesagobytiminghowquicklytwogroupsofparticipantssolvedthecandleproblem.Hetoldthefirstgroupthathewastimingtheirworkmerelytoestablishnormsforhowlongit typicallytooksomeone to complete this sort of puzzle. To the second group he offeredincentives. If a participant's time was among the fastest 25 percent of all thepeoplebeing tested, that participantwould receive$5. If theparticipant's timewasthefastestofall,therewardwouldbe$20.Adjustedforinflation,thosearedecentsumsofmoneyforafewminutesofeffortanicemotivator.

Howmuch faster did the incentivized group come upwith a solution?Onaverage, it took themnearly threeandahalfminutes longer .Yes, threeandahalf minutes longer. (Whenever I've relayed these results to a group ofbusinesspeople,thereactionisalmostalwaysaloud,pained,involuntarygasp.)

In direct contravention to the core tenets of Motivation 2.0, an incentivedesigned toclarify thinkingand sharpencreativityendedupclouding thinkinganddulling creativity.Why?Rewards, by their very nature, narrowour focus.That'shelpfulwhenthere'saclearpath toasolution.Theyhelpusstareaheadandracefaster.Butif-thenmotivatorsareterribleforchallengeslikethecandleproblem. As this experiment shows, the rewards narrowed people's focus andblinkered thewideviewthatmighthaveallowedthemtoseenewusesforoldobjects.

Something similar seems tooccur for challenges that aren't somuchaboutcracking an existing problem but about iterating something new. TeresaAmabile,theHarvardBusinessSchoolprofessorandoneoftheworld'sleadingresearchersoncreativity,hasfrequentlytestedtheeffectsofcontingentrewardsonthecreativeprocess.Inonestudy,sheandtwocolleaguesrecruitedtwenty-three professional artists from the United States who had produced bothcommissioned and noncommissioned artwork. They asked the artists torandomlyselecttencommissionedworksandtennoncommissionedworks.ThenAmabile and her team gave theworks to a panel of accomplished artists andcurators,whoknewnothing about the study, and asked the experts to rate thepiecesoncreativityandtechnicalskill.

Our results were quite startling, the researchers wrote. The commissionedworkswereratedassignificantlylesscreativethanthenoncommissionedworks,yet they were not rated as different in technical quality.Moreover, the artistsreportedfeelingsignificantlymoreconstrainedwhendoingcommissionedworksthan when doing noncommissioned works. One artist whom they intervieweddescribestheSawyerEffectinaction:

Notalways,buta lotof the time,whenyouaredoingapieceforsomeoneelseitbecomesmoreworkthanjoy.WhenIworkformyselfthereisthepurejoyof creating and I can work through the night and not even know it. On acommissionedpieceyouhavetocheckyourselfbecarefultodowhattheclientwants.

Anotherstudyofartistsoveralongerperiodshowsthataconcernforoutsiderewardsmightactuallyhindereventualsuccess. In theearly1960s, researcherssurveyedsophomoresand juniorsat theSchoolof theArt InstituteofChicagoabout their attitudes towardwork andwhether theyweremore intrinsically orextrinsically motivated. Using these data as a benchmark, another researcherfollowedupwiththesestudentsintheearly1980stoseehowtheircareerswereprogressing.Amongthestarkestfindings,especiallyformen:Thelessevidenceof extrinsicmotivation during art school, themore success in professional artboth several years after graduation and nearly twenty years later. Painters and

sculptorswhowereintrinsicallymotivated,thoseforwhomthejoyofdiscoveryandthechallengeofcreationweretheirownrewards,wereabletoweatherthetough times and the lack of remuneration and recognition that inevitablyaccompanyartisticcareers.And that led toyetanotherparadox in theAlice inWonderlandworld of the third drive.Those artistswho pursued their paintingand sculpture more for the pleasure of the activity itself than for extrinsicrewards have produced art that has been socially recognized as superior, thestudysaid. It is thosewhoare leastmotivated topursueextrinsicrewardswhoeventuallyreceivethem.

This result is not true across all tasks, of course.Amabile andothers havefound that extrinsic rewards can be effective for algorithmic tasks those thatdependonfollowinganexistingformulatoitslogicalconclusion.Butformoreright-brain undertakings those that demand flexible problem-solving,inventiveness, or conceptual understanding contingent rewards can bedangerous.Rewardedsubjectsoftenhaveahardertimeseeingtheperipheryandcrafting original solutions. This, too, is one of the sturdiest findings in socialscience especially as Amabile and others have refined it over the years. Forartists, scientists, inventors, schoolchildren, and the rest of us, intrinsicmotivation the drive do something because it is interesting, challenging, andabsorbingisessentialforhighlevelsofcreativity.Buttheif-thenmotivatorsthatare thestapleofmostbusinessesoftenstifle,rather thanstir,creativethinking.Astheeconomymovestowardmoreright-brain,conceptualworkasmoreofusdeal with our own versions of the candle problem this might be the mostalarminggapbetweenwhatscienceknowsandwhatbusinessdoes.

GoodBehaviorPhilosophers and medical professionals have long debated whether blood

donors shouldbepaid.Someclaim thatblood, likehuman tissueororgans, isspecialthatweshouldn'tbeabletobuyandsellitlikeabarrelofcrudeoiloracrate of ball bearings.Others argue thatwe should shelve our squeamishness,becausepayingforthissubstancewillensureanamplesupply.

But in 1970, British sociologist Richard Titmuss, who had studied blooddonationintheUnitedKingdom,offeredabolderspeculation.Payingforbloodwasn't just immoral, he said. It was also inefficient. If Britain decided to paycitizenstodonate,thatwouldactuallyreducethecountry'sbloodsupply.Itwasanoddballnotion, tobesure.Economistssnickered.AndTitmussnever testedtheidea;itwasmerelyaphilosophicalhunch.

But a quarter-century later, two Swedish economists decided to see ifTitmuss was right. In an intriguing field experiment, they visited a regionalbloodcenterinGothenburgandfound153womenwhowereinterestedingiving

blood. Then as seems to be the custom among motivation researchers theydividedthewomenintothreegroups.Experimenterstoldthoseinthefirstgroupthatblooddonationwasvoluntary.Theseparticipantscouldgiveblood,buttheywouldn't receive a payment. The experimenters offered the second group adifferent arrangement. If these participants gave blood, they'd each receive 50Swedishkronor(about$7).Thethirdgroupreceivedavariationonthatsecondoffer:a50-kronorpaymentwithanimmediateoptiontodonatetheamounttoachildren'scancercharity.

Ofthefirstgroup,52percentofthewomendecidedtogoaheadanddonateblood. Theywere altruistic citizens apparently, willing to do a good deed fortheirfellowSwedesevenintheabsenceofcompensation.

Andthesecondgroup?Motivation2.0wouldsuggestthatthisgroupmightbeabitmoremotivated todonate.They'd shownup,which indicated intrinsicmotivation.Gettingafewkronorontopmightgivethatimpulseaboost.Butasyoumighthaveguessedbynowthat'snotwhathappened.Inthisgroup,only30percentofthewomendecidedtogiveblood.Insteadofincreasingthenumberofblooddonors,offeringtopaypeopledecreasedthenumberbynearlyhalf.

Meanwhile,thethirdgroupwhichhadtheoptionofdonatingthefeedirectlyto charity responded much the same as the first group. Fifty-three percentbecameblooddonors.

Titmuss's hunch might have been right, after all. Adding a monetaryincentivedidn'tleadtomoreofthedesiredbehavior.Itledtoless.Thereason:Ittainted an altruistic act and crowded out the intrinsic desire to do somethinggood. Doing good is what blood donation is all about. It provides what theAmericanRedCrossbrochuressayisafeelingthatmoneycan'tbuy.That'swhyvoluntaryblooddonationsinvariablyincreaseduringnaturaldisastersandothercalamities.Butifgovernmentsweretopaypeopletohelptheirneighborsduringthesecrises,donationsmightdecline.

That said, in the Swedish example, the reward itself wasn't inherentlydestructive.Theimmediateoptiontodonatethe50-kronorpaymentratherthanpocketitseemedtonegatetheeffect.This, too,isextremelyimportant.It'snotthatallrewardsatall timesarebad.Forinstance,whentheItaliangovernmentgaveblooddonorspaidtimeoffwork,donationsincreased.Thelawremovedanobstacle to altruism.Sowhile a few advocateswould have you believe in thebasicevilofextrinsicincentives,that'sjustnotempiricallytrue.Whatistrueisthat mixing rewards with inherently interesting, creative, or noble tasksdeploying themwithout understanding the peculiar science ofmotivation is averydangerousgame.Whenusedinthesesituations,if-thenrewardsusuallydomore harm than good. By neglecting the ingredients of genuine motivation

autonomy,mastery,andpurposetheylimitwhateachofuscanachieve.MOREOFWHATWEDON'TWANTIn theupside-downuniverseof the thirddrive, rewardscanoftenproduce

lessoftheverythingsthey'retryingtoencourage.Butthat'snottheendofthestory.Whenusedimproperly,extrinsicmotivatorscanhaveanotherunintendedcollateral consequence: They can give us more of what we don't want. Here,again,whatbusinessdoeshasn'tcaughtupwithwhatscienceknows.Andwhatscience is revealing is thatcarrotsandstickscanpromotebadbehavior,createaddiction,andencourageshort-termthinkingattheexpenseofthelongview.

UnethicalBehaviorWhat could bemore valuable than having a goal? From our earliest days,

teachers, coaches, and parents advise us to set goals and to workmightily toachievethemandwithgoodreason.Goalswork.Theacademicliteratureshowsthat by helping us tune out distractions, goals can get us to try harder, worklonger,andachievemore.

But recently a group of scholars from the Harvard Business School,Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, the University ofArizona's Eller College ofManagement, and the University of Pennsylvania'sWhartonSchoolquestioned theefficacyof thisbroadprescription.Rather thanbeing offered as an Ôover-the-counter' salve for boosting performance, goalsetting should be prescribed selectively, presented with a warning label, andcloselymonitored,theywrote.Goalsthatpeoplesetforthemselvesandthataredevoted to attainingmastery are usually healthy.But goals imposed by otherssalestargets,quarterlyreturns,standardizedtestscores,andsooncansometimeshavedangeroussideeffects.

Likeallextrinsicmotivators,goalsnarrowourfocus.That'sonereasontheycanbeeffective;theyconcentratethemind.Butaswe'veseen,anarrowedfocusexactsacost.Forcomplexorconceptualtasks,offeringarewardcanblinkerthewide-ranging thinking necessary to come up with an innovative solution.Likewise, when an extrinsic goal is paramount particularly a short-term,measurableonewhoseachievementdeliversabigpayoffitspresencecanrestrictour viewof the broader dimensions of our behavior.As the cadre of businessschool professors write, Substantial evidence demonstrates that in addition tomotivatingconstructiveeffort,goalsettingcaninduceunethicalbehavior.

Theexamplesare legion, the researchersnote.Sears imposesa salesquotaon its auto repair staff and workers respond by overcharging customers andcompletingunnecessary repairs.Enronsets lofty revenuegoalsand the race tomeet thembyanymeanspossiblecatalyzes thecompany'scollapse.Ford issointentonproducingacertaincaratacertainweightatacertainpricebyacertain

datethatitomitssafetychecksandunleashesthedangerousFordPinto.The problem with making an extrinsic reward the only destination that

mattersisthatsomepeoplewillchoosethequickestroutethere,evenifitmeanstakingthelowroad.

Indeed,mostofthescandalsandmisbehaviorthathaveseemedendemictomodernlifeinvolveshortcuts.Executivesgametheirquarterlyearningssotheycan snag a performance bonus. Secondary school counselors doctor studenttranscriptssotheirseniorscangetintocollege.Athletesinject themselveswithsteroidstopostbetternumbersandtriggerlucrativeperformancebonuses.

Contrastthatapproachwithbehaviorsparkedbyintrinsicmotivation.Whentherewardistheactivityitselfdeepeninglearning,delightingcustomers,doingone's best there are no shortcuts.The only route to the destination is the highroad.Insomesense,it'simpossibletoactunethicallybecausethepersonwho'sdisadvantagedisn'tacompetitorbutyourself.

Ofcourse,allgoalsarenotcreatedequal.Andletmeemphasize thispointgoalsandextrinsicrewardsaren'tinherentlycorrupting.ButgoalsaremoretoxicthanMotivation2.0 recognizes. In fact, thebusiness schoolprofessors suggestthey should come with their own warning label: Goals may cause systematicproblemsfororganizationsduetonarrowedfocus,unethicalbehavior,increasedrisktaking,decreasedcooperation,anddecreasedintrinsicmotivation.Usecarewhenapplyinggoalsinyourorganization.

If carrots-as-goals sometimesencourageunworthybehavior, then sticks-as-punishment shouldbeable tohalt it, right?Not so fast.The thirddrive is lessmechanisticandmoresurprisingthanthat,astwoIsraelieconomistsdiscoveredatsomedaycarecenters.

In 2000, economists Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini studied a group ofchildcarefacilitiesinHaifa,Israel,fortwentyweeks.Thecentersopenedat7:30A.M.andclosedat4:00P.M.Parentshadtoretrievetheirchildrenbytheclosingtimeorateacherwouldhavetostaylate.

Duringthefirstfourweeksoftheexperiment,theeconomistsrecordedhowmany parents arrived late each week. Then, before the fifth week, with thepermissionofthedaycarecenters,theypostedthefollowingsign:

ANNOUNCEMENT:FINEFORCOMINGLATEAs you all know, the official closing time of the day care center is 1600

everyday.Sincesomeparentshavebeencominglate,we(withtheapprovaloftheAuthorityforPrivateDay-CareCentersinIsrael)havedecidedtoimposeafineonparentswhocomelatetopickuptheirchildren.

As of next Sunday a fine ofNS 10will be charged every time a child iscollected after 1610. This fine will be calculated monthly, it is to be paid

togetherwiththeregularmonthlypayment.Sincerely,Themanageroftheday-carecenterThe theory underlying the fine, said Gneezy and Rustichini, was

straightforward:Whennegativeconsequencesare imposedonabehavior, theywillproduceareductionofthatparticularresponse.Inotherwords,thwacktheparentswithafine,andthey'llstopshowinguplate.

Butthat'snotwhathappened.Aftertheintroductionofthefineweobserveda steady increase in thenumberof parents coming late, the economistswrote.Theratefinallysettled,ata level thatwashigher,andalmost twiceas largeastheinitialone.AndinlanguagereminiscentofHarryHarlow'sheadscratching,theywritethattheexistingliteraturedidn'taccountforsucharesult.Indeed,thepossibility of an increase in the behavior being punished was not evenconsidered.

UppopsanotherbuginMotivation2.0.Onereasonmostparentsshowedupon time is that they had a relationship with the teachers who, after all, werecaring for their precious sons and daughters and wanted to treat them fairly.Parentshadanintrinsicdesiretobescrupulousaboutpunctuality.Butthethreatofafinelikethepromiseofthekronorinthebloodexperimentedgedasidethatthirddrive.Thefineshiftedtheparents'decisionfromapartlymoralobligation(befairtomykids'teachers)toapuretransaction(Icanbuyextratime).Therewasn'troomforboth.Thepunishmentdidn'tpromotegoodbehavior;itcrowdeditout.

AddictionIfsomescientistsbelievethatif-thenmotivatorsandotherextrinsicrewards

resembleprescriptiondrugsthatcarrypotentiallydangeroussideeffects,othersbelievethey'remorelikeillegaldrugsthatfosteradeeperandmoreperniciousdependency.According to these scholars, cash rewards and shiny trophies canprovideadeliciousjoltofpleasureatfirst,butthefeelingsoondissipatesandtokeepitalive,therecipientrequireseverlargerandmorefrequentdoses.

The Russian economist Anton Suvorov has constructed an elaborateeconometricmodel to demonstrate this effect, configured aroundwhat's calledprincipal-agenttheory.Thinkoftheprincipalasthemotivatortheemployer,theteacher, the parent. Think of the agent as the motivat ee the employee, thestudent, the child.A principal essentially tries to get the agent to dowhat theprincipalwants,while the agent balances his own interestswithwhatever theprincipalisoffering.Usingablizzardofcomplicatedequationsthattestavarietyofscenariosbetweenprincipalandagent,Suvorovhasreachedconclusionsthatmake intuitive sense to any parent who's tried to get her kids to empty the

garbage.By offering a reward, a principal signals to the agent that the task is

undesirable.(Ifthetaskweredesirable,theagentwouldn'tneedaprod.)Butthatinitial signal,and the reward thatgoeswith it, forces theprincipalontoapaththat'sdifficulttoleave.Offertoosmallarewardandtheagentwon'tcomply.Butofferarewardthat'senticingenoughtogettheagenttoactthefirsttime,andtheprincipal isdoomed togive itagain in thesecond.There'snogoingback.Payyour son to take out the trash andyou've prettymuchguaranteed the kidwillneverdoitagainforfree.What'smore,oncetheinitialmoneybuzztapersoff,you'lllikelyhavetoincreasethepaymenttocontinuecompliance.

As Suvorov explains, Rewards are addictive in that once offered, acontingent rewardmakes an agent expect it whenever a similar task is faced,which in turn compels the principal to use rewards over and over again.Andbeforelong,theexistingrewardmaynolongersuffice.Itwillquicklyfeellesslikeabonusandmorelikethestatusquowhichthenforcestheprincipaltoofferlargerrewardstoachievethesameeffect.

Thisaddictivepatternisnotmerelyblackboardtheory.BrianKnutson,thenaneuroscientist at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,demonstrated as much in an experiment using the brain scanning techniqueknown as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). He placed healthyvolunteers into a giant scanner to watch how their brains responded during agame that involved the prospect of either winning or losing money. Whenparticipantsknewtheyhadachancetowincash,activationoccurredinthepartof the brain called the nucleus accumbens. That is, when the participantsanticipatedgettingareward(butnotwhentheyanticipatedlosingone),aburstofthebrainchemicaldopaminesurgedtothispartofthebrain.Knutson,whoisnow at Stanford University, has found similar results in subsequent studieswherepeopleanticipatedrewards.Whatmakesthisresponseinterestingforourpurposes is that the same basic physiological process this particular brainchemicalsurgingtothisparticularpartofthebrainiswhathappensinaddiction.Themechanismofmostaddictivedrugsistosendafusilladeofdopaminetothenucleusaccumbens.Thefeelingdelights,thendissipates,thendemandsanotherdose.Inotherwords,ifwewatchhowpeople'sbrainsrespond,promisingthemmonetary rewards and giving them cocaine, nicotine, or amphetamines lookdisturbingly similar. This could be one reason that paying people to stopsmokingoftenworksintheshortrun.Itreplacesone(dangerous)addictionwithanother(morebenign)one.

Rewards' addictive qualities can also distort decision-making.Knutson hasfound that activation in the nucleus accumbens seems to predict both risky

choices and risk-seeking mistakes. Get people fired up with the prospect ofrewards,and insteadofmakingbetterdecisions,asMotivation2.0hopes, theycanactuallymakeworseones.AsKnutsonwrites,Thismayexplainwhycasinossurround their guests with reward cues (e.g., inexpensive food, free liquor,surprise gifts, potential jackpot prizes) anticipation of rewards activates the[nucleus accumbens], which may lead to an increase in the likelihood ofindividualsswitchingfromrisk-aversetorisk-seekingbehavior.

Inshort,whilethatdangledcarrotisn'tallbadinallcircumstances,insomeinstancesitoperatessimilartoarockofcrackcocaineandcaninducebehaviorsimilartothatfoundaroundthecrapstableorroulettewheelnotexactlywhatwehopetoachievewhenwemotivateourteammatesandcoworkers.

Short-TermThinkingThink back to the candle problem again. The incentivized participants

performedworse than their counterparts because theywere so focused on theprize that they failed to glimpse a novel solution on the periphery. Rewards,we've seen, can limit the breadth of our thinking. But extrinsic motivatorsespeciallytangible,if-thenonescanalsoreducethedepthofourthinking.Theycanfocusoursightsononlywhat'simmediatelybeforeusratherthanwhat'soffinthedistance.

Manytimesaconcentratedfocusmakessense.Ifyourofficebuildingisonfire,youwanttofindanexitimmediatelyratherthanponderhowtorewritethezoningregulations.Butinlessdramaticcircumstances,fixatingonanimmediatereward can damage performance over time. Indeed,what our earlier examplesunethical actions and addictive behavior have in common, perhapsmore thananything else, is that they're entirely short-term. Addicts want the quick fixregardlessof theeventualharm.Cheaterswant thequickwinregardlessof thelastingconsequences.

Yetevenwhenthebehaviordoesn'tdevolveintoshortcutsoraddiction,thenear-term allure of rewards can be harmful in the long run.Consider publiclyheld companies.Many such companies have existed for decades and hope toexistfordecadesmore.Butmuchofwhattheirexecutivesandmiddlemanagersdoeachdayisaimedsingle-mindedlyatthecorporation'sperformanceoverthenext three months. At these companies, quarterly earnings are an obsession.Executives devote substantial resources tomaking sure the earnings come outjustright.Andtheyspendconsiderabletimeandbrain-powerofferingguidancetostockanalystssothatthemarketknowswhattoexpectandthereforerespondsfavorably.Thislaserfocusonanarrow,near-termsliceofcorporateperformanceisunderstandable.It'sarationalresponsetostockmarketsthatrewardorpunishtinyblipsinthosenumbers,which,inturn,affectexecutives'compensation.

Butcompaniespayasteeppricefornotextendingtheirgazebeyondthenextquarter.Severalresearchershavefoundthatcompaniesthatspendthemosttimeoffering guidance on quarterly earnings deliver significantly lower long-termgrowth rates than companies that offer guidance less frequently. (One reason:The earnings-obsessed companies typically invest less in research anddevelopment.)Theysuccessfullyachievetheirshort-termgoals,butthreatenthehealth of the company two or three years hence.As the scholarswhowarnedaboutgoalsgonewildputit,Theverypresenceofgoalsmayleademployeestofocus myopically on short-term gains and to lose sight of the potentialdevastatinglong-termeffectsontheorganization.

Perhapsnowhere is thisclearer than in theeconomiccalamity thatgrippedtheworldeconomyin2008and2009.Eachplayerinthesystemfocusedonlyontheshort-termrewardthebuyerwhowantedahouse,themortgagebrokerwhowantedacommission,theWallStreettraderwhowantednewsecuritiestosell,thepoliticianwhowantedabuoyanteconomyduringreelectionandignoredthelong-term effects of their actions on themselves or others. When the musicstopped, the entire system nearly collapsed. This is the nature of economicbubbles: What seems to be irrational exuberance is ultimately a bad case ofextrinsicallymotivatedmyopia.

Bycontrast, theelementsofgenuinemotivation thatwe'llexplore later,bytheir verynature, defy a short-termview.Takemastery.Theobjective itself isinherentlylong-termbecausecompletemastery,inasense,isunattainable.EvenRoger Federer, for instance, will never fully master the game of tennis. Butintroducingan if-thenreward tohelpdevelopmasteryusuallybackfires.That'swhy schoolchildren who are paid to solve problems typically choose easierproblems and therefore learn less. The short-term prize crowds out the l ong-termlearning.

Inenvironmentswhereextrinsicrewardsaremostsalient,manypeopleworkonlytothepointthattriggerstherewardandnofurther.Soifstudentsgetaprizefor reading three books, manywon't pick up a fourth, let alone embark on alifetimeofreadingjustasexecutiveswhohittheirquarterlynumbersoftenwon'tboostearningsapennymore,letalonecontemplatethelong-termhealthoftheircompany. Likewise, several studies show that paying people to exercise, stopsmoking,ortaketheirmedicinesproducesterrificresultsatfirstbutthehealthybehaviordisappearsoncetheincentivesareremoved.However,whencontingentrewards aren't involved, orwhen incentives are usedwith the proper deftness,performance improves and understanding deepens. Greatness andnearsightedness are incompatible. Meaningful achievement depends on liftingone'ssightsandpushingtowardthehorizon.

CARROTSANDSTICKS:TheSevenDeadlyFlaws1.Theycanextinguishintrinsicmotivation.2.Theycandiminishperformance.3.Theycancrushcreativity.4.Theycancrowdoutgoodbehavior.5.Theycanencouragecheating,shortcuts,andunethicalbehavior.6.Theycanbecomeaddictive.7.Theycanfostershort-termthinking.

Drive

CHAPTER2A

...andtheSpecialCircumstancesWhenTheyDoCarrotsandsticksaren'tallbad.If theywere,Motivation2.0wouldnever

have flourished so long or accomplished somuch.While an operating systemcenteredaroundrewardsandpunishmentshasoutliveditsusefulnessandbadlyneeds an upgrade, that doesn't meanwe should scrap its every piece. Indeed,doing so would run counter to the science. The scholars exploring humanmotivationhaverevealednotonlythemanyglitchesinthetraditionalapproach,butalso thenarrowbandofcircumstances inwhichcarrotsandsticksdo theirjobsreasonablywell.

The startingpoint, of course, is to ensure that thebaseline rewardswages,salaries, benefits, and so on are adequate and fair.Without a healthy baseline,motivationofanysortisdifficultandoftenimpossible.

But once that's established, there are circumstanceswhere it's okay to fallbackonextrinsicmotivators.Tounderstandwhat thosecircumstancesare, let'sreturn to the candle problem. In his study, Sam Glucksberg found that theparticipantswhowereofferedacashprizetooklongertosolvetheproblemthanthoseworkinginareward-freeenvironment.Thereason,you'llrecall,isthattheprospectofaprizenarrowedparticipants'focusandlimitedtheirabilitytoseeaninventive,nonobvioussolution.

Inthesameexperiment,Glucksbergpresentedaseparatesetofparticipantswithaslightlydifferentversionoftheproblem.Onceagain,hetoldhalfofthemhewastimingtheirperformancetocollectdataandtheotherhalfthatthosewhopostedthefastesttimescouldwincash.Buthealteredthingsjustabit.Insteadofgivingparticipantsaboxfulloftacks,heemptiedthetacksontothedeskasshownbelow.

Thecandleproblempresenteddifferently.Canyouguesswhathappened?This time, the participants vying for the reward solved the problem faster

thantheircounterparts.Why?Byremovingthetacksanddisplayingtheemptybox,Glucksbergessentiallyrevealedthesolution.Hetransformedachallengingright-brain task into a routine left-brain one. Since participants simply had torace down an obvious path, the carrot waiting for them at the finish lineencouragedthemtogallopfaster.

Glucksberg's experiment provides the first question you should ask when

contemplating external motivators: Is the task at hand routine? That is, doesaccomplishingitrequirefollowingaprescribedsetofrulestoaspecifiedend?

For routine tasks, which aren't very interesting and don't demand muchcreativethinking,rewardscanprovideasmallmotivationalboostershotwithoutthe harmful side effects. In someways, that's just common sense.AsEdwardDeci,RichardRyan,andRichardKoestnerexplain,Rewardsdonotunderminepeople's intrinsicmotivationfordull tasksbecause there is littleorno intrinsicmotivation to be undermined. Likewise, when Dan Ariely and his colleaguesconducted their Madurai, India, performance study with a group of MITstudents, they found thatwhen the task called for even rudimentary cognitiveskill,alargerrewardledtopoorerperformance.Butaslongasthetaskinvolvedonlymechanicalskill,bonusesworkedastheywouldbeexpected:thehigherthepay,thebettertheperformance.

Thisisextremelyimportant.Althoughadvancedeconomiesnowrevolvelessaround those algorithmic, rule-based functions, some ofwhatwe do each dayespeciallyonthejobstillisn'tallthatinteresting.WehaveTPSreportstofilloutand boring e-mail to answer and all manner of drudge work that doesn'tnecessarilyfireoursoul.What'smore,forsomepeople,muchofwhat theydoall day consists of these routine, not terribly captivating, tasks. In thesesituations, it's best to try to unleash the positive side of the SawyerEffect byattemptingtoturnworkintoplaytoincreasethetask'svariety,tomakeitmorelike a game, or to use it to help master other skills. Alas, that's not alwayspossible.Andthismeansthatsometimes,evenif-thenrewardsareanoption.

Let'sputthisinsightaboutrewardsandroutinesintopractice.Supposeyou'reamanageratasmallnonprofitorganization.Yourdesignteamcreatedaterrificposter promoting your group's next big event.And now you need to send theposter to twenty thousand members of your organization. Since the costs ofoutsourcingthejobtoaprofessionalmailingfirmaretoosteepforyourbudget,youdecidetodotheworkin-house.Troubleis,theposterscamebackfromtheprinter much later than you expected and they need to get in the mail thisweekend.

What'sthebestwaytoenlistyourstaffoften,andmaybeafewothers,inamassive weekend poster mailing session? The task is the very definition ofroutine: The people participatingmust roll up the posters, slide them into themailingtubes,capthosetubes,andapplyamailinglabelandtheproperpostage.Fourstepsnoneofthemnotablyinteresting.

Onemanagerialoptioniscoercion.Ifyou'retheboss,youcouldforcepeopletospendtheirSaturdayandSundayonthismind-numbingproject.Theymightcomply, but the damage to their morale and long-term commitment could be

substantial.Anotheroptionistoaskforvolunteers.Butfaceit:Mostpeoplecanthinkoffarbetterwaystospendaweekend.

Sointhiscase,anif-thenrewardmightbeeffective.Forinstance,youcouldpromiseabigoffice-widepartyifeverybodypitchesinontheproject.Youcouldofferagiftcertificatetoeveryonewhoparticipates.Oryoucouldgofurtherandpay people a small sum for every poster they insert, enclose, and send in thehopethatthepieceworkfeewillboosttheirproductivity.

While such tangible, contingent rewards can often undermine intrinsicmotivation and creativity, those drawbacks matter less here. The assignmentneither inspires deep passion nor requires deep thinking.Carrots, in this case,won't hurt and might help. And you'll increase your chances of success bysupplementingtheposter-packingrewardswiththreeimportantpractices:

¥Offerarationaleforwhythetaskisnecessary.Ajobthat'snotinherentlyinteresting can becomemoremeaningful, and thereforemore engaging, if it'spartofalargerpurpose.Explainwhythisposterissoimportantandwhysendingitoutnowiscriticaltoyourorganization'smission.

¥Acknowledgethatthetaskisboring.Thisisanactofempathy,ofcourse.And the acknowledgment will help people understand why this is the rareinstancewhenif-thenrewardsarepartofhowyourorganizationoperates.

¥Allowpeople tocomplete the task theirownway .Thinkautonomy,notcontrol.Statetheoutcomeyouneed.Butinsteadofspecifyingpreciselythewaytoreachithoweachpostermustberolledandhoweachmailinglabelmustbeaffixedgivethemfreedomoverhowtheydothejob.

That's the approach for routine tasks. What about for other sorts ofundertakings?

Forworkthatrequiresmorethanjustclimbing,rungbyrung,upaladderofinstructions,rewardsaremoreperilous.Thebestwaytoavoidthesevendeadlyflawsof extrinsicmotivators is to avoid themaltogether or to downplay themsignificantly and instead emphasize the elements of deeper motivationautonomy,mastery,andpurposethatwe'llexplore later in thebook.But in theworkplace, a rigid adherence to this approachbumpsup against a fact of life:Evenpeoplewhodogroovy,creative,right-brainworkstillwanttobepaid.AndhereTeresaAmabilehasshedsome lightonhowtouserewards inaway thatreckonswithlife'srealitiesbutreducesextrinsicmotivators'hiddencosts.

Go back to the study inwhichAmabile and two colleagues compared thequalityofcommissionedandnoncommissionedpaintingsfromagroupofartists.Apanelofexperts,blindtowhat theinvestigatorswereexploring,consistentlyratedthenoncommissionedartworkasmorecreative.Onereasonisthatseveralartists said their commissions were constraining that they found themselves

working toward a goal they didn't endorse in a manner they didn't control.However, in the same study, Amabile also discovered that when the artistsconsideredtheircommissionsenablingthatis,thecommissionenabledtheartistto do something interesting or exciting the creativity ranking of what theyproduced shot back up. The same was true for commissions the artists feltprovidedthemwithusefulinformationandfeedbackabouttheirability.

Thisisacrucialresearchinsight.Thescienceshowsthatitispossiblethoughtricky to incorporate rewards into nonroutine, more creative settings withoutcausingacascadeofdamage.

Sosupposewe'rebackatyournonprofitninemonthslater.Themailingwentout flawlessly. The posterwas a hit. The eventwas a smash.You're planninganotherforlaterthisyear.You'vesettledonthedateandfoundyourvenue.Nowyouneedaninspiringpostertocaptivateimaginationsanddrawacrowd.

Whatshouldyoudo?Here'swhatyoushouldn'tdo:Offeranif-thenrewardtothedesignstaff.Do

not stride into their offices and announce: If you come up with a poster thatrocksmyworldor that boosts attendanceover last year, thenyou'll get a ten-percentbonus.Althoughthatmotivationalapproachiscommoninorganizationsallovertheworld,it'sarecipeforreducedperformance.Creatingaposterisn'troutine. It requires conceptual, breakthrough, artistic thinking. And as we'velearned,if-thenrewardsareanidealwaytosquashthissortofthinking.

Your best approach is to have already established the conditions of agenuinely motivating environment. The baseline rewards must be sufficient.That is, the team's basic compensationmust be adequate and fair particularlycompared with people doing similar work for similar organizations. Yournonprofitmustbeacongenialplacetowork.Andthepeopleonyourteammusthaveautonomy,theymusthaveampleopportunitytopursuemastery,andtheirdailydutiesmust relate to a largerpurpose. If these elements are inplace, thebeststrategyistoprovideasenseofurgencyandsignificanceandthengetoutofthetalent'sway.

Butyoumaystillbeable toboostperformanceabitmore for future tasksthanforthisonethroughthedelicateuseofrewards.Justbecareful.Youreffortswillbackfireunlesstherewardsyouoffermeetoneessentialrequirement.Andyou'llbeonfirmermotivationalfootingifyoufollowtwoadditionalprinciples.

The essential requirement:Anyextrinsic reward shouldbeunexpected andofferedonlyafterthetaskiscomplete.

Holding out a prize at the beginning of a project and offering it as acontingency will inevitably focus people's attention on obtaining the rewardratherthanonattackingtheproblem.Butintroducingthesubjectofrewardsafter

thejobisdoneislessrisky.In other words, where if-then rewards are a mistake, shift to now that

rewardsasinNowthatyou'vefinishedtheposterandit turnedoutsowell,I'dliketocelebratebytakingyououttolunch.

As Deci and his colleagues explain, If tangible rewards are givenunexpectedlytopeopleaftertheyhavefinishedatask,therewardsarelesslikelytobeexperiencedasthereasonfordoingthetaskandarethuslesslikelytobedetrimentaltointrinsicmotivation.

Likewise, Amabile has found in some studies that the highest levels ofcreativitywereproducedbysubjectswhoreceivedarewardasakindofabonus.Sowhentheposterturnsoutgreat,youcouldbuythedesignteamacaseofbeerorevenhandthemacashbonuswithoutsnuffingtheircreativity.Theteamdidn'texpectanyextrasandgettingthemdidn'thingeonaparticularoutcome.You'resimplyofferingyour appreciation for their stellarwork.Butkeep inmindoneginormouscaveat:Repeatednowthatbonusescanquicklybecomeexpectedif-thenentitlementswhichcanultimatelycratereffectiveperformance.

At this point, by limiting rewards for nonroutine, creative work to theunexpected,nowthatvariety,you'reinlessdangerouswaters.Butyou'lldoevenbetterifyoufollowtwomoreguidelines.

First,considernontangiblerewards.Praiseandpositivefeedbackaremuchlesscorrosivethancashandtrophies.Infact,inDeci'soriginalexperiments,andinhissubsequentanalysisofotherstudies,hefoundthatpositivefeedbackcanhaveanenhancingeffecton intrinsicmotivation.So if the folkson thedesignteamturnoutashow-stoppingposter,maybejustwalkintotheirofficesandsay,Wow.You really did an amazing job on that poster. It's going to have a hugeimpactongettingpeopletocometothisevent.Thankyou.Itsoundssmallandsimple,butitcanhaveanenormouseffect.

Second, provide useful information . Amabile has found that whilecontrollingextrinsicmotivatorscanclobbercreativity,informationalorenablingmotivatorscanbeconducivetoit.Intheworkplace,peoplearethirstingtolearnabout how they're doing, but only if the information isn't a tacit effort tomanipulatetheirbehavior.Sodon'ttellthedesignteam:Thatposterwasperfect.YoudiditexactlythewayIasked.Instead,givepeoplemeaningfulinformationabout theirwork.Themore feedback focuses on specifics (great useof color)andthemorethepraiseisabouteffortandstrategyratherthanaboutachievingaparticularoutcomethemoreeffectiveitcanbe.

In brief, for creative, right-brain, heuristic tasks, you're on shaky groundoffering if-then rewards.You're better off using now that rewards.Andyou'rebest off if your now that rewards provide praise, feedback, and useful

information.(Foravisualdepictionofthisapproach,seetheflowchartonthenextpage.)WhentoUseRewards:ASimpleFlowchart

Drive

CHAPTER3

TypeIandTypeXRochester,NewYork,isanunlikelyepicenterforasocialearthquake.The

companies that built this stolid city, just sixty-two miles from the Canadianborder, were titans of the industrial economy. Eastman Kodak made film.Western Union delivered telegrams. Xerox produced photocopiers. And theypiloted their enterprisesby thepreceptsofMotivation2.0: If youofferpeoplesteadyemploymentandcarefullycalibratedrewards,they'lldowhatexecutivesandshareholderswant,andeveryonewillprosper.

But starting in the1970s, on the campusof theUniversityofRochester, amotivationalrevolutionwasbrewing.Itbeganin1971,whenEdwardDeci,freshfromhisSomapuzzleexperiments,arrivedoncampusforajointappointmentinthepsychologydepartmentandthebusinessschool.Itintensifiedin1973,whenthe business school unceremoniously booted Deci because of his hereticalfindings about rewards, and the psychology department hired him full-time. Itgathered more steam in 1975, when Deci published a book called IntrinsicMotivation.Anditlaunchedinearnestin1977,whenastudentnamedRichardRyanshowedupforgraduateschool.

Ryan,aphilosophymajorincollege,hadjustmissedbeingdraftedintothemilitary.Nursingabitofsurvivor'sguilt,he'dbeenworkingwithVietnamWarveterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. And he'd come to theUniversityofRochestertolearnhowtobecomeabetterclinician.Oneday,inaseminar, a professor brought up the subject of intrinsic motivation and thendenounceditwithtable-poundingferocity.Ifiguredthatiftherewasthatmuchresistance, thismust be something interesting, Ryan toldme. He picked up acopy of Deci's book, found it compelling, and asked its author to lunch. Socommencedaremarkableresearchcollaborationthatcontinuestothisday.

When Imet them not long ago, inU ofR's blockyMelioraHall, the twowereastudy inbothcontrastandsimilarity.Deci is tallandreedy,withapalecomplexion and thin, wispy hair. He speaks in a quiet, soothing voice thatremindedmeof the lateAmericanchildren's televisionhostMr.Rogers.Ryan,whohasstraightwhitehairparteddownthemiddle,isruddierandmoreintense.Hepresseshispointlikeaskilledlitigator.Deci,meanwhile,waitspatientlyforyoutoreachhispointthenheagreeswithyouandpraisesyourinsight.DeciistheclassicalmusicstationonyourFMdial;RyanismorecableTV.Andyetthey

talktoeachotherinacrypticacademicshorthand,theirideassmoothlyinsync.The combination has been powerful enough to make them among the mostinfluentialbehavioralscientistsoftheirgeneration.

Together Deci and Ryan have fashioned what they call self-determinationtheory.

Manytheoriesofbehaviorpivotaroundaparticularhumantendency:We'rekeenresponderstopositiveandnegativereinforcements,orzippycalculatorsofour self-interest, or lumpy duffel bags of psychosexual conflicts. SDT, bycontrast,beginswithanotionofuniversalhumanneeds.Itarguesthatwehavethreeinnatepsychologicalneedscompetence,autonomy,andrelatedness.Whenthoseneedsaresatisfied,we'remotivated,productive,andhappy.Whenthey'rethwarted, our motivation, productivity, and happiness plummet. If there'sanything [fundamental] about our nature, it's the capacity for interest. Somethingsfacilitateit.Somethingsundermineit,Ryanexplainedduringoneofourconversations.Putanotherway,we'veallgotthatthirddrive.It'spartofwhatitmeans to be human. Butwhether that aspect of our humanity emerges in ourlivesdependsonwhethertheconditionsaroundussupportit.

And the main mechanisms of Motivation 2.0 are more stifling thansupportive.This isa reallybig thing inmanagement, saysRyan.Whenpeoplearen'tproducing,companiestypicallyresorttorewardsorpunishment.Whatyouhaven'tdoneisthehardworkofdiagnosingwhattheproblemis.You'retryingtorunovertheproblemwithacarrotorastick,Ryanexplains.Thatdoesn'tmeanthat SDT unequivocally opposes rewards. Of course, they're necessary inworkplacesandothersettings,saysDeci.Butthelesssalienttheyaremade,thebetter. When people use rewards to motivate, that's when they're mostdemotivating. Instead, Deci and Ryan say we should focus our efforts oncreatingenvironmentsforourinnatepsychologicalneedstoflourish.

Over the last thirty years, through both their scholarship and mentorship,Deci and Ryan have established a network of several dozen SDT scholarsconducting research in the United States, Canada, Israel, Singapore, andthroughoutWestern Europe. These scientists have explored self-determinationand intrinsic motivation in laboratory experiments and field studies thatencompass just about every realm business, education, medicine, sports,exercise, personal productivity, environmentalism, relationships, and physicalandmental health. They have produced hundreds of research papers,most ofwhichpointtothesameconclusion.Humanbeingshaveaninnateinnerdrivetobeautonomous, self-determined,andconnected tooneanother.Andwhen thatdriveisliberated,peopleachievemoreandlivericherlives.

SDTisanimportantpartofabroadswirlofnewthinkingaboutthehuman

condition. This constellation includes, perhaps most prominently, the positivepsychologymovement,whichhasreorientedthestudyofpsychologicalscienceawayfromitspreviousfocusonmaladyanddysfunctionandtowardwell-beingand effective functioning. Under the leadership of the University ofPennsylvania'sMartinSeligman,positivepsychologyhasbeenminting legionsof new scholars and leaving a deep imprint on how scientists, economists,therapists, and everyday people think about human behavior. One of positivepsychology's most influential figures is Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, whom Imentionedearlier.Csikszentmihalyi'sfirstbookaboutflowandSeligman'sfirstbook on his theories (which argued that helplessnesswas learned, rather thaninnate, behavior) appeared in the same year as Deci's book on intrinsicmotivation. Clearly, something bigwas in the air in 1975. It's just taken us agenerationtoreckonwithit.

The broad assortment of new thinkers includes Carol Dweck of StanfordUniversity and Harvard's Amabile. It includes a few economists mostprominently, Roland BŽnabou of PrincetonUniversity and Bruno Frey of theUniversity of Zurich who are applying some of these concepts to the dismalscience. And it includes some scholars who don't study motivation per se inparticular,HarvardUniversity'sHowardGardnerandTuftsUniversity'sRobertSternbergwhohavechangedourviewofintelligenceandcreativityandofferedabrighterviewofhumanpotential.

Thiscollectionofscholarsnotinconcert,notintentionally,andperhapsnotevenknowingthey'vebeendoingsohasbeencreatingthefoundationforanew,moreeffective,operatingsystem.Atlonglast,thetimesmaybecatchinguptotheirwork.

THEPOWEROFTHEALPHABETWordsmatter,ofcourse,butsodoletters.Caseinpoint:MeyerFriedman.

You'veprobablyneverheardofhim,butyoualmostcertainlyknowhislegacy.Friedman,whodiedin2001attheripeoldageofninety,wasacardiologistwhofor decades ran a bustling office in San Francisco. In the late 1950s, he andfellowphysicianRayRosenmanbegannoticingsimilaritiesintheirpatientswhowerepronetoheartdisease.Itwasn'tonlywhatthesepatientsateorwhatgenesthey inherited that affected their susceptibility to coronary trouble. Itwas alsohowtheyledtheirlives.Thesepatients,Friedmannoted,demonstrated:

a particular complex of personality traits, including excessive competitiondrive, aggressiveness, impatience, and a harrying sense of time urgency.Individuals displaying this pattern seem tobe engaged in a chronic, ceaseless,and often fruitless struggle with themselves, with others, with circumstances,withtime,sometimeswithlifeitself.

These people were significantlymore likely to develop heart disease thanother patients even those who shared similar physical attributes, exerciseregimens,diets,andfamilyhistories.Lookingforaconvenientandmemorableway to explain this insight to their medical colleagues and the wider world,Friedman and Rosenman found inspiration in the alphabet. They dubbed thisbehavioralpatternTypeA.

TypeA behavior stood in contrast to natch Type B behavior. Unlike theirhorn-honking, foot-tapping counterparts, who suffered from hurry sickness,peopledisplayingTypeBbehaviorwererarelyharriedbylifeormadehostilebyits demands. In their research, Friedman and Rosenman found that Type Bpeoplewerejustasintelligent,andfrequentlyjustasambitious,asTypeA's.Buttheyworetheirambitiondifferently.WritingabouttheTypeBperson(andusingthemale-centeredlanguagecommonintheday),thecardiologistsexplained,HemayalsohaveaconsiderableamountofÔdrive,'butitscharacterissuchthatitseems tosteadyhim,giveconfidenceandsecurity tohim, rather than togoad,irritate,andinfuriate,aswiththeTypeAman.Onekeytoreducingdeathsfromheartdiseaseandimprovingpublichealth,therefore,wastohelpTypeA'slearntobecomealittlemorelikeTypeB's.

Nearly fiftyyears later, thisnomenclature remains.The two lettershelpusunderstandacomplexwebofbehaviorsandguideustowardabetterandmoreeffectivewaytolive.

Around the same time that Friedman and Rosenman were making theirdiscovery, another American was pushing frontiers of his own. DouglasMcGregor was a management professor at MIT who brought to the job aninteresting combination of experiences. He'd earned a Ph.D. from Harvard inpsychology(ratherthanineconomicsorengineering).Andincontrasttomostofhis colleagues, he'd actually run an institution. From 1948 to 1954, he waspresidentofAntiochCollege.

Drawing on his understanding of the human psyche, as well as hisexperienceasa leader,McGregorbegan rethinking theconventionsofmodernmanagement.He thought that the problemwith corporate leadershipwasn't somuchitsexecutionasitspremises.Beginningwithaspeechin1957,andlaterinagroundbreakingbookcalledTheHumanSideofEnterprisein1960,McGregorargued that those running companies were operating from faulty assumptionsabouthumanbehavior.

Most leaders believed that the people in their organizations fundamentallydislikedworkandwouldavoiditifittheycould.Thesefacelessminionsfearedtaking responsibility, craved security, and badly needed direction.As a result,most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, and threatened with

punishment toget themtoput forthadequateeffort toward theachievementoforganizational objectives.ButMcGregor said therewas an alternativeviewofemployeesonethatofferedamoreaccurateassessmentofthehumanconditionandamoreeffectivestartingpointforrunningcompanies.Thisperspectiveheldthat taking an interest inwork is as natural as play or rest, that creativity andingenuitywerewidely distributed in the population, and that under the properconditions,peoplewillaccept,andevenseek,responsibility.

Toexplainthesecontrastingoutlooks,McGregorminedthebackendofthealphabet.He called the first viewTheoryXand the secondTheoryY. If yourstarting point was Theory X, he said, your managerial techniques wouldinevitablyproduce limited results,orevengoawryentirely. Ifyoubelieved inthemediocrityofthemasses,asheputit,thenmediocritybecametheceilingonwhatyoucouldachieve.ButifyourstartingpointwasTheoryY,thepossibilitieswerevastnotsimplyfortheindividual'spotential,butforthecompany'sbottomlineaswell.Thewaytomakebusinessorganizationsworkbetter,therefore,wastoshiftmanagementthinkingawayfromTheoryXandtowardTheoryY.

Onceagain,thenomenclaturestuckandMcGregor'sapproachsoonbecameastapleofmanagementeducation.Apicturemaybeworthathousandwordsbutsometimesneitherisaspotentasjusttwoletters.

So with a hoist from Meyer Friedman onto the shoulders of DouglasMcGregor, I'd like to introducemyownalphabeticway to think about humanmotivation.

TYPEIANDTYPEXTheMotivation2.0operatingsystemdependedon,andfostered,whatIcall

Type X behavior. Type X behavior is fueled more by extrinsic desires thanintrinsicones.Itconcernsitselflesswiththeinherentsatisfactionofanactivityandmorewiththeexternalrewardstowhichthatactivityleads.TheMotivation3.0operatingsystemtheupgradethat'sneededtomeetthenewrealitiesofhowwe organize, think about, and do what we do depends on what I call Type Ibehavior.TypeIbehaviorisfueledmorebyintrinsicdesiresthanextrinsicones.It concerns itself lesswith the external rewards towhichanactivity leads andmorewiththeinherentsatisfactionoftheactivityitself.AtthecenterofTypeXbehavioristheseconddrive.AtthecenterofTypeIbehavioristhethirddrive.

If we want to strengthen our organizations, get beyond our decade ofunderachievement,andaddresstheinchoatesensethatsomething'sgonewronginourbusinesses, our lives, andourworld,weneed tomove fromTypeX toTypeI.(Iusethesetwoletterslargelytosignifyextrinsicandintrinsic,butalsotopayhomagetoDouglasMcGregor.)

Tobe sure, reducinghumanbehavior to twocategories sacrifices a certain

amountofnuance.AndnobodyexhibitspurelyTypeXorTypeIbehavioreverywakingminuteofevery livingdaywithoutexception.Butwedohavecertain,oftenveryclear,dispositions.

YouprobablyknowwhatImean.Thinkaboutyourself.Doeswhatenergizesyouwhatgetsyouupinthemorningandpropelsyouthroughthedaycomefromthe insideor from theoutside?What aboutyour spouse,yourpartner, oryourchildren?How about themen andwomen around you atwork? If you're likemost people I've talked to, you instantly have a sense into which categorysomeonebelongs.

I don't mean to say that Type X people always neglect the inherentenjoymentofwhat theydoor thatType Ipeople resistoutsidegoodiesofanykind. But for Type X's, the main motivator is external rewards; any deepersatisfaction iswelcome,but secondary.ForType I's, themainmotivator is thefreedom, challenge, and purpose of the undertaking itself; any other gains arewelcome,butmainlyasabonus.

Afewmoredistinctionstokeepinmindbeforewegofurther:Type I behavior is made, not born. These behavioral patterns aren't fixed

traits. They are proclivities that emerge from circumstance, experience, andcontext.TypeIbehavior,becauseitarises inpartfromuniversalhumanneeds,does not depend on age, gender, or nationality. The science demonstrates thatoncepeoplelearnthefundamentalpracticesandattitudesandcanexercisethemin supportive settings their motivation, and their ultimate performance, soars.AnyTypeXcanbecomeaTypeI.

Type I's almost always outperform Type X's in the long run. Intrinsicallymotivatedpeopleusuallyachievemore than their reward-seekingcounterparts.Alas, that's not always true in the short term. An intense focus on extrinsicrewardscanindeeddeliverfastresults.Thetroubleis,thisapproachisdifficultto sustain.And itdoesn't assist inmasterywhich is thesourceofachievementoverthelonghaul.Themostsuccessfulpeople,theevidenceshows,oftenaren'tdirectly pursuing conventional notions of success. They're working hard andpersisting through difficulties because of their internal desire to control theirlives,learnabouttheirworld,andaccomplishsomethingthatendures.

TypeIbehaviordoesnotdisdainmoneyorrecognition.BothTypeX'sandType I's care about money. If an employee's compensation doesn't hit thebaseline that I described in Chapter 2 if her organization doesn't pay her anadequateamount,orifherpayisn'tequitablecomparedtoothersdoingsimilarworkthatperson'smotivationwillcrater,regardlessofwhethersheleanstowardX or toward I. However, once compensationmeets that level, money plays adifferent role forTypeI's thanforTypeX's.TypeI'sdon't turndownraisesor

refusetocashpaychecks.Butonereasonfairandadequatepayissoessentialisthatittakestheissueofmoneyoffthetablesotheycanfocusontheworkitself.Bycontrast,formanyTypeX's,moneyisthetable.It'swhytheydowhattheydo. Recognition is similar. Type I's like being recognized for theiraccomplishments because recognition is a form of feedback. But for them,unlikeforTypeX's,recognitionisnotagoalinitself.

TypeIbehaviorisarenewableresource.ThinkofTypeXbehaviorascoalandType I behavior as the sun. Formost of recent history, coal has been thecheapest, easiest,mostefficient resource.Butcoalhas twodownsides.First, itproducesnastythingslikeairpollutionandgreenhousegases.Second,it'sfinite;gettingmoreofitbecomesincreasinglydifficultandexpensiveeachyear.TypeXbehaviorissimilar.Anemphasisonrewardsandpunishmentsspewsitsownexternalities(asenumeratedinChapter2).Andif-thenmotivatorsalwaysgrowmoreexpensive.ButTypeIbehavior,whichisbuiltaroundintrinsicmotivation,drawsonresourcesthatareeasilyreplenishedandinflictlittledamage.Itisthemotivationalequivalentofcleanenergy:inexpensive,safetouse,andendlesslyrenewable.

TypeIbehaviorpromotesgreaterphysicalandmentalwell-being.AccordingtoaraftofstudiesfromSDTresearchers,peopleorientedtowardautonomyandintrinsicmotivation have higher self-esteem, better interpersonal relationships,and greater generalwell-being than thosewho are extrinsicallymotivated.Bycontrast,peoplewhosecoreaspirationsareTypeXvalidationssuchasmoney,fame, or beauty tend to have poorer psychological health. There's even aconnectionbetweenTypeXandTypeA.Decifoundthatthoseorientedtowardcontrol and extrinsic rewards showed greater public self-consciousness, actedmoredefensively,andweremorelikelytoexhibittheTypeAbehaviorpattern.

Ultimately,TypeIbehaviordependsonthreenutrients:autonomy,mastery,andpurpose.Type I behavior is self-directed. It is devoted tobecomingbetterandbetteratsomethingthatmatters.Anditconnectsthatquestforexcellencetoalargerpurpose.

Some might dismiss notions like these as gooey and idealistic, but thescience says otherwise. The science confirms that this sort of behavior isessentialtobeinghumanandthatnow,inarapidlychangingeconomy,itisalsocriticalforprofessional,personal,andorganizationalsuccessofanykind.

Sowehave a choice.We can cling to a viewof humanmotivation that isgroundedmore in old habits than inmodern science. Orwe can listen to theresearch,dragourbusinessandpersonalpracticesintothetwenty-firstcentury,and craft a new operating system to help ourselves, our companies, and ourworldworkalittlebetter.

Itwon'tbeeasy.Itwon'thappenovernight.Solet'sgetstarted.

Drive

PartTwo

TheThreeElements

Drive

CHAPTER4

AutonomyI 've seen the future and it works. It works in around-the-clock bursts in

Sydney,Australia. It works on guerrilla-style side projects inMountainView,California. And it works whenever it damn well pleases in Charlottesville,Virginia.Thereasonwhyitworksisbecauseofhowitworks.Ontheedgesofthe economy slowly, but inexorably old-fashioned ideas of management aregivingwaytoanewfangledemphasisonself-direction.

That'swhy,alittlepastnoononarainyFridayinCharlottesville,onlyathirdof CEO Jeff Gunther's employees have shown up for work. But Guntherentrepreneur,manager,capitalistisneitherworriednorannoyed.Infact,he'sascalmandfocusedasamonk.Maybethat'sbecausehedidn'trollintotheofficehimselfuntilaboutanhourago.Ormaybethat'sbecauseheknowshiscrewisn'tshirking.They'reworkingjustontheirownterms.

Atthebeginningoftheyear,GuntherlaunchedanexperimentinautonomyatMeddius,oneofatrioofcompaniesheruns.Heturnedthecompany,whichcreates computer software and hardware to help hospitals integrate theirinformationsystems,intoaROWEaresults-onlyworkenvironment.

ROWEsarethebrainchildofCaliResslerandJodyThompson,twoformerhuman resources executives at the American retailer Best Buy. ROWE'sprinciples marry the commonsense pragmatism of Ben Franklin to the cage-rattling radicalism of SaulAlinsky. In aROWEworkplace, people don't haveschedules.Theyshowupwhentheywant.Theydon'thavetobeintheofficeatacertaintimeoranytime,forthatmatter.Theyjusthavetogettheirworkdone.Howtheydoit,whentheydoit,andwheretheydoitisuptothem.

ThatappealedtoGunther,who'sinhisearlythirties.Managementisn'taboutwalkingaroundandseeing ifpeopleare in theiroffices,he toldme. It's aboutcreatingconditionsforpeopletodotheirbestwork.That'swhyhe'dalwaystriedtogiveemployeesalongleash.ButasMeddiusexpanded,andasGuntherbeganexploring new office space, he started wondering whether talented, grown-upemployees doing sophisticated work needed a leash of any length. So at thecompany'sholidaydinnerinDecember2008,hemadeanannouncement:Forthefirstninetydaysofthenewyear,theentiretwenty-two-personoperationwouldtryanexperiment.ItwouldbecomeaROWE.

Inthebeginning,peopledidn'ttaketoit,Gunthersays.Theofficefilledup

aroundnineA.M. and emptiedout in the early evening, just as before.A fewstaffers had come out of extremely controlling environments and weren'taccustomedtothiskindofleeway.(Atoneemployee'spreviouscompany,staffhad to arrive each day by eight A.M. If someone was late, even by a fewminutes, the employee had towrite an explanation for everyone else to read.)Butafterafewweeks,mostpeoplefoundtheirgroove.Productivityrose.Stressdeclined.Andalthoughtwoemployeesstruggledwiththefreedomandleft,bytheendofthetestperiodGuntherdecidedtogowithROWEpermanently.

Somepeople (outsideof the company) thought Iwas crazy, he says.Theywondered,ÔHowcanyouknowwhatyour employeesaredoing if they'renothere?' But in his view, the team was accomplishing more under this newarrangement.Onereason:Theywere focusedon thework itself rather thanonwhethersomeonewouldcallthemaslackerforleavingatthreeP.M.towatchadaughter's soccer game. And since the bulk of his staff consists of softwaredevelopers, designers, and others doing high-level creative work, that wasessential. For them, it's all about craftsmanship. And they need a lot ofautonomy.

Peoplestillhadspecificgoals theyhad to reach forexample,completingaprojectbyacertaintimeorringingupaparticularnumberofsales.Andiftheyneeded help, Gunther was there to assist. But he decided against tying thosegoals tocompensation.Thatcreatesaculture thatsays it'sallabout themoneyand not enough about the work. Money, he believes, is only a thresholdmotivator.Peoplemustbepaidwellandbeabletotakecareoftheirfamilies,hesays. But once a company meets this baseline, dollars and cents don't muchaffect performance and motivation. Indeed, Gunther thinks that in a ROWEenvironment,employeesarefarlesslikelytojumptoanotherjobfora$10,000oreven$20,000 increase insalary.Thefreedomtheyhave todogreatwork ismore valuable, and harder tomatch, than a pay raise and employees' spouses,partners,andfamiliesareamongROWE'sstaunchestadvocates.

Morecompanieswillmigratetothisasmorebusinessownersmyagecomeup.Mydad's generationviewshumanbeings as human resources.They're thetwo-by-foursyouneed tobuildyourhouse,he says.Forme, it's apartnershipbetweenme and the employees. They're not resources. They're partners. Andpartners,likeallofus,needtodirecttheirownlives.

PLAYERSORPAWNS?We forget sometimes thatmanagementdoesnot emanate fromnature. It's

not like a tree or a river. It's like a television or a bicycle. It's something thathumansinvented.AsthestrategyguruGaryHamelhasobserved,managementisatechnology.AndlikeMotivation2.0,it'satechnologythathasgrowncreaky.

Whilesomecompanieshaveoiledthegearsabit,andplentymorehavepaidlipservice to thesame,at itscoremanagementhasn'tchangedmuchinahundredyears. Its central ethic remains control; its chief tools remain extrinsicmotivators. That leaves it largely out of syncwith the nonroutine, right-brainabilities on whichmany of the world's economies now depend. But could itsmostglaringweaknessrundeeper?Ismanagement,asit'scurrentlyconstituted,outofsyncwithhumannatureitself?

The idea of management (that is, management of people rather thanmanagement of, say, supply chains) is built on certain assumptions about thebasicnaturesof thosebeingmanaged. Itpresumes that to takeactionormoveforward, we need a prod that absent a reward or punishment, we'd remainhappilyand inertly inplace. It alsopresumes thatoncepeopledogetmoving,theyneeddirectionthatwithoutafirmandreliableguide,they'dwander.

But is that reallyour fundamental nature?Or, touseyet another computermetaphor,isthatourdefaultsetting?Whenweentertheworld,arewewiredtobepassiveandinert?Orarewewiredtobeactiveandengaged?

I'mconvinced it's the latter that our basic nature is to be curious and self-directed.AndIsay thatnotbecauseI'madewy-eyed idealist,butbecauseI'vebeenaroundyoungchildrenandbecausemywifeandIhave threekidsofourown.Haveyouever seena six-month-oldor aone-year-oldwho'snot curiousandself-directed?Ihaven't.That'showweareoutofthebox.If,atagefourteenor forty-three, we're passive and inert, that's not because it's our nature. It'sbecausesomethingflippedourdefaultsetting.

Thatsomethingcouldwellbemanagementnotmerelyhowbossestreatusatwork, but also how the broader ethos has leeched into schools, families, andmany other aspects of our lives. Perhapsmanagement isn't responding to oursupposedly natural state of passive inertia. Perhapsmanagement is one of theforcesthat'sswitchingourdefaultsettingandproducingthatstate.

Now,that'snotasinsidiousasitsounds.Submergingpartofournatureinthenameofeconomicsurvivalcanbeasensiblemove.Myancestorsdidit;sodidyours.Andtherearetimes,evennow,whenwehavenootherchoice.

But today economic accomplishment, not to mention personal fulfillment,more often swings on a different hinge. It depends not on keeping our naturesubmergedbutonallowing it to surface. It requires resisting the temptation tocontrol people and instead doing everything we can to reawaken their deep-seatedsenseofautonomy.Thisinnatecapacityforself-directionisattheheartofMotivation3.0andTypeIbehavior.

The fundamentally autonomous quality of human nature is central to self-determination theory (SDT).As I explained in the previous chapter,Deci and

Ryanciteautonomyasoneofthreebasichumanneeds.Andofthethree,it'sthemostimportantthesunaroundwhichSDT'splanetsorbit.Inthe1980s,astheyprogressed in their work, Deci and Ryan moved away from categorizingbehavior as either extrinsically motivated or intrinsically motivated tocategorizing it as either controlled or autonomous. Autonomous motivationinvolvesbehavingwithafullsenseofvolitionandchoice, theywrite,whereascontrolled motivation involves behaving with the experience of pressure anddemand toward specific outcomes that comes from forces perceived to beexternaltotheself.

Theultimatefreedomforcreativegroupsisthefreedomtoexperimentwithnew ideas. Some skeptics insist that innovation is expensive. In the long run,innovationischeap.Mediocrityisexpensiveandautonomycanbetheantidote.

TOMKELLEYGeneralManager,IDEOAutonomy,astheyseeit,isdifferentfromindependence.It'snottherugged,

go-it-alone, rely-on-nobody individualism of the American cowboy. It meansacting with choice which means we can be both autonomous and happilyinterdependentwithothers.Andwhiletheideaofindependencehasnationalandpoliticalreverberations,autonomyappearstobeahumanconceptratherthanawesternone.Researchershavefoundalinkbetweenautonomyandoverallwell-being not only in North America and Western Europe, but also in Russia,Turkey, and South Korea. Even in high-poverty non-Western locales likeBangladesh,socialscientistshavefoundthatautonomyissomethingthatpeopleseekandthatimprovestheirlives.

A senseof autonomyhas apowerful effect on individual performance andattitude.Accordingtoaclusterofrecentbehavioralsciencestudies,autonomousmotivationpromotesgreaterconceptualunderstanding,bettergrades,enhancedpersistenceatschoolandinsportingactivities,higherproductivity,lessburnout,andgreater levels of psychologicalwell-being.Those effects carryover to theworkplace. In 2004, Deci and Ryan, along with Paul Baard of FordhamUniversity,carriedoutastudyofworkersatanAmericaninvestmentbank.Thethreeresearchersfoundgreaterjobsatisfactionamongemployeeswhosebossesofferedautonomysupport.Thesebossessawissuesfromtheemployee'spointofview, gavemeaningful feedback and information, provided ample choice overwhattodoandhowtodoit,andencouragedemployeestotakeonnewprojects.Theresultingenhancementinjobsatisfaction,inturn,ledtohigherperformanceon the job. What's more, the benefits that autonomy confers on individualsextend to their organizations. For example, researchers at Cornell Universitystudied320smallbusinesses,halfofwhichgrantedworkersautonomy,theotherhalfrelyingontop-downdirection.Thebusinessesthatofferedautonomygrew

atfourtimestherateofthecontrol-orientedfirmsandhadone-thirdtheturnover.Yettoomanybusinessesremainwoefullybehindthescience.Mosttwenty-

first-centurynotionsofmanagementpresumethat,intheend,peoplearepawnsrather thanplayers.British economistFrancisGreen, to cite just one example,points to the lackof individual discretion atwork as themain explanation fordecliningproductivityandjobsatisfactionintheUK.Managementstillrevolveslargely around supervision, if-then rewards, and other forms of control. That'strueevenof thekinder,gentlerMotivation2.1approach thatwhispers sweetlyaboutthingslikeempowermentandflexibility.

Indeed,justconsidertheverynotionofempowerment.Itpresumesthattheorganizationhas thepowerandbenevolently ladlessomeof it into thewaitingbowlsofgratefulemployees.Butthat'snotautonomy.That'sjustaslightlymorecivilized formof control.Or takemanagement's embraceof flex time.ResslerandThompsoncallitacongame,andthey'reright.Flexibilitysimplywidensthefences and occasionally opens the gates. It, too, is littlemore than control insheep's clothing. The words themselves reflect presumptions that run againstboth the texture of the times and the nature of the human condition. In short,managementisn'tthesolution;it'stheproblem.

Perhaps it's time to toss theverywordmanagementonto the linguisticashheap alongside icebox and horseless carriage. This era doesn't call for bettermanagement.Itcallsforarenaissanceofself-direction.

THEFOURESSENTIALSI n 2002, Scott Farquhar andMike Cannon-Brookes, two wet-behind-the-

earsAustraliansjustoutofuniversity,borrowed$10,000ontheircreditcardstostart a software company. They anointed their venture with a bold nameAtlassian,aftertheGreektitanAtlas,whoboretheworldonhisshoulders.Andtheysetaboutcreatingacompanytocompeteagainstsomeofthebignamesinenterprise software. At the time, their venture seemed loony. Today, it seemsinspired. Through its combination of great computer code and smart businesspractices,Atlassiannowrakesinabout$35millionperyearandemploysnearlytwohundredpeopleinofficesinSydney,Amsterdam,andSanFrancisco.

Butlikeanygoodentrepreneur,Cannon-Brookeswalksthroughlifebeneathacloudofperpetualdissatisfaction.He'dseensuccessfulcompaniesstagnateandwishedtoavoidthatfateforhis.Sotosparkevengreatercreativityamonghisteam, and tomake sureAtlassian's programmerswere having fun atwork, hedecidedtoencouragethemtospendadayworkingonanyproblemtheywanted,evenifitwasn'tpartoftheirregularjob.

Thisoffbeatoff-daygavebirthtoseveralideasfornewproductsandplentyofrepairsandpatchesonexistingones.SoCannon-Brookesdecidedtomakethe

practice a permanent part of the Atlassian culture. Now, once a quarter, thecompanysetsasideanentiredaywhenitsengineerscanworkonanysoftwareproblemtheywantonlythistime,togetthemoutofthedaytoday,itmustbesomethingthat'snotpartoftheirregularjob.

At twoP.M. on aThursday, the day begins. Engineers, includingCannon-Brookeshimself,crashoutnewcodeoraneleganthackanywaytheywant,withanyonetheywant.Manyworkthroughthenight.Then,atfourP.M.onFriday,theyshowtheresultstotherestofthecompanyinawild-and-woollyall-handsmeetingstockedwithamplequantitiesofcoldbeerandchocolatecake.Atlassiancalls these twenty-four-hour bursts of freedom and creativity FedEx Daysbecause people have to deliver something overnight. And deliver Atlassianshave.Overtheyears, thisoddlittleexercisehasproducedanarrayofsoftwarefixesthatmightotherwiseneverhaveemerged.Saysoneengineer,SomeofthecooleststuffwehaveinourproducttodayhascomefromFedExDays.

This isn't a pay-for-performance plan, grounded in the mechanisticassumptions of Motivation 2.0. It's an autonomy plan, nicely tuned to thealternatestrainsofMotivation3.0.We'vealwaystakenthepositionthatmoneyisonly somethingyoucan loseon,Cannon-Brookes toldme. Ifyoudon'tpayenough,youcanlosepeople.Butbeyondthat,moneyisnotamotivator.Whatmatters are these other features. Andwhat a few future-facing businesses arediscovering is that one of these essential features is autonomy in particular,autonomyoverfouraspectsofwork:whatpeopledo,whentheydoit,howtheydo it, and whom they do it with. As Atlassian's experience shows, Type IbehavioremergeswhenpeoplehaveautonomyoverthefourT's:theirtask,theirtime,theirtechnique,andtheirteam.

TaskCannon-Brookeswas still dissatisfied. FedExDayswereworking fine, but

theyhad an inherentweakness.Youbuilt something in twenty-four hours, butyou didn't get any more time to work on it, he says. So he and cofounderFarquhardecidedtodouble-downtheirbetonemployeeautonomy.Inthespringof2008,theyannouncedthatforthenextsixmonths,Atlassiandeveloperscouldspend20percentof their timerather thanjustoneintensedayworkingonanyprojecttheywanted.AsCannon-Brookesexplainedinablogposttoemployees:

A startup engineer must be all things he (or she) is a full time softwaredeveloper and a part time product manager/ customer support guru/internalsystemsmaven.Asacompanygrows,anengineerspendslesstimebuildingthethings he personally wants in the product. Our hope is that 20% time givesengineersbackdedicatedstacktimeoftheirowndirectiontospendonproductinnovation, features, plugins, fixes or additions that they think are the most

important.Thispracticehasasturdytraditionandawell-knownmodernexpression.Its

pioneerwastheAmericancompany3M.Inthe1930sand1940s,3M'spresidentandchairmanwasWilliamMcKnight, a fellowwhowasasunassuming inhismannerashewasvisionaryinhisthinking.McKnightbelievedinasimple,andat the time, subversive, credo: Hire good people, and leave them alone.Wellbeforeitwasfashionableformanagerstoflaponaboutempowerment,hemadea more vigorous case for autonomy. Those men and women to whom wedelegateauthorityandresponsibility,iftheyaregoodpeople,aregoingtowanttodotheirjobsintheirownway,hewrotein1948.McKnightevenencouragedemployeestoengageinwhathecalledexperimentaldoodling.

As an entrepreneur, I'm blessed with 100% autonomy over task, time,techniqueandteam.Here'sthething:IfImaintainthatautonomy,Ifail.Ifailtoship.Ifailtoexcel.Ifailtofocus.Iinevitablyendupeitherwithnoproductoraproduct themarket rejects.The art of the art is pickingyour limits.That's theautonomyImostcherish.Thefreedomtopickmyboundaries.

SETHGODIN,AuthorofTribes,PurpleCow,andtheworld'smostpopularmarketingblog

Withtheseunorthodoxideaspercolatinginhismind,thisunlikelycorporateheretic established a new policy: 3M's technical staff could spend up to 15percentoftheirtimeonprojectsoftheirchoosing.TheinitiativefeltsocountertothemoresofMotivation2.0,soseeminglyillicit, that insidethecompany,itwasknownasthebootleggingpolicy.Andyetitworked.Thesewalledgardensof autonomy soon became fertile fields for a harvest of innovations includingPost-itnotes.ScientistArtFrycameupwithhis ideafortheubiquitousstickienot in one of his regular assignments, but during his 15 percent time. Today,Post-its are a monumental business: 3M offers more than six hundred Post-itproducts inmore thanonehundredcountries. (And theircultural impactmightbeevengreater.Consider:ButforMcKnight'searlypushforautonomy,we'dbeliving in a world without any small yellow squares stuck to our computermonitors.Achillingthoughtindeed.)Accordingto3M'sformerheadofresearchanddevelopment,mostoftheinventionsthatthecompanyreliesoneventodayemergedfromthoseperiodsofbootleggingandexperimentaldoodling.

McKnight'sinnovationremainsinplaceat3M.Butonlyasurprisinglysmallnumber of other companies have moved in this direction, despite its provenresults. The best-known company to embrace it is Google, which has longencouragedengineerstospendonedayaweekworkingonasideproject.SomeGooglersusetheir20percenttimetofixanexistingproduct,butmostuseittodevelop something entirely new. Of course, Google doesn't sign away the

intellectual property rights to what's created during that 20 percent which iswise. In a typical year, more than half of Google's new offerings are birthedduring this period of pure autonomy. For example, scientist Krishna Bharat,frustrated by how difficult it was to find news stories online, created GoogleNews in his 20 percent time. The site now receivesmillions of visitors everyday. Former Google engineer Paul Bucheit created Gmail, now one of theworld's most popular e-mail programs, as his 20 percent project.Many otherGoogle products share similar creation stories among them Orkut (Google'ssocial networking software), Google Talk (its instant message application),GoogleSky (whichallowsastronomically inclinedusers tobrowsepicturesoftheuniverse),andGoogleTranslate(itstranslationsoftwareformobiledevices).As Google engineer Alec Proudfoot, whose own 20 percent project aimed atboostingtheefficiencyofhybridcars,putitinatelevisioninterview:JustaboutallthegoodideashereatGooglehavebubbledupfrom20percenttime.

Back at Atlassian, the experiment in 20 percent time seemed to work. Inwhat turned out to be a yearlong trial, developers launched forty-eight newprojects. So in 2009, Cannon-Brookes decided to make this dose of taskautonomyapermanentfeatureofAtlassianworklife.Thedecisiondidn'tsitwellwith everyone. By Cannon-Brookes's back-of-the-blog calculations, seventyengineers, spending 20 percent of their time over just a six-month period,amountedtoaninvestmentof$1million.Thecompany'schieffinancialofficerwas aghast. Someprojectmanagers despiteAtlassian's forward-thinkingways,thecompanystillusesthem-wordweren'thappy,becauseitmeantcedingsomeoftheircontroloveremployees.Whenafewwantedtotrackemployees'timetomakesuretheydidn'tabusetheprivilege,Cannon-Brookessaidno.Thatwastoocontrolling. Iwanted to back our engineers and take it on faith that they'll dogood things.Besides,he says,Peoplearewaymoreefficient about20percenttime than regular work time. They say, ÔI'm not going to [expletive]ing doanythinglikereadnewsfeedsordoFacebook.'

These days, when a finance guy, pearls of sweat rolling from his greeneyeshades, objects to the price tag, Cannon-Brookes has a ready response: Ishowhima long list of thingswe'vedelivered. I showhim thatwehave zeroturnover in engineering. And I show him that we have highly motivatedengineerswhoarealwaystryingtoperfectandimproveourproduct.

Autonomy over task is one of the essential aspects of theMotivation 3.0approach to work. And it isn't reserved only for technology companies. AtGeorgetownUniversityHospitalinWashington,D.C.,forinstance,manynurseshave the freedom to conduct their own research projects, which in turn havechangedanumberofthehospital'sprogramsandpolicies.Autonomymeasures

canworkinarangeoffieldsandofferapromisingsourcefor innovationsandeveninstitutionalreforms.

InitiativeslikeFedExDaysandsanctionedsideprojectsaren'talwayseasytoexecute in the day-to-day maw of serving customers, shipping products, andsolving problems. But they're becoming urgent in an economy that demandsnonroutine,creative,conceptualabilitiesasanyartistordesignerwouldagree.Autonomyover taskhas longbeencritical to their ability to create.Andgoodleaders(asopposedtocompetentmanagers)understandthisintheirbones.

Case in point: George Nelson, who was the design director at Her-manMiller, the iconic American furnituremaker, for a few decades. He once laiddown five simple tenets that he believed led to great design. One of theseprinciplescouldserveasarallyingcryforTypeI'sethicofautonomyovertask:Youdecidewhatyouwillmake.

TimeEver wonder why lawyers, as a group, are so miserable? Some social

scientistshaveandthey'veofferedthreeexplanations.Oneinvolvespessimism.Beingpessimisticisalmostalwaysarecipeforlowlevelsofwhatpsychologistscall subjective well-being. It's also a detriment in most professions. But asMartinSeligmanhaswritten,Thereisoneglaringexception:pessimistsdobetterat law. Inotherwords, anattitude thatmakes someone lesshappyasahumanbeing actually makes her more effective as a lawyer. A second reason:Mostotherenterprisesarepositive-sum.IfIsellyousomethingyouwantandenjoy,we'rebothbetteroff.Law,bycontrast,isoften(thoughnotalways)azero-sumgame:Becausesomebodywins,somebodyelsemustlose.

But the third reason might offer the best explanation of all and help usunderstandwhysofewattorneysexemplifyTypeIbehavior.Lawyersoftenfaceintensedemandsbuthaverelativelylittledecisionlatitude.Behavioralscientistsusethis termtodescribethechoices,andperceivedchoices,apersonhas.Inasense,it'sanotherwayofdescribingautonomyandlawyersareglumandcrankybecausetheydon'thavemuchofit.Thedeprivationstartsearly.A2007studyoftwo American law schools found that over the three-year period in school,students' overall well-being plummeted in large part because their need forautonomy was thwarted. But students who had greater autonomy over theircourse selection, their assignments, and their relationswith professors showedfarlesssteepdeclinesandactuallypostedbettergradesandbarexamscores.

Nothingismoreimportanttomysuccessthancontrollingmyschedule.I'mmostcreativefromfive tonineA.M.IfIhadabossorcoworkers, theywouldruinmybesthoursonewayoranother.

SCOTTADAMSDilbertcreator

Alas, at the heart of private legal practice is perhaps themost autonomy-crushingmechanismimaginable: thebillablehour.Most lawyersandnearlyalllawyers in large, prestigious firms must keep scrupulous track, often in six-minuteincrements,oftheirtime.Iftheyfailtobillenoughhours,theirjobsarein jeopardy. As a result, their focus inevitably veers from the output of theirwork (solving a client's problem) to its input (piling up as many hours aspossible).Iftherewardscomefromtime,thentimeiswhatfirmswillget.Thesesorts of high-stakes, measurable goals can drain intrinsic motivation, sapindividual initiative,andevenencourageunethicalbehavior. Ifone isexpectedtobillmorethantwothousandhoursperyear,formerU.S.SupremeCourtChiefJustice William Rehnquist once said, there are bound to be temptations toexaggeratethehoursactuallyputin.

ThebillablehourisarelicofMotivation2.0.Itmakessomesenseforroutinetasks whether fitting doors onto the body of a Ford Taurus or adding updeductionsonasimpletaxformbecausethere'satightconnectionbetweenhowmuch time goes in and how much work comes out. And if your startingassumptionisthatworkers'defaultsettingistoshirk,monitoringtheirtimecankeepthemontheirtoes.

ButthebillablehourhaslittleplaceinMotivation3.0.Fornonroutinetasks,includinglaw,thelinkbetweenhowmuchtimesomebodyspendsandwhatthatsomebody produces is irregular and unpredictable. Imagine requiring inventorDeanKamenoractressHelenMirrentobillfortheirtime.Ifwebeginfromanalternative, andmoreaccurate,presumption thatpeoplewant todogoodworkthenweought to let themfocusontheworkitselfrather thanthetimeit takesthem to do it.Already, a few law firms aremoving in this new,more Type Idirection charging a flat rate rather than a time-based fee with the presidingpartnerofoneofNewYork's leading law firms recentlydeclaring,This is thetimetogetridofthebillablehour.

If thebillablehourhasanantithesis, it's theresults-onlyworkenvironmentof the kind that Jeff Gunther has introduced at his companies. The first largecompanytogoROWEwasBestBuynotinitsstores,butinitscorporateoffices.Like3M's15percenttime,BestBuy'sROWEexperimentbeganassomethingofa rogueproject launchedbyResslerandThompson,whomImentionedearlierandwho have since becomeROWEgurus, taking theirmessage of autonomyaround the world. Best Buy's headquarters in Richfield, Minnesota, are airy,modern,andrepletewithaconcierge,cafŽs,anddrycleaner.Butthecompanyhadareputationforpunishinghoursandintrusivebossesanditwaspayingtheprice in lost talent. Best Buy's then CEO Brad Anderson quietly agreed toRessler and Thompson's weird proposal, because it encouraged people to

contributeratherthanjustshowupandgrindouttheirdays.Today,BestBuy'sheadquartershasfewerpeopleworkingaregularschedule

than it has those working a ROWE un-schedule. And even though retailelectronicsisabrutallycompetitiveindustry,BestBuyhashelditsownbothinthemarketplaceandinitsquestfortalent.Reportingonthecompany'sROWEresultsintheHarvardBusinessReview,TamaraEricksonwrites:

Salaried people put in as much time as it takes to do their work. Hourlyemployees in theprogramworka setnumberofhours to complywith federallabor regulations, but theyget to choosewhen.Those employees report betterrelationshipswithfamilyandfriends,morecompanyloyalty,andmorefocusandenergy.Productivityhasincreasedby35%,andvoluntaryturnoveris320basispointslowerthaninteamsthathavenotmadethechange.Employeessaytheydon'tknowwhethertheyworkfewerhoursthey'vestoppedcounting.

Withoutsovereigntyoverourtime,it'snearlyimpossibletohaveautonomyover our lives.A fewType I organizations have begun to recognize this truthabout thehumanconditionand to realign theirpractices.More,nodoubt,willfollow. In the past, work was defined primarily by putting in time, andsecondarilyongettingresults.Weneedtoflip thatmodel,Ressler toldme.Nomatterwhatkindofbusinessyou're in, it's time to throwaway the tardyslips,timeclocks,andoutdatedindustrial-agethinking.

TechniqueWhen you call a customer service line to complain about your cable

televisionbillortocheckthewhereaboutsofthatblenderyouordered,thephoneusually rings in a colorless cavern known as a call center. The person whoanswersthecall,acustomerservicerepresentative,hasatoughjob.Hetypicallysits forhoursamongawarrenofcrampedcubiclesheadset strappedon,adietsoda by his side. The pay is paltry.And the people the rep encounters on thephoneoneafteranotherafteranothergenerallyaren'tringinguptoofferkudosortoaskabouttherep'sweekendplans.They'vegotagripe,afrustration,oraproblemthatneedssolving.Right.Now.

Ifthatweren'ttryingenough,callcenterrepshavelittledecisionlatitudeandtheir jobs are often the very definition of routine.When a call comes in, theylistentothecallerandthen,inmostcases,tapafewbuttonsontheircomputertoretrieveascript.Thentheyfollowthatscript,sometimeswordforword,inthehopeofgettingthecalleroffthelineasquicklyaspossible.Itcanbedeadeningwork,madedrearierstillbecausemanagersinmanycallcenters,inanefforttoboostproductivity, listen inon reps' conversationsandmonitorhow longeachcall lasts.Littlewonder, then,thatcallcentersintheUnitedStatesandtheUKhave annual turnover rates that average about 35 percent, double the rate for

other jobs. In some call centers the annual turnover rate exceeds 100 percent,meaningthat,onaverage,noneofthepeopleworkingtheretodaywillbethereayearfromnow.

TonyHsieh,founderoftheonlineshoeretailer(nowpartof),thoughttherewasabetterwaytorecruit,prepare,andchallengesuchemployees.SonewhiresatZapposgothroughaweekoftraining.Then,attheendofthosesevendays,Hsiehmakesthemanoffer.IftheyfeelZapposisn'tforthemandwanttoleave,he'll pay them $2,000 no hard feelings. Hsieh is hacking the Motivation 2.0operating system like a brilliant and benevolent teenage computer whiz. He'susinganif-thenrewardnottomotivatepeopletoperformbetter,buttoweedoutthose who aren't fit for a Motivation 3.0-style workplace. The people whoremain receive decent pay, and just as important, they have autonomy overtechnique.Zapposdoesn'tmonitoritscustomerserviceemployees'calltimesorrequirethemtousescripts.Therepshandlecallsthewaytheywant.Theirjobistoservethecustomerwell;howtheydoitisuptothem.

The results of this emphasis on autonomy over technique? Turnover atZappos isminimal.Andalthough it's stillyoung,Zapposconsistently ranksasone of the best companies for customer service in theUnited States ahead ofbetter-knownnameslikeCadillac,BMW,andAppleandroughlyequaltoritzybrands like Jaguarand theRitz-Carlton.Notbad fora shoecompanybased intheNevadadesert.

WhatZapposisdoingispartofasmallbutgrowingmovetorestoresomemeasure of individual freedom in jobs usually known for the lack of it. Forinstance, while many enterprises are offshoring work to low-cost providersoverseas,somecompaniesarereversingthetrendbybeginningwhat'sknownashomeshoring. Instead of requiring customer service reps to report to a singlelarge call center, they're routing the calls to the employees' homes. This cutscommutingtimeforstaff,removesthemfromphysicalmonitoring,andprovidesfargreaterautonomyoverhowtheydotheirjobs.

TheAmericanairlineJetBluewasoneofthefirsttotrythisapproach.Fromitslaunchin2000,JetBluehasreliedontelephonecustomerserviceemployeeswhowork at home.And from its launch, JetBluehas earned customer servicerankings far ahead of its competitors. Productivity and job satisfaction aregenerally higher in homeshoring than in conventional arrangements in partbecause employees aremore comfortable and lessmonitored at home.But it'salso because this autonomy-centered approach draws from a deeper pool oftalent. Many homeshore employees are parents, students, retirees, and peoplewith disabilities those who want to work, but need to do it their own way.According to one report, between 70 and 80 percent of home-based customer

service agents have college degrees double the percentage among peopleworkingintraditionalcallcenters.VentureslikeAlpineAccess,PHHArval,andLiveOps, which run customer service departments for a range of companies,report thatafteradoptingthismethod, theirrecruitingcostsfall toalmostzero.Prospective employees come to them. And now these home-based customerservice reps are working for a number of U.S. companies including 1-800-Flowers, J. Crew, Office Depot, even the Internal Revenue Service handlingcustomer inquiries the way they choose. As in any effective Motivation 3.0workplace,it'stheircall.

TeamWhateveryourplaceinthebirthorder,considerwhatit'sliketobethethird

childinafamily.Youdon'tgetasayinchoosingthepeoplearoundyou.They'retherewhenyouarrive.Worse,oneor twoof themmightnotbesoglad toseeyou.Andgettingridofevenjustoneofthemisusuallyimpossible.

Autonomy over what we do is most important. The biggest differencebetweenworkingforotherstudiosandrunningmyownhasbeenthefactthatIcan choose what job we take on and what product, service, or institution wepromote.ThisIfindthesinglemostimportantquestion:WhenI'mclosetothecontent, research becomes easy, meetings become interesting (people whoproduceinterestingproductsorservicesaremostlyinterestingthemselves),andIdon'thavetobeinvolvedinfalseadvertising.

STEFANSAGMEISTERDesignerTakinganewjobandholdingmostjobsaresimilar.Enterprisingsoulsmight

be able to scratch out some autonomy over task, time, and technique butautonomy over team is a taller order. That's one reason people are drawn toentrepreneurship the chance to build a team of their own. But even in moretraditional settings, although far from typical yet, a few organizations arediscovering thevirtuesofofferingpeople someamountof freedomover thosewithwhomtheywork.

Forexample,attheorganicgrocerychainWholeFoods,thepeoplewhoarenominallyinchargeofeachdepartmentdon'tdothehiring.Thattaskfallstoadepartment's employees. After a job candidate has worked a thirty-day trialperiodonateam,theprospectiveteammatesvoteonwhethertohirethatpersonfull-time.AtW.L.Gore&Associates,themakersoftheGORE-TEXfabricandanotherexampleofMotivation3.0inaction,anybodywhowantstoriseintheranksandleadateammustassemblepeoplewillingtoworkwithher.

The ability to put together a pick-up basketball teamof company talent isanother attractionof 20percent time.These initiatives usually slice across theorganizationchart,connectingpeoplewhoshareaninterest,ifnotadepartment.

AsGoogle engineer BharatMediratta told TheNewYork Times , If your 20percent idea is a new product, it's usually pretty easy to just find a few like-mindedpeople and start codingaway.Andwhenpushing for amore systemicchange in the organization,Mediratta says autonomy over team is evenmoreimportant.Thoseeffortsrequirewhathecallsagroupletasmall,self-organizedteamthathasalmostnobudgetandevenlessauthority,butthattriestochangesomethingwithinthecompany.Forinstance,Medirattaformedatestinggrouplettoencourageengineers throughout thecompany to implementamoreefficientway to test computer code. This informal band of coders, a team builtautonomouslywithoutdirectionfromthetop,slowlyturnedtheorganizationonitsaxis.

Still, thedesire forautonomycanoftencollidewithotherobligations.OnesurpriseasAtlassianranthenumbersonitstaskautonomyexperimentwasthatmost employees came in substantially under the 20 percent figure. The mainreason? They didn't want to let down their current teammates by abandoningongoingprojects.

AlthoughautonomyoverteamistheleastdevelopedofthefourT's,theever-escalatingpowerofsocialnetworksandtheriseofmobileappsnowmakethisbrand of autonomy easier to achieve and in ways that reach beyond a singleorganization.The open-source projects Imentioned inChapter 1, inwhich adhocteamsself-assembletobuildanewbrowserorcreatebetterserversoftware,areapotentexample.Andonceagain,thescienceaffirmsthevalueofsomethingtraditional businesses have been slow to embrace. Ample research has shownthat people working in self-organized teams are more satisfied than thoseworking in inherited teams.Likewise, studies byDeci and others have shownthatpeoplehighinintrinsicmotivationarebettercoworkers.Andthatmakesthepossibilitiesonthisfrontenormous.IfyouwanttoworkwithmoreTypeI's,thebest strategy is to become one yourself. Autonomy, it turns out, can becontagious.

THEARTOFAUTONOMYThinkforamomentaboutthegreatartistsofthelasthundredyearsandhow

theyworkedpeoplelikePabloPicasso,GeorgiaO'Keeffe,andJacksonPollock.Unlike for the rest of us, Motivation 2.0 was never their operating system.Nobodytoldthem:Youmustpaintthissortofpicture.Youmustbeginpaintingpreciselyateight-thirtyA.M.Youmustpaintwiththepeopleweselecttoworkwithyou.Andyoumustpaintthisway.Theveryideaisludicrous.

Butyouknowwhat?It'sludicrousforyou,too.Whetheryou'refixingsinks,ringing up groceries, selling cars, or writing a lesson plan, you and I needautonomyjustasdeeplyasagreatpainter.

However, encouragingautonomydoesn'tmeandiscouragingaccountability.Whatever operating system is in place, people must be accountable for theirwork.But there are differentways to achieve this end, each built on differentassumptions about who we are deep down. Motivation 2.0 assumed that ifpeoplehadfreedom,theywouldshirkandthatautonomywasawaytobypassaccountability.Motivation 3.0 beginswith a different assumption. It presumesthatpeoplewanttobeaccountableandthatmakingsuretheyhavecontrolovertheir task, their time, their technique, and their team is a pathway to thatdestination.

Ofcourse,becausemostworkplacesstillreverberatewiththeassumptionsoftheoldoperatingsystem,transitioningtoautonomywon'toftencan'thappeninone fell swoop. If we pluck people out of controlling environments, whenthey've knownnothing else, and plop them in aROWEor an environment ofundiluted autonomy, they'll struggle. Organizations must provide, as RichardRyan puts it, scaffolding to help every employee find his footing tomake thetransition.

What'smore,different individualswillprizedifferentaspectsofautonomy.Somemightcraveautonomyoveratask;othersmightpreferautonomyovertheteam. As Zappos CEO Hsieh told me by e-mail, Studies have shown thatperceivedcontrolisanimportantcomponentofone'shappiness.However,whatpeoplefeelliketheywantcontroloverreallyvaries,soIdon'tthinkthere'soneaspectofautonomy that'suniversally themost important.Different individualshavedifferentdesires,sothebeststrategyforanemployerwouldbetofigureoutwhat'simportanttoeachindividualemployee.

Still, however those individual desires express themselves on the surface,theygrowfromcommonroots.We'reborntobeplayers,notpawns.We'remeanttobeautonomousindividuals,not individualautomatons.We'redesignedtobeTypeI.Butoutsideforces includingtheveryideathatweneedtobemanagedhave conspired to change our default setting and turn us into Type X. If weupdate the environments we're in not only at work, but also at school and athome and if leaders recognize both the truth of the human condition and thesciencethatsupportsit,wecanreturnourselvesandourcolleaguestoournaturalstate.

The courseof humanhistoryhas alwaysmoved in thedirectionof greaterfreedom.And there'sa reason for thatbecause it's inournature topush for it,Ryantoldme.Ifwewerejustplasticlike[some]peoplethink,thiswouldn'tbehappening.But somebody stands in front of a tank inChina.Women,who'vebeendeniedautonomy,keepadvocatingforrights.Thisisthecourseofhistory.This is why ultimately human nature, if it ever realizes itself, will do so by

becomingmoreautonomous.

Drive

CHAPTER5

MasteryYouneednotseewhatsomeoneisdoingtoknowifitishisvocation,youhaveonlytowatchhiseyes:acookmixingasauce,asurgeonmakingaprimaryincision,aclerkcompletingabilloflading,wearthesameraptexpression,forgettingthemselvesinafunction.Howbeautifulitis,thateye-on-the-objectlook.W.H.AudenOnesummermorningin1944,MihalyCsikszentmihalyi,ageten,stoodona

trainplatform inBudapest,Hungary,withhismother, twobrothers, and aboutseventy relatives who'd come to see them off.WorldWar II was raging, andHungary, an ambivalentmember of theAxis,was being squeezed from everypolitical and geographic corner. Nazi soldiers were occupying the country inretaliation for Hungary's secret peace negotiations with the United States andGreatBritain.Meanwhile,Soviettroopswereadvancingonthecapitalcity.

Itwastimetoleave.SothefoursomeboardedatrainforVenice,Italy,whereCsikszentmihalyi's father, a diplomat, was working. As the train rumbledsouthwest, bombs exploded in the distance. Bullets ripped through the train'swindows,while a rifle-toting soldier on board fired back at the attackers.Theten-year-oldcrouchedunderhisseat,terrifiedbutalsoalittleannoyed.

It struck me at that point that grown-ups had really no idea how to live,Csikszentmihalyitoldmesomesixty-fiveyearslater.

His trainwould turnout tobe the last tocross theDanubeRiver formanyyears.Shortlyafteritsdeparture,airstrikesdestroyedHungary'smajorbridges.The Csikszentmihalyis were well educated and well connected, but the warflattened their lives.Of the relatives on the train platform thatmorning,morethanhalfwouldbedead fivemonths later.OneofCsikszentmihalyi's brothersspent six years doing hard labor in the Ural Mountains. Another was killedfightingtheSoviets.

Thewholeexperiencegotmethinking,Csikszentmihalyisaid, recallinghisten-year-oldself.Therehasgottobeabetterwaytolivethanthis.

FROMCOMPLIANCETOENGAGEMENTTheoppositeofautonomyiscontrol.Andsincetheysitatdifferentpolesof

the behavioral compass, they point us toward different destinations. Controlleadstocompliance;autonomyleadstoengagement.Andthisdistinctionleads

to the secondelementofType Ibehavior:mastery thedesire togetbetter andbetteratsomethingthatmatters.

AsIexplainedinPartOne,Motivation2.0'sgoalwastoencouragepeopletodoparticularthingsinparticularwaysthatis,togetthemtocomply.Andforthatobjective,fewmotivatorsaremoreeffectivethananicebunchofcarrotsandthethreat of an occasional stick. This was rarely a promising route to self-actualization,ofcourse.Butasaneconomicstrategy,ithadacertainlogic.Forroutinetasks,thesortofworkthatdefinedmostofthetwentiethcentury,gainingcomplianceusuallyworkedjustfine.

Butthatwasthen.Forthedefinitionaltasksofthetwenty-firstcentury,suchastrategy falls short,oftenwoefullyshort.Solvingcomplexproblemsrequiresan inquiring mind and the willingness to experiment one's way to a freshsolution. Where Motivation 2.0 sought compliance, Motivation 3.0 seeksengagement.Onlyengagementcanproducemastery.Andthepursuitofmastery,animportantbutoftendormantpartofourthirddrive,hasbecomeessential inmakingone'swayintoday'seconomy.

Unfortunately, despite sweet-smelling words like empowerment that waftthroughcorporate corridors, themodernworkplace'smost notable featuremaybe its lack of engagement and its disregard for mastery. Gallup's extensiveresearchonthesubjectshowsthatintheUnitedStates,morethan50percentofemployees are not engaged at work and nearly 20 percent are activelydisengaged.Thecostofallthisdisengagement:about$300billionayearinlostproductivityasumlargerthantheGDPofPortugal,Singapore,orIsrael.Yetincomparative terms, the United States looks like a veritable haven of Type Ibehavioratwork.According to theconsulting firmMcKinsey&Co., in somecountriesas littleas2 to3percentof theworkforce ishighlyengaged in theirwork.

Equallyimportant,engagementasaroute tomasteryisapowerfulforceinour personal lives.While complying can be an effective strategy for physicalsurvival,it'salousyoneforpersonalfulfillment.Livingasatisfyingliferequiresmorethansimplymeetingthedemandsofthoseincontrol.Yetinourofficesandour classrooms we have way too much compliance and way too littleengagement.Theformermightgetyouthroughtheday,butonlythelatterwillgetyouthroughthenight.AndthatbringsusbacktoCsikszentmihalyi'sstory.

In his early teens, afterwitnessing the atrocities ofNaziGermany and theSoviet takeoverof his country,Csikszentmihalyiwasunderstandablywearyofcomplianceand looking forengagement.Buthewouldn't find it at school.Hedroppedoutofhighschoolatthirteen.Fornearlyadecade,heworkedinvariousWestern European countries at a series of jobs, some odder than others, to

supporthimself.Andhopingtoanswerhisyouthfulquestionaboutabetterwaytolive,hereadeverythinghecouldgethishandsoninreligionandphilosophy.Whathelearneddidn'tsatisfyhim.Itwasn'tuntilheinadvertentlystumbledintoa lecture by none other than Carl Jung that he heard about the field ofpsychologyanddecidedthatitmightholdthesecretshesought.

Soin1956,attheageoftwenty-two,CsikszentmihalyisetofffortheUnitedStates to studypsychology.Hearrived inChicago,ahighschooldropoutwith$1.25inhispocketwhoseonlyfamiliaritywiththeEnglishlanguagecamefromreadingPogocomicstrips.HungariancontactsinChicagohelpedhimfindajobandaplacetolive.HisknowledgeofLatin,German,andPogohelpedhimpasstheIllinoishighschoolequivalencytestinalanguageheneitherspokenorread.He enrolled in theUniversity of Illinois-Chicago, took classes during the day,workedasahotelauditoratnight,andeventuallywoundupattheUniversityofChicago psychology department, where just nine years after setting foot inAmericaheearnedaPh.D.

ButCsikszentmihalyiresistedraftingdownthemaincurrentsofhisfield.Ashetoldmeonespringmorningnotlongago,hewantedtoexplorethepositive,innovative,creativeapproach to life insteadof the remedial,pathologicalviewthatSigmundFreudhadorthemechanisticworkofB.F.Skinnerandotherswhoreducedbehavior to simple stimulus and response.Hebeganbywriting aboutcreativity.Creativitytookhimintothestudyofplay.Andhisexplorationofplayunlockedaninsightaboutthehumanexperiencethatwouldmakehimfamous.

In the midst of play, many people enjoyed what Csikszentmihalyi calledautotelicexperiencesfromtheGreekauto(self)andtelos(goalorpurpose).Inanautotelicexperience,thegoalisself-fulfilling;theactivityisitsownreward.PaintersheobservedduringhisPh.D.research,Csikszentmihalyisaid,weresoenthralledinwhattheyweredoingthattheyseemedtobeinatrance.Forthem,time passed quickly and self-consciousness dissolved. He sought out otherpeoplewho gravitated to these sorts of pursuits rock climbers, soccer players,swimmers,spelunkersandinterviewedthemtodiscoverwhatmadeanactivityautotelic. It was frustrating.When people try to recall how it felt to climb amountain or play a great musical piece, Csikszentmihalyi later wrote, theirstoriesareusuallyquitestereotypedanduninsightful.Heneededawaytoprobepeople's experiences in the moment. And in the mid-1970s, a bold newtechnologyone thatany twelve-year-oldnowwouldfind laughinglyretrogradecametotherescue:theelectronicpager.

Csikszentmihalyi, who by thenwas teaching at the University of Chicagoandrunninghisownpsychologylab,clippedonapagerandaskedhisgraduatestudents to beep him randomly several times each day. Whenever the pager

sounded,herecordedwhathewasdoingandhowhewasfeeling.Itwassomuchfun,he recalled inhisofficeat theClaremontGraduateUniversity insouthernCalifornia,wherehenowteaches.Yougotsuchadetailedpictureofhowpeoplelived. On the basis of this test run, he developed a methodology called theExperienceSamplingMethod.Csikszentmihalyiwouldpagepeopleeighttimesa day at random intervals and ask them towrite in a booklet their answers toseveral short questions aboutwhat theywere doing,who theywerewith, andhowthey'ddescribetheirstateofmind.Putthefindingstogetherforsevendaysand you had a flip book, a mini-movie, of someone's week. Assemble theindividualfindingsandyouhadanentirelibraryofhumanexperiences.

Throughoutmy athletics career, theoverall goalwas always to be a betterathletethanIwasatthatmomentwhethernextweek,nextmonthornextyear.The improvementwas thegoal.Themedalwassimply theultimaterewardforachievingthatgoal.

SEBASTIANCOEMiddle-distancerunnerandtwo-timeOlympicgoldmedalwinner

Fromtheseresults,Csikszentmihalyibegantopeelbackthelayersofthoseautotelic experiences. Perhaps equally significant, he replaced that wonkyGreek-derived adjective with a word he found people using to describe theseoptimal moments: flow. The highest, most satisfying experiences in people'sliveswerewhentheywereinflow.Andthispreviouslyunacknowledgedmentalstate,whichseemedsoinscrutableandtranscendent,wasactuallyfairlyeasytounpack.Inflow,goalsareclear.Youhavetoreachthetopofthemountain,hittheballacrossthenet,ormoldtheclayjustright.Feedbackisimmediate.Themountaintop gets closer or farther, the ball sails in or out of bounds, the potyou'rethrowingcomesoutsmoothoruneven.

Most important, in flow, the relationshipbetweenwhat apersonhad todoandwhathecoulddowasperfect.Thechallengewasn'ttooeasy.Norwasittoodifficult.Itwasanotchortwobeyondhiscurrentabilities,whichstretchedthebodyandmind in away thatmade the effort itself themostdelicious reward.Thatbalanceproducedadegreeof focus and satisfaction that easily surpassedother, more quotidian, experiences. In flow, people lived so deeply in themoment,andfeltsoutterlyincontrol, that theirsenseof time,place,andevenselfmelted away.Theywere autonomous, of course.Butmore than that, theywereengaged.Theywere,asthepoetW.H.Audenwrote,forgettingthemselvesinafunction.

Maybethisstateofmindwaswhatthatten-year-oldboywasseekingasthattrainrolledthroughEurope.Maybereachingflow,notforasinglemomentbutasanethicforlivingmaintainingthatbeautifuleye-on-the-objectlooktoachieve

masteryasacook,asurgeon,oraclerkwastheanswer.Maybethiswasthewaytolive.

GOLDILOCKSONACARGOSHIPSeveralyearsagohecan'trecallexactlywhenCsikszentmihalyiwasinvited

toDavos,Switzerland, byKlausSchwab,who runs an annual conclaveof theglobalpowereliteinthatcity.JoininghimonthetripwerethreeotherUniversityofChicagofacultymembersGaryBecker,GeorgeStigler,andMiltonFriedmanall of themeconomists, all of themwinners of theNobelPrize.The fivemengathered for dinner one night and at the end of the meal, Schwab asked theacademicswhattheyconsideredthemostimportantissueinmoderneconomics.

The desire to do something because you find it deeply satisfying andpersonallychallenginginspiresthehighestlevelsofcreativity,whetherit'sinthearts,sciences,orbusiness.

TERESAAMABILEProfessor,HarvardUniversityTomyincreduloussurprise,Csikszentmihalyirecounted,Becker,Stigler,and

Friedmanall endedup sayingavariationofÔThere's somethingmissing,' thatfor all its explanatory power, economics still failed to offer a rich enoughaccountofbehavior,eveninbusinesssettings.

Csikszentmihalyi smiled and complimented his colleagues on theirperspicacity.The concept of flow,which he introduced in themid-1970s,wasnot an immediate game-changer. It gained some traction in 1990 whenCsikszentmihalyi wrote his first book on the topic for a wide audience andgained a small bandof followers in the businessworld.However, putting thisnotion into place in the real operations of real organizations has been slowergoing.Afterall,Motivation2.0haslittleroomforaconceptlikeflow.TheTypeXoperatingsystemdoesn'topposepeople takingonoptimalchallengeson thejob,butitsuggeststhatsuchmomentsarehappyaccidentsratherthannecessaryconditionsforpeopletodogreatwork.

But ever so slowly the ground might be shifting. As the data on workerdisengagementearlierinthechapterreveal,thecostsinbothhumansatisfactionandorganizationalhealtharehighwhenaworkplace isano-flowzone.That'swhy a few enterprises are trying to do things differently. As Fast Companymagazine has noted, a number of companies, includingMicrosoft, Patagonia,and Toyota, have realized that creating flow-friendly environments that helppeoplemovetowardmasterycanincreaseproductivityandsatisfactionatwork.

For example, Stefan Falk, a vice president at Ericsson, the Swedishtelecommunicationsconcern,usedtheprinciplesofflowtosmoothamergerofthe company's business units. He persuaded managers to configure workassignments so that employees had clear objectives and a way to get quick

feedback. And instead of meeting with their charges for once-a-yearperformancereviews,managerssatdownwithemployeesone-on-onesixtimesayear, often for as long asninetyminutes, todiscuss their level of engagementandpath towardmastery.The flow-centered strategyworkedwell enough thatEricssonbeganusing it inoffices around theworld.After that,Falkmoved toGreenCargo,anenormouslogisticsandshippingcompanyinSweden.There,hedevelopedamethodoftrainingmanagersinhowflowworked.Thenherequiredthem tomeetwith staff once amonth to get a sense ofwhether peoplewereoverwhelmed or underwhelmed with their work and to adjust assignments tohelp them find flow. After two years of managerial revamping, state-ownedGreenCargobecameprofitableforthefirsttimein125yearsandexecutivesciteitsnewfoundflowcentricityasakeyreason.

Inaddition,astudyof11,000industrialscientistsandengineersworkingatcompanies in theUnitedStates found that the desire for intellectual challengethatis,theurgetomastersomethingnewandengagingwasthebestpredictorofproductivity.Scientistsmotivatedbythisintrinsicdesirefiledsignificantlymorepatents than thosewhosemainmotivationwasmoney,evencontrollingfor theamount of effort each group expended. (That is, the extrinsically motivatedgroupworked as long and as hard as theirmoreType I colleagues. They justaccomplishedlessperhapsbecausetheyspentlessoftheirworktimeinflow.)

Andthenthere'sJenovaChen,ayounggamedesignerwho,in2006,wrotehisMFA thesis onCsikszentmihalyi's theory. Chen believed that video gamesheld the promise to deliver quintessential flow experiences, but that toomanygamesrequiredanalmostobsessivelevelofcommitment.Whynot,hethought,design a game to bring the flow sensation tomore casual gamers? Using histhesis project as his laboratory, Chen created a game in which players use acomputermousetoguideanon-screenamoeba-likeorganismthroughasurrealoceanlandscapeasitgobbliesothercreaturesandslowlyevolvesintoahigherform. While most games require players to proceed through a fixed andpredeterminedseriesofskilllevels,Chen'sallowsthemtoadvanceandexploreany way they desire. And unlike games in which failure ends the session, inChen's game failuremerely pushes the player to a level bettermatched to herability.ChencallshisgameflOw.Andit'sbeenahugehit.Peoplehaveplayedthefreeonlineversionofthegamemorethanthreemilliontimes.(Youcanfindit at ). The paid version, designed for the PlayStation game console, hasgeneratedmore than 350,000 downloads and collected a shelf full of awards.Chen used the game to launch his own firm, thatgamecompany, built aroundbothflowandflOw,thatquicklywonathree-gamedevelopmentdealfromSony,somethingalmostunheardofforanunknownstart-uprunbyacoupleoftwenty-

six-year-oldCaliforniagamedesigners.GreenCargo, thatgamecompany, and the companies employing the patent-

crankingscientiststypicallyusetwotacticsthattheirlesssavvycompetitorsdonot.First, theyprovideemployeeswithwhatIcallGoldilockstaskschallengesthatarenottoohotandnottoocold,neitheroverlydifficultnoroverlysimple.One source of frustration in the workplace is the frequent mismatch betweenwhatpeoplemustdoandwhatpeoplecando.Whenwhattheymustdoexceedstheir capabilities, the result is anxiety.Whenwhat theymust do falls short oftheircapabilities,theresultisboredom.(Indeed,Csikszentmihalyititledhisfirstbook on autotelic experiencesBeyondBoredom andAnxiety .) Butwhen thematch is just right, the results can be glorious. This is the essence of flow.Goldilocks tasks offer us the powerful experience of inhabiting the zone, ofliving on the knife's edge between order and disorder, of as painter FritzScholder once described it walking the tightrope between accident anddiscipline.

The second tactic that smart organizations use to increase their flow-friendliness and their employees' opportunities for mastery is to trigger thepositivesideoftheSawyerEffect.RecallfromChapter2thatextrinsicrewardscan turn play into work. But it's also possible to run the current in the otherdirection and turn work into play. Some tasks at work don't automaticallyprovidesurgesof flow,yet stillneed togetdone.So theshrewdestenterprisesaffordemployeesthefreedomtosculpttheirjobsinwaysthatbringalittlebitofflow to otherwise mundane duties. AmyWrzesniewski and Jane Dutton, twobusiness school professors, have studied this phenomenon among hospitalcleaners,nurses,andhairdressers.Theyfound,forinstance,thatsomemembersofthecleaningstaffathospitals,insteadofdoingtheminimumthejobrequired,tookonnew tasks fromchattingwithpatients tohelpingmakenurses' jobsgomore smoothly. Adding these more absorbing challenges increased thesecleaners' satisfactionandboosted theirownviewsof their skills.Byreframingaspectsoftheirduties,theyhelpedmakeworkmoreplayfulandmorefullytheirown.Even in low-autonomy jobs,Wrzesniewski andDuttonwrite, employeescancreatenewdomainsformastery.

THETHREELAWSOFMASTERYFlowisessentialtomastery.Butflowdoesn'tguaranteemasterybecausethe

twoconceptsoperateondifferenthorizonsof time.Onehappensinamoment;theotherunfoldsovermonths,years,sometimesdecades.YouandIeachmightreach flow tomorrow morning but neither one of us will achieve masteryovernight.

Sohowcanweenlistflowinthequestforsomethingthatgoesdeeperand

endures longer? What can we do to move toward mastery, one of the keyelements of Type I behavior, in our organizations and our lives? A fewbehavioral scientists have offered some initial answers to those questions, andtheirfindingssuggestthatmasteryabidesbythree,somewhatpeculiar,laws.

MasteryIsaMindsetAswithsomanythingsinlife,thepursuitofmasteryisallinourhead.At

leastthat'swhatCarolDweckhasdiscovered.Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford University, has been studying

motivationandachievementinchildrenandyoungadultsfornearlyfortyyears,amassingabodyofrigorousempiricalresearchthathasmadeherasuperstarincontemporarybehavioralscience.Dweck'ssignatureinsightisthatwhatpeoplebelieveshapeswhatpeopleachieve.Ourbeliefsaboutourselvesandthenatureofourabilitieswhatshecallsourself-theoriesdeterminehowweinterpretourexperiences and can set the boundaries onwhatwe accomplish.Although herresearch looksmostly at notions of intelligence, her findings applywith equalforce to most human capabilities. And they yield the first law of mastery:Masteryisamindset.

According to Dweck, people can hold two different views of their ownintelligence.Thosewhohaveanentitytheorybelievethatintelligenceisjustthatan entity. It existswithinus, in a finite supply thatwe cannot increase.Thosewhosubscribetoanincrementaltheorytakeadifferentview.Theybelievethatwhile intelligence may vary slightly from person to person, it is ultimatelysomethingthat,witheffort,wecanincrease.Toanalogizetophysicalqualities,incremental theoristsconsider intelligenceassomething likestrength. (Want togetstrongerandmoremuscular?Startpumpingiron.)Entitytheoristsviewitassomething more like height. (Want to get taller? You're out of luck.) If youbelieveintelligenceisafixedquantity, theneveryeducationalandprofessionalencounterbecomesameasureofhowmuchyouhave.Ifyoubelieveintelligenceissomethingyoucan increase, then thesameencountersbecomeopportunitiesforgrowth.Inoneview,intelligenceissomethingyoudemonstrate;intheother,it'ssomethingyoudevelop.

Figureoutforyourselfwhatyouwanttobereallygoodat,knowthatyou'llneverreallysatisfyyourselfthatyou'vemadeit,andacceptthatthat'sokay.

ROBERTB.REICHFormerU.S.SecretaryofLaborThe two self-theories lead down two very different paths one that heads

towardmasteryandone thatdoesn't.For instance,considergoals.Dwecksaystheycomeintwovarietiesperformancegoalsandlearninggoals.GettinganAinFrench class is a performance goal. Being able to speak French is a learninggoal.Bothgoalsareentirelynormalandprettymuchuniversal,Dwecksays,and

both can fuel achievement. But only one leads tomastery. In several studies,Dweckfoundthatgivingchildrenaperformancegoal(say,gettingahighmarkon a test) was effective for relatively straightforward problems but ofteninhibitedchildren'sabilitytoapplytheconceptstonewsituations.Forexample,inonestudy,Dweckandacolleagueaskedjuniorhighstudentstolearnasetofscientific principles, giving half of the students a performance goal andhalf alearning goal. After both groups demonstrated they had grasped the material,researchers asked the students to apply their knowledge to a new set ofproblems, related but not identical to what they'd just studied. Students withlearninggoalsscoredsignificantlyhigheron thesenovelchallenges.Theyalsoworkedlongerandtriedmoresolutions.AsDweckwrites,Withalearninggoal,students don't have to feel that they're already good at something in order tohang in and keep trying. After all, their goal is to learn, not to prove they'resmart.

Indeed, the two self-theories take very different views of effort. Toincremental theorists, exertion is positive. Since incremental theorists believethat ability is malleable, they see working harder as a way to get better. Bycontrast,saysDweck,theentitytheory...isasystemthatrequiresadietofeasysuccesses. In this schema, if you have towork hard, itmeans you're not verygood.People thereforechooseeasy targets that,whenhit, affirm their existingabilitiesbutdolittletoexpandthem.Inasense,entitytheoristswanttolooklikemasterswithoutexpendingtheefforttoattainmastery.

Finally, the two typesof thinking triggercontrasting responses toadversityone that Dweck calls helpless, the other, mastery-oriented. In a study ofAmerican fifth-and sixth-graders, Dweck gave students eight conceptualproblems they could solve, followed by four they could not (because thequestionsweretooadvancedforchildrenthatage).Studentswhosubscribedtothe idea that brain-power is fixed gave up quickly on the tough problems andblamed their (lack of ) intelligence for their difficulties. Studentswith amoreexpansivemindsetkeptworkinginspiteofthedifficultyanddeployedfarmoreinventive strategies to find a solution.Whatdid these studentsblame for theirinabilitytoconquerthetoughestproblems?Theanswer,whichsurprisedus,wasthattheydidn'tblameanything,Dwecksays.Theyoungpeoplerecognizedthatsetbacks were inevitable on the road to mastery and that they could even beguidepostsforthejourney.

Dweck's insights map nicely to the behavioral distinctions underlyingMotivation2.0andMotivation3.0.TypeXbehavioroftenholdsanentitytheoryof intelligence,prefersperformancegoals to learninggoals,anddisdainseffortasasignofweakness.TypeIbehaviorhasanincrementaltheoryofintelligence,

prizes learninggoalsoverperformancegoals,andwelcomeseffortasawaytoimprove at something that matters. Begin with one mindset, and mastery isimpossible.Beginwiththeother,anditcanbeinevitable.

MasteryIsaPainEachsummer,abouttwelvehundredyoungAmericanmenandwomenarrive

attheUnitedStatesMilitaryAcademyatWestPointtobeginfouryearsofstudyandtotaketheirplaceinthefabledlonggrayline.Butbeforeanyofthemseesaclassroom, they go through seven weeks of Cadet Basic Training otherwiseknownasBeastBarracks.Bythetimethesummerends,oneintwentyofthesetalented,dedicatedyoungadultshasdroppedout.AgroupofscholarstwofromWestPoint,anotherfromtheUniversityofPennsylvania,andafourthfromtheUniversityofMichiganwanted tounderstandwhysomestudentscontinuedontheroadtowardmilitarymasteryandothersgotoffatthefirstexit.

Trytopickaprofessioninwhichyouenjoyeventhemostmundane,tediousparts.Thenyouwillalwaysbehappy.

WILLSHORTZPuzzleguruWasitphysicalstrengthandathleticism?Intellect?Leadershipability?Well-

roundedness?Noneoftheabove.Thebestpredictorofsuccess,theresearchersfound,was

the prospective cadets' ratings on a noncognitive, non-physical trait known asgritdefinedasperseveranceandpassionforlong-termgoals.Theexperienceofthesearmyofficers-in-trainingconfirmsthesecondlawofmastery:Masteryisapain.

As wonderful as flow is, the path to mastery becoming ever better atsomethingyoucareaboutisnotlinedwithdaisiesandspannedbyarainbow.Ifitwere,moreofuswouldmakethetrip.Masteryhurts.Sometimesmanytimesit's not much fun. That is one lesson of the work of psychologist AndersEricsson,whosegroundbreakingresearchonexpertperformancehasprovidedanew theory of what fosters mastery. As he puts it,Many characteristics oncebelievedtoreflect innate talentareactually theresultsof intensepracticeforaminimum of 10 years. Mastery of sports, music, business requires effort(difficult, painful, excruciating, all-consuming effort) over a long time (not aweekor amonth, but a decade). SociologistDanielChambliss has referred tothisasthemundanityofexcellence.LikeEricsson,Chamblissfoundinathree-yearstudyofOlympicswimmersthatthosewhodidthebesttypicallyspentthemost timeandefforton themundaneactivities that readied themfor races. It'sthesamereasonthat,inanotherstudy,theWestPointgritresearchersfoundthatgrittinessratherthanIQorstandardizedtestscoresisthemostaccuratepredictorofcollegegrades.Astheyexplained,Whereastheimportanceofworkingharder

is easily apprehended, the importance of working longer without switchingobjectivesmaybelessperceptible...ineveryfield,gritmaybeasessentialastalenttohighaccomplishment.

Flow enters the picture here in twoways. If people are conscious ofwhatputstheminflow,they'llhaveaclearerideaofwhattheyshoulddevotethetimeanddedicationtomaster.Andthosemomentsofflowinthecourseofpursuingexcellencecanhelppeoplethroughtheroughparts.Butintheend,masteryofteninvolvesworkingandworkingandshowinglittle improvement,perhapswithafewmomentsofflowpullingyoualong,thenmakingalittleprogress,andthenworkingandworkingonthatnew,slightlyhigherplateauagain.It'sgrueling,tobesure.Butthat'snottheproblem;that'sthesolution.

AsCarolDwecksays,Effortisoneofthethingsthatgivesmeaningtolife.Effortmeansyoucareaboutsomething,thatsomethingisimportanttoyouandyouarewillingtoworkforit.Itwouldbeanimpoverishedexistenceifyouwerenotwillingtovaluethingsandcommityourselftoworkingtowardthem.

Another doctor, onewho lacks a Ph.D. but has a plaque in theBasketballHall of Fame in Springfield, Massachusetts, put it similarly. Being aprofessional,JuliusErvingoncesaid,isdoingthethingsyoulovetodo,onthedaysyoudon'tfeellikedoingthem.

MasteryIsanAsymptoteTounderstandthefinallawofmastery,youneedtoknowalittlealgebraand

alittlearthistory.From algebra, you might remember the concept of an asymptote. If not,

maybe you'll recognize it below. An asymptote (in this case, a horizontalasymptote)isastraightlinethatacurveapproachesbutneverquitereaches.

Fromarthistory,youmightrememberPaulCŽzanne,thenineteenth-centuryFrenchpainter.Youneedn'tremembermuchjustthathewassignificantenoughto have art critics and scholars write about him. CŽzanne's most enduringpaintingscamelateinhislife.Andonereasonforthis,accordingtoUniversityofChicago economistDavidGalenson,who's studied the careers of artists, isthat hewas endlessly trying to realize his bestwork. ForCŽzanne, one criticwrote,

the ultimate synthesis of a designwas never revealed in a flash; rather heapproached it with infinite precautions, stalking it, as it were, now from onepointofview,nowfromanother. . . .Forhim the synthesiswasanasymptotetowardwhichhewasforeverapproachingwithouteverquitereachingit.

Thisisthenatureofmastery:Masteryisanasymptote.Youcanapproachit.Youcanhomeinonit.Youcangetreally,really,really

close to it.But likeCŽzanne,youcannever touch it.Mastery is impossible to

realizefully.TigerWoods,perhapsthegreatestgolferofalltime,hassaidflatlythathecanthathemustbecomebetter.Hesaiditwhenhewasanamateur.He'llsay it after his best outing or at the end of his finest season. He's pursuingmastery.That'swell-known.What'slesswell-knownisthatheunderstandsthathe'llnevergetit.Itwillalwayshoverbeyondhisgrasp.

Themasteryasymptote isasourceoffrustration.Whyreachforsomethingyoucanneverfullyattain?Butit'salsoasourceofallure.Whynotreachforit?The joy is in thepursuitmore than the realization. In theend,masteryattractspreciselybecausemasteryeludes.

THEOXYGENOFTHESOULThe subjects were displaying the warning signs of generalized anxiety

disorder,amentalillnessthatafflictsroughly3percentoftheadultpopulation.AccordingtotheDiagnosticandStatisticalManualofMentalDisorders(DSM-IV ), the presence of any three of the following six symptoms indicateswhatcouldbeaseriousproblem:

¥Restlessnessorfeelingkeyeduporonedge¥Beingeasilyfatigued¥Difficultyconcentratingormindgoingblank¥Irritability¥Muscletension¥SleepdisturbanceThese men and women seemed textbook cases. One person, who had

previously glided through life with equanimity, now felt tense, more hostile,angry,andirritated.Anotherreportedbeingmoreirritable,restless,andsufferingfrom shorter concentration. Yet another scribbled this self-description: Sleptbadly, listless, more nervous, more guarded. Some people feared they werehaving a nervous breakdown. One person's mind was so muddied that heinadvertentlywalkedintoawallandbrokehisglasses.

Timeforatriptothepsychiatristoraprescriptionforantianxietymedicine?No.Itwastimeforpeopletoletflowbackintotheirlives.Intheearly1970s,

Csikszentmihalyiconductedanexperiment inwhichheaskedpeople to recordall the things they did in their lives that were noninstrumental that is, smallactivities they undertook not out of obligation or to achieve a particularobjective, but because they enjoyed them.Thenhe issued the following set ofinstructions:

Beginning [morningof targetdate],whenyouwakeupanduntil9:00PM,wewouldlikeyoutoactinanormalway,doingallthethingsyouhavetodo,butnotdoinganythingthatisplayornoninstrumental.

Inotherwords,heandhisresearchteamdirectedparticipantstoscrubtheir

livesofflow.Peoplewholikedaspectsoftheirworkhadtoavoidsituationsthatmighttriggerenjoyment.Peoplewhorelisheddemandingphysicalexercisehadto remain sedentary.Onewoman enjoyedwashing dishes because it gave hersomethingconstructivetodo,alongwithtimetofantasizefreeofguilt,butcouldwashdishesonlywhenabsolutelynecessary.

The results were almost immediate. Even at the end of the first day,participantsnoticedanincreasedsluggishnessabouttheirbehavior.Theybegancomplainingofheadaches.Mostreporteddifficultyconcentrating,withthoughts[that]wanderroundincircleswithoutgettinganywhere.Somefeltsleepy,whileothersweretooagitatedtosleep.AsCsikszentmihalyiwrote,Afterjusttwodaysof deprivation . . . the general deterioration in mood was so advanced thatprolongingtheexperimentwouldhavebeenunadvisable.

Twodays.Forty-eighthourswithoutflowplungedpeopleintoastateeerilysimilartoaseriouspsychiatricdisorder.Theexperimentsuggeststhatflow,thedeep sense of engagement that Motivation 3.0 calls for, isn't a nicety. It's anecessity.Weneedittosurvive.Itistheoxygenofthesoul.

And one of Csikszentmihalyi's more surprising findings is that people aremuchmorelikelytoreachthatflowstateatworkthaninleisure.Workcanoftenhave the structure of other autotelic experiences: clear goals, immediatefeedback,challengeswellmatchedtoourabilities.Andwhenitdoes,wedon'tjust enjoy it more, we do it better. That's why it's so odd that organizationstolerate work environments that deprive large numbers of people of theseexperiences.Byoffering a fewmoreGoldilocks tasks, by looking forways tounleashthepositivesideoftheSawyerEffect,organizationscanhelptheirowncauseandenrichpeople'slives.

Csikszentmihalyi grasped this essential reality more than thirty years ago,when he wrote, There is no reason to believe any longer that only irrelevantÔplay' can be enjoyed, while the serious business of life must be borne as aburdensomecross.Oncewerealizethattheboundariesbetweenworkandplayareartificial,wecantakemattersinhandandbeginthedifficulttaskofmakinglifemorelivable.

But ifwe're looking forguidanceonhow todo this rightonhow tomakemasteryanethicforlivingourbestrolemodelsareprobablynotsittingaroundaboardroomtableorworkingintheofficedownthehall.

Over lunch,Csikszentmihalyiand I talkedaboutchildren.A littlekid's lifebursts with autotelic experiences. Children careen from one flow moment toanother,animatedbyasenseofjoy,equippedwithamindsetofpossibility,andworkingwith the dedication of aWest Point cadet. They use their brains andtheir bodies to probe and draw feedback from the environment in an endless

pursuitofmastery.Thenatsomepointintheirlivestheydon't.Whathappens?Youstarttogetashamedthatwhatyou'redoingischildish,Csikszentmihalyi

explained.Whatamistake.PerhapsyouandIandalltheotheradultsinchargeofthings

aretheoneswhoareimmature.ItgoesbacktoCsikszentmihalyi'sexperienceonthe train, wondering how grown-ups could have gotten things so wrong. Ourcircumstancesmaybelessdire,buttheobservationisnolessacute.Lefttotheirowndevices,Csikszentmihalyisays,childrenseekoutflowwiththeinevitabilityofanaturallaw.Soshouldweall.

Drive

CHAPTER6

PurposeW e know from statisticians that demographics is destiny. And we know

fromtheRollingStonesthatyoucan'talwaysgetwhatyouwant.Whatwedon'tknow is what happens when these two indomitable principles sit down, pourthemselvesadrink,andgettoknoweachotherbetter.

Butwe'reabouttofindout.In2006,thefirstmembersofthebaby-boomgenerationbeganturningsixty.

On birthdays with big round numbers, people usually stop, reflect, and takestockoftheirlives.AndI'vefoundthatwhenboomers,intheUnitedStatesandelsewhere, reach this milestone, they typically move through a three-stagereaction.

Inthefirststage, theyask:HowtheheckdidIget tobesixty?Whentheirodometerflipsto6-0,peopleoftenaresurprisedandslightlyalarmed.Sixty,theythink, isold.They tally their regrets andconfront the reality thatMick Jaggerandcrewwereright,thattheydidn'talwaysgetwhattheywanted.

But then the second stagekicks in. In thenot-so-distantpast, turning sixtymeantthatyouweresomewhat,ahem,longinthetooth.Butatthebeginningofthe twenty-first century, anyone who's healthy enough to have made it sixdecades is probablyhealthy enough tohangon a fair bit longer.According toUnited Nations data, a sixty-year-old American man can expect to live foranothertwenty-plusyears;asixty-year-oldAmericanwomanwillbearoundforanotherquarterof a century. In Japan, a sixty-year-oldmancanexpect to livepasthiseighty-secondbirthday,a sixty-year-oldwoman tonearlyeighty-eight.The pattern is the same inmany other prosperous countries. In France, Israel,Italy, Switzerland, Canada, and elsewhere, if you've reached the age of sixty,you'remorethanlikelytoliveintoyoureighties.Andthisrealizationbringswithitacertainrelief.Whew,theboomerinTorontoorOsakasighs.I'vegotacouplemoredecades.

But the relief quickly dissipates because almost as soon as the sigh fades,peopleenterthethirdstage.Uponcomprehendingthattheycouldhaveanothertwenty-fiveyears,sixty-year-oldboomers lookback twenty-fiveyears towhentheywerethirty-fiveandasuddenthoughtclonksthemonthesideofthehead.Wow.Thatsurehappenedfast,theysay.Willthenexttwenty-fiveyearsracebylikethat?Ifso,whenamIgoingtodosomethingthatmatters?WhenamIgoing

tolivemybestlife?WhenamIgoingtomakeadifferenceintheworld?Thosequestions,whichswirl throughconversations takingplaceatboomer

kitchen tables around the world, may sound touchy-feely. But they're nowoccurring at a rate that is unprecedented in human civilization. Consider:Boomersarethelargestdemographiccohort inmostwesterncountries,aswellas in places like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. According to the U.S.Census Bureau, the United States alone has about 78 million boomers whichmeans that, on average, each year more than four million Americans hit thissoul-searching, life-pondering birthday. That's more than 11,000 people eachday,morethan450everyhour.

In other words, in America alone, one hundred boomers turn sixty everythirteenminutes.

Every thirteenminutes another hundred peoplemembers of thewealthiestand best-educated generation theworld has ever known begin reckoningwiththeirmortalityandaskingdeepquestionsaboutmeaning,significance,andwhattheytrulywant.

Onehundredpeople.Everythirteenminutes.Everyhour.Ofeveryday.Until2024.

When the cold front of demographicsmeets the warm front of unrealizeddreams,theresultwillbeathunderstormofpurposethelikesofwhichtheworldhasneverseen.

THEPURPOSEMOTIVEThefirsttwolegsoftheTypeItripod,autonomyandmastery,areessential.

Butforproperbalanceweneedathirdlegpurpose,whichprovidesacontextforitstwomates.Autonomouspeopleworkingtowardmasteryperformatveryhighlevels.Butthosewhodosointheserviceofsomegreaterobjectivecanachieveeven more. The most deeply motivated people not to mention those who aremost productive and satisfied hitch their desires to a cause larger thanthemselves.

Motivation2.0,however,doesn'trecognizepurposeasamotivator.TheTypeXoperatingsystemdoesn'tbanishtheconcept,butitrelegatesittothestatusofornamentaniceaccessoryifyouwantit,solongasitdoesn'tgetinthewayofthe important stuff.Yet by taking this view,Motivation 2.0 neglects a crucialpartofwhoweare.Fromthemomentthathumanbeingsfirststaredintothesky,contemplated their place in the universe, and tried to create something thatbettered the world and outlasted their lives, we have been purpose seekers.Purpose provides activation energy for living, psychologist MihalyCsikszentmihalyitoldmeinaninterview.Ithinkthatevolutionhashadahandinselectingpeoplewhohadasenseofdoingsomethingbeyondthemselves.

I believewholeheartedly that a new formof capitalism is emerging.Morestakeholders (customers, employees, shareholders, and the larger community)wanttheirbusinessesto...haveapurposebiggerthantheirproduct.

MATSLEDERHAUSENInvestorandformerMcDonald'sexecutiveMotivation 3.0 seeks to reclaim this aspect of the human condition. Baby

boomersaroundtheworldbecauseofthestageoftheirlivesandthesizeoftheirnumbersarenudgingpurposeclosertotheculturalcenter.Inresponse,businesshas begun to rethink how purpose figures in what it does. As an emotionalcatalyst,wealthmaximizationlacksthepowertofullymobilizehumanenergies,saysstrategyguru(andboomer)GaryHamel.ThosestaggeringlevelsofworkerdisengagementIdescribedinthepreviouschapterhaveacompaniontrendthatcompaniesareonlystartingtorecognize:anequallysharpriseinvolunteerism,especiallyintheUnitedStates.Thesediverginglinescompensatedengagementgoing down, uncompensated effort going up suggest that volunteer work isnourishingpeopleinwaysthatpaidworksimplyisnot.

We're learning that the profit motive, potent though it is, can be aninsufficientimpetusforbothindividualsandorganizations.Anequallypowerfulsourceofenergy,onewe'veoftenneglectedordismissedasunrealistic,iswhatwemightcall thepurposemotive.This is the finalbigdistinctionbetween thetwo operating systems. Motivation 2.0 centered on profit maximization.Motivation 3.0 doesn't reject profits, but it places equal emphasis on purposemaximization. We see the first stirrings of this new purpose motive in threerealmsoforganizationallifegoals,words,andpolicies.

Inacuriousway,ageissimplerthanyouth,forithassomanyfeweroptions.STANLEYKUNITZFormerU.S.poetlaureateGoalsBoomersaren't singingalone in theirchorusofpurpose. Joining them,and

usingthesamehymnbook,aretheirsonsanddaughtersknownasGenerationY,the millennials, or the echo boomers. These young adults, who have recentlybegun entering theworkforce themselves, are shifting the center of gravity inorganizationsbytheirverypresence.AsthewriterSylviaHewletthasfoundinher research, the two bookend generations are redefining success [and] arewillingtoacceptaradicallyÔremixed'setofrewards.Neithergenerationratesmoneyasthemostimportantformofcompensation.Insteadtheychoosearangeofnonmonetaryfactorsfromagreat teamtotheability togivebacktosocietythroughwork.And if they can't find that satisfying package of rewards in anexistingorganization,they'llcreateaventureoftheirown.

TakethecaseofAmericanGenY-erBlakeMycoskieandTOMSShoes,thecompany he launched in 2006. TOMS doesn't fit snugly into the traditional

business boxes. It offers hip, canvas, flat-soled shoes. But every time TOMSsells a pair of shoes to you, me, or your next-door neighbor, it gives awayanotherpairofnewshoestoachildinadevelopingcountry.IsTOMSacharitythatfinancesitsoperationwithshoesales?Orisitabusinessthatsacrificesitsearnings in order to do good? It's neither and it's both. The answer is soconfusing,infact,thatTOMSShoeshadtoaddressthequestiondirectlyonitswebsite,justbelowinformationonhowtoreturnapairthat'stoobig.TOMS,thesiteexplains,isafor-profitcompanywithgivingatitscore.

Got it?No?Okay, try this: The company's businessmodel transforms ourcustomers into benefactors. Better? Maybe. Weirder? Certainly. Ventures likeTOMSblur, perhaps even shatter, the existing categories.Their goals, and thewaycompaniesreachthem,aresoincompatibletoMotivation2.0thatifTOMShad to rely on this twentieth-century operating system, the whole endeavorwould seizeup and crash in the entrepreneurial equivalent of a blue screenofdeath.

Motivation3.0,bycontrast, isexpresslybuilt forpurposemaximization. Infact, the rise of purposemaximizers is one reasonweneed the newoperatingsysteminthefirstplace.AsIexplainedinChapter1,operationslikeTOMSareon thevanguardofabroader rethinkingofhowpeopleorganizewhat theydo.For benefit organizations, B corporations, and low-profit limited-liabilitycorporationsallrecastthegoalsofthetraditionalbusinessenterprise.Andallarebecomingmoreprevalentasanewbreedofbusinesspersonseekspurposewiththefervorthattraditionaleconomictheorysaysentrepreneursseekprofit.Evencooperatives an older business model with motives other than profitmaximization are moving from the shaggy edge to the clean-cut center.According to writer Marjorie Kelly, in the last three decades, worldwidemembership inco-opshasdoubled to800millionpeople. In theUnitedStatesalone,morepeoplebelongtoaco-opthanownsharesinthestockmarket.Andtheideaisspreading.InColombia,Kellynotes,SaludCoopprovideshealth-careservicestoaquarterofthepopulation.InSpain,theMondrag—nCorporaci—nCooperativaisthenation'sseventhlargestindustrialconcern.

These not only for profit enterprises are a far cry from the sociallyresponsiblebusinesses thathavebeenall the rage for the last fifteenyearsbuthave rarely delivered on their promise. The aims of these Motivation 3.0companiesarenot tochaseprofitwhile trying to stayethical and law-abiding.Theirgoal is topursuepurposeandtouseprofitas thecatalystrather thantheobjective.

WordsInthespringof2009,as theworldeconomywasreelingfromaonce-in-a-

generation crisis and the financial shenanigans that stoked it, a few HarvardBusinessSchool studentsglanced in themirrorandwondered if theywere theproblem. The people they'd aspired to be financiers and corporate dealmakersweren't,itturnedout,heroesinanepictale,butvillainsinadarkerstory.Manyof these high-profile businesspeople were the ones who pushed the financialsystem to the brink.Meanwhile, these youngmen andwomen looked amongtheirclassmatesandsaw theseedsof similarbehavior. InonesurveyofMBAstudents a few years earlier, a whopping 56 percent admitted to cheatingregularly.

SoahandfulofHarvardsecond-years,fearingthatwhatwasonceabadgeofhonorhadbecomethreescarletletters,didwhatbusinessstudentsaretrainedtodo.Theymadeaplan.TogethertheyfashionedwhattheycalledTheMBAOathaHippocraticoathforbusinessgradsinwhichtheypledgetheirfealtytocausesabove and beyond the bottom line. It's not a legal document. It's a code ofconduct.Andtheconductitrecommends,aswellastheverywordsituses,leansmoretowardpurposemaximizationthanprofitmaximization.

Fromthefirstsentence,theoathringswiththesoundsofMotivation3.0:Asamanager,mypurpose is to serve thegreatergoodbybringingpeople

andresourcestogethertocreatevaluethatnosingleindividualcancreatealone,it begins. And on it goes for nearly five hundredwords. I will safeguard theinterestsofmyshareholders,co-workers,customersandthesocietyinwhichweoperate, the oath-takers pledge. I will strive to create sustainable economic,social,andenvironmentalprosperityworldwide.

Thesewordspurpose,greatergood,sustainabledon'tcomefromtheTypeXdictionary.Onerarelyhearstheminbusinessschoolbecause,afterall,that'snotwhat business school is supposed to be about. Yet students at arguably theworld'smostpowerfulMBAfactorythoughtotherwise.Andinjustafewweeks,roughly one-quarter of the graduating class had taken the oath and signed thepledge.Inlaunchingtheeffort,MaxAnderson,oneofthestudentfounders,said:Myhopeisthatatour25threunionourclasswillnotbeknownforhowmuchmoneywemadeorhowmuchmoneywegavebacktotheschool,butforhowtheworldwasabetterplaceasaresultofourleadership.

Wordsmatter.Andifyoulistencarefully,youmightbegintohearaslightlydifferentslightlymorepurpose-orienteddialect.GaryHamel,whomImentionedabove, says, The goals of management are usually described in words likeÔefficiency,'Ôadvantage,'Ôvalue,'Ôsuperiority,'Ôfocus,'andÔdifferentiation.'Important as these objectives are, they lack the power to rouse human hearts.Businessleaders,hesays,mustfindwaystoinfusemundanebusinessactivitieswithdeeper, soul-stirring ideals, suchashonor, truth, love, justice,andbeauty.

Humanizewhatpeoplesayandyoumaywellhumanizewhattheydo.That's the thinking behind the simple and effective way Robert B. Reich,

formerU.S.laborsecretary,gaugesthehealthofanorganization.Hecallsitthepronoun test.Whenhevisits aworkplace,he'll ask thepeopleemployed theresomequestionsaboutthecompany.Helistenstothesubstanceoftheirresponse,ofcourse.Butmostofall,helistensforthepronounstheyuse.Dotheworkersrefer to the company as they? Or do they describe it in terms of we? Theycompanies and we companies, he says, are very different places. And inMotivation3.0,wewins.

PoliciesBetween thewords businesses use and the goals they seek sit the policies

they implement to turn the former into the latter.Here, too,onecandetect theearlytremorsofadifferentapproach.Forexample,manycompaniesinthelastdecade spent considerable time and effort crafting corporate ethics guidelines.Yetinstancesofunethicalbehaviordon'tseemtohavedeclined.Valuablethoughthose guidelines can be, as a policy they can unintentionallymove purposefulbehavioroutoftheTypeIschemaandintoTypeX.AsHarvardBusinessSchoolprofessorMaxBazermanhasexplained:

Sayyou takepeoplewhoaremotivated tobehavenicely, thengive themafairlyweaksetofethicalstandardstomeet.Now,insteadofaskingthemtodoitbecauseit'stherightthingtodo,you'veessentiallygiventhemanalternatesetofstandardsdothissoyoucancheckoffalltheseboxes.

Thevalueofalifecanbemeasuredbyone'sabilitytoaffectthedestinyofone less advantaged. Since death is an absolute certainty for everyone, theimportantvariableisthequalityoflifeoneleadsbetweenthetimesofbirthanddeath.

BILL STRICKLANDFounder of the ManchesterCraftsmen's Guild, andMacArthurgeniusawardwinner

Imagineanorganization,forexample,thatbelievesinaffirmativeactiononethat wants to make the world a better place by creating a more diverseworkforce.Byreducingethicstoachecklist,suddenlyaffirmativeactionisjustabunch of requirements that the organization must meet to show that it isn'tdiscriminating.

Now the organization isn't focused on affirmatively pursuing diversity butratheronmakingsurethatalltheboxesarecheckedofftoshowthatwhatitdidisOK(andsoitwon'tgetsued).Before,itsworkershadanintrinsicmotivationtodotherightthing,butnowtheyhaveanextrinsicmotivationtomakesurethatthecompanydoesn'tgetsuedorfined.

In otherwords, peoplemightmeet theminimal ethical standards to avoid

punishment, but the guidelines have done nothing to inject purpose into thecorporate bloodstream. The better approach could be to enlist the power ofautonomy in the service of purpose maximization. Two intriguing examplesdemonstratewhatImean.

First, many psychologists and economists have found that the correlationbetweenmoney and happiness is weak that past a certain (and quite modest)level,alargerpileofcashdoesn'tbringpeopleahigherlevelofsatisfaction.Butafewsocialscientistshavebegunaddingabitmorenuancetothisobservation.AccordingtoLaraAkninandElizabethDunn,sociologistsat theUniversityofBritishColumbia,andMichaelNorton,apsychologistat theHarvardBusinessSchool, how people spend their money may be at least as important as howmuchmoneytheyearn. Inparticular,spendingmoneyonotherpeople(buyingflowersforyourspouseratherthananMP3playerforyourself)oronacause(donating to a religious institution rather than going for an expensive haircut)can actually increase our subjective well-being. In fact, Dunn and Nortonpropose turning their findings on what they call pro-social spending intocorporatepolicy.AccordingtoTheBostonGlobe,theybelievethatcompaniescan improve their employees' emotional well-being by shifting some of theirbudget for charitable giving so that individual employees are given sums todonate, leaving them happier even as the charities of their choice benefit. Inotherwords, handing individual employees control over how the organizationgivesbacktothecommunitymightdomoretoimprovetheiroverallsatisfactionthanonemoreif-thenfinancialincentive.

Anotherstudyoffersasecondpossiblepurpose-centeredpolicyprescription.Physicians in high-profile settings like the Mayo Clinic face pressures anddemands that can often lead to burnout. But field research at the prestigiousmedicalfacilityfoundthatlettingdoctorsspendonedayaweekontheaspectoftheir job thatwasmostmeaningful to themwhether patient care, research, orcommunity service could reduce the physical and emotional exhaustion thataccompaniestheirwork.Doctorswhoparticipatedinthistrialpolicyhadhalftheburnoutrateofthosewhodidnot.Thinkofitas20percenttimewithapurpose.

THEGOODLIFEEach year about thirteen hundred seniors graduate from the University of

Rochesterandbegintheirjourneyintowhatmanyoftheirparentsandprofessorslike to call the real world. Edward Deci, Richard Ryan, and their colleagueChristopher Niemiec decided to ask a sample of these soon-to-be graduatesabouttheirlifegoalsandthentofollowupwiththemearlyintheircareerstoseehowtheyweredoing.Whilemuchsocialscienceresearchisdonewithstudentvolunteers,scientistsrarelytrackstudentsafterthey'vepackeduptheirdiplomas

and exited the campus gates.And these researcherswanted to study the post-collegetimeframebecauseitrepresentsacriticaldevelopmentperiodthatmarkspeople'stransitionstotheiradultidentitiesandlives.

Some of the U of R students had what Deci, Ryan, and Niemiec labelextrinsicaspirationsforinstance,tobecomewealthyortoachievefamewhatwemight call profit goals.Others had intrinsic aspirations to help others improvetheir lives, to learn, and to groworwhatwemight think of as purpose goals.After these students had been out in the real word for between one and twoyears,theresearcherstrackedthemdowntoseehowtheywerefaring.

The people who'd had purpose goals and felt they were attaining themreportedhigher levelsofsatisfactionandsubjectivewell-being thanwhen theywereincollege,andquitelowlevelsofanxietyanddepression.That'sprobablynosurprise.They'dsetapersonallymeaningfulgoalandfelttheywerereachingit.Inthatsituation,mostofuswouldlikelyfeelprettygood,too.

But the results for peoplewith profit goalsweremore complicated.Thosewhosaidtheywereattainingtheirgoalsaccumulatingwealth,winningacclaimreported levels of satisfaction, self-esteem, and positive affect no higher thanwhentheywerestudents.Inotherwords,they'dreachedtheirgoals,butitdidn'tmake them any happier. What's more, graduates with profit goals showedincreasesinanxiety,depression,andothernegativeindicatorsagain,eventhoughtheywereattainingtheirgoals.

Onecannotleadalifethatistrulyexcellentwithoutfeelingthatonebelongstosomethinggreaterandmorepermanentthanoneself.

MIHALYCSIKSZENTMIHALYIThesefindingsareratherstriking,theresearcherswrite,astheysuggestthat

attainmentofaparticularsetofgoals[inthiscase,profitgoals]hasnoimpactonwell-beingandactuallycontributestoill-being.

When I discussed these results with Deci and Ryan, they were especiallyemphatic about their significancebecause the findings suggest that evenwhenwedogetwhatwewant,it'snotalwayswhatweneed.Peoplewhoareveryhighinextrinsicgoalsforwealtharemorelikelytoattainthatwealth,butthey'restillunhappy,Ryantoldme.

OrasDeciputit,Thetypicalnotionisthis:Youvaluesomething.Youattainit.Thenyou'rebetteroffasa functionof it.Butwhatwefind is that therearecertainthingsthatifyouvalueandifyouattainthem,you'reworseoffasaresultofit,notbetteroff.

Failingtounderstandthisconundrumthatsatisfactiondependsnotmerelyonhavinggoals,butonhavingtherightgoalscanleadsensiblepeopledownself-destructivepaths.Ifpeoplechaseprofitgoals,reachthosegoals,andstilldon't

feelanybetterabouttheirlives,oneresponseistoincreasethesizeandscopeofthegoalstoseekmoremoneyorgreateroutsidevalidation.Andthatcandrivethem down a road of further unhappiness thinking it's the road to happiness,Ryansaid.

One of the reasons for anxiety and depression in the high attainers is thatthey'renothavinggoodrelationships.They'rebusymakingmoneyandattendingto themselves and thatmeans that there's less room in their lives for love andattentionandcaringandempathyandthethingsthattrulycount,Ryanadded.

And if the broad contours of these findings are true for individuals, whyshouldn'ttheyalsobetruefororganizationswhich,ofcourse,arecollectionsofindividuals? I don'tmean to say that profit doesn'tmatter. It does. The profitmotivehasbeenanimportantfuelforachievement.Butit'snottheonlymotive.And it's not the most important one. Indeed, if we were to look at history'sgreatest achievements from the printing press to constitutional democracy tocuresfordeadlydiseasesthesparkthatkeptthecreatorsworkingdeepintothenight was purpose at least as much as profit. A healthy society and healthybusinessorganizationsbeginswithpurposeandconsidersprofitawaytomovetowardthatendorahappyby-productofitsattainment.

Andheretheboomersmaybe,justmaybecantakethelead.Onthesubjectsof autonomy and mastery, adults should look to the eloquent example ofchildren.Butperhapspurpose isanothermatter.Beingable tocontemplate thebig picture, to ponder one's own mortality, to understand the paradox thatattainingcertaingoalsisn'ttheanswerseemtorequirehavingspentafewyearsontheplanet.Andsincetheplanetverysoonwillcontainmorepeopleoveragesixty-five than under age five for the first time in its existence, the timingcouldn'tbebetter.

It'sinournaturetoseekpurpose.Butthatnatureisnowbeingrevealedandexpressedonascale that isdemographicallyunprecedentedand,until recently,scarcely imaginable. The consequences could rejuvenate our businesses andremakeourworld.

A CENTRAL IDEA of this book has been the mismatch between whatscience knows and what business does. The gap is wide. Its existence isalarming. And though closing it seems daunting, we have reasons to beoptimistic.

The scientists who study human motivation, several of whom we'veencounteredinthisbook,offerusasharperandmoreaccurateaccountofbothhuman performance and the human condition. The truths they've revealed aresimple, yet powerful. The science shows that those typical twentieth-centurycarrot-and-stickmotivatorsthingsweconsidersomehowanaturalpartofhuman

enterprise can sometimes work. But they're effective in only a surprisinglynarrow band of circumstances. The science shows that if-then rewards themainstays of the Motivation 2.0 operating system not only are ineffective inmanysituations,butalsocancrushthehigh-level,creative,conceptualabilitiesthatarecentraltocurrentandfutureeconomicandsocialprogress.Thescienceshows that the secret to high performance isn't our biological drive or ourreward-and-punishmentdrive,butourthirddriveourdeep-seateddesiretodirectourownlives,toextendandexpandourabilities,andtolivealifeofpurpose.

Bringingourbusinessesinsyncwiththesetruthswon'tbeeasy.Unlearningold ideas isdifficult,undoingoldhabitsevenharder.And I'dbe less sanguineabouttheprospectsofclosingthemotivationgapanytimesoon,ifitweren'tforthis:Thescienceconfirmswhatwealreadyknowinourhearts.

Weknowthathumanbeingsarenotmerelysmaller,slower,better-smellinghorsesgallopingafterthatday'scarrot.Weknowifwe'vespenttimewithyoungchildrenorrememberourselvesatourbestthatwe'renotdestinedtobepassiveandcompliant.We'redesignedtobeactiveandengaged.Andweknowthattherichestexperiencesinourlivesaren'twhenwe'reclamoringforvalidationfromothers,butwhenwe'relisteningtoourownvoicedoingsomethingthatmatters,doingitwell,anddoingitintheserviceofacauselargerthanourselves.

So, in the end, repairing the mismatch and bringing our understanding ofmotivation into the twenty-first century is more than an essential move forbusiness.It'sanaffirmationofourhumanity.

Drive

PartThree

TheTypeIToolkitWelcometotheTypeIToolkit.This is your guide to taking the ideas in this book and putting them into

action.Whetheryou're looking forabetterway to runyourorganization,navigate

yourcareer,orhelpyourkids, there'sa tip,abestpractice,ora recommendedbookforyou.AndifeveryouneedaquicksummaryofDrive,oryouwanttolookuponeofitsterms,youcanfindthathere,too.

Youdon'thavetoreadthissectioninanyparticularorder.Pickanentrythatinterestsyouanddiverightin.Likeanygoodtoolkit,thisoneisversatileenoughforyoutoreturntoagainandagain.

P.S.I'dlovetohearyoursuggestionsforwhattoincludeinfutureeditionsoftheTypeIToolkit.Sendyourideasdirectlytomeatdhp@danpink.com.

WHAT'SINTHISTOOLKITTypeIforIndividuals:NineStrategiesforAwakeningYourMotivationTypeIforOrganizations:NineWaystoImproveYourCompany,Office,or

GroupTheZenofCompensation:PayingPeopletheTypeIWayTypeIforParentsandEducators:NineIdeasforHelpingOurKidsTheTypeIReadingList:FifteenEssentialBooksListentotheGurus:SixBusinessThinkersWhoGetItTheType IFitnessPlan:FourTips forGetting (andStaying)Motivated to

ExerciseDrive:TheRecapDrive:TheGlossaryThe Drive Discussion Guide: Twenty Conversation Starters to Keep You

ThinkingandTalkingFindOutMoreAboutYourselfandThisTopicTypeIforIndividuals:NineStrategiesforAwakeningYourMotivationType I's are made, not born. Although the world is awash in extrinsic

motivators,there'salotwecandotobringmoreautonomy,mastery,andpurposeintoourworkandlife.Herearenineexercisestogetyouontherighttrack.

GIVEYOURSELFAFLOWTESTM ihalyCsikszentmihalyi didmore than discover the concept of flow.He

alsointroducedaningeniousnewtechniquetomeasureit.CsikszentmihalyiandhisUniversity ofChicago team equipped participants in their research studieswith electronic pagers. Then they paged people at random intervals(approximately eight times a day) for a week, asking them to describe theirmentalstateat thatmoment.Comparedwithpreviousmethods, thesereal-timereportsprovedfarmorehonestandrevealing.

You can use Csikszentmihalyi's methodological innovation in your ownquest for mastery by giving yourself a flow test. Set a reminder on yourcomputerormobilephonetogooffatfortyrandomtimesinaweek.Eachtimeyour device beeps, write down what you're doing, how you're feeling, andwhether you're in flow. Record your observations, look at the patterns, andconsiderthefollowingquestions:

¥Whichmomentsproducedfeelingsofflow?Wherewereyou?Whatwereyouworkingon?Whowereyouwith?

¥Arecertain timesofdaymoreflow-friendly thanothers?Howcouldyourestructureyourdaybasedonyourfindings?

¥Howmightyouincreasethenumberofoptimalexperiencesandreducethemomentswhenyoufeltdisengagedordistracted?

¥ Ifyou'rehavingdoubtsaboutyour joborcareer,whatdoes thisexercisetellyouaboutyourtruesourceofintrinsicmotivation?

FIRST,ASKABIGQUESTION...I n 1962,ClareBoothe Luce, one of the firstwomen to serve in theU.S.

Congress,offeredsomeadvicetoPresidentJohnF.Kennedy.Agreatman,shetold him, is one sentence.AbrahamLincoln's sentencewas:He preserved theunionandfreedtheslaves.FranklinRoosevelt'swas:Heliftedusoutofagreatdepressionandhelpeduswinaworldwar.LucefearedthatKennedy'sattentionwassosplinteredamongdifferentprioritiesthathissentenceriskedbecomingamuddledparagraph.

You don't have to be a president of the United States or of your localgardeningclubtolearnfromthistale.Onewaytoorientyourlifetowardgreaterpurpose is to think about your sentence.Maybe it's: He raised four kids whobecamehappyandhealthyadults.OrSheinventedadevicethatmadepeople'sliveseasier.OrHecaredforeverypersonwhowalkedintohisofficeregardlessofwhetherthatpersoncouldpay.OrShetaughttwogenerationsofchildrenhowtoread.

Asyoucontemplateyourpurpose,beginwiththebigquestion:What'syoursentence?

...THENKEEPASKINGASMALLQUESTIONT he big question is necessary, but not sufficient. That's where the small

questioncomesin.Realachievementdoesn'thappenovernight.Asanyonewho'strainedforamarathon,learnedanewlanguage,orrunasuccessfuldivisioncanattest, you spend a lot more time grinding through tough tasks than you dobaskinginapplause.

Here'ssomethingyoucandotokeepyourselfmotivated.Attheendofeachday, askyourselfwhetheryouwerebetter today thanyouwereyesterday.Didyou domore?Did you do it well? Or to get specific, did you learn your tenvocabularywords,makeyour eight sales calls, eat your five servingsof fruitsandvegetables,writeyourfourpages?Youdon'thavetobeflawlesseachday.Instead,lookforsmallmeasuresofimprovementsuchashowlongyoupracticedyoursaxophoneorwhetheryouheldoffoncheckinge-mailuntilyou finishedthatreportyouneededtowrite.Remindingyourselfthatyoudon'tneedtobeamasterbyday3isthebestwayofensuringyouwillbeonebyday3,000.

Sobeforeyougotosleepeachnight,askyourselfthesmallquestion:WasIbettertodaythanyesterday?

TAKEASAGMEISTERT he designer Stefan Sagmeister has found a brilliant way to ensure he's

livingaTypeIlife.Thinkaboutthestandardpatternindevelopedcountries,hesays. People usually spend the first twenty-five or so years of their liveslearning, the next forty or so years working, and the final twenty-five inretirement. That boilerplate timeline got Sagmeisterwondering:Why not snipfiveyearsfromretirementandsprinklethemintoyourworkingyears?

So every seven years, Sagmeister closes his graphic design shop, tells hisclientshewon'tbebackforayear,andgoesoffona365-daysabbatical.Heusesthe time to travel, to live places he's never been, and to experimentwith newprojects. Itsoundsrisky,Iknow.Buthesays the ideashegeneratesduringtheyearoffoftenprovidehisincomeforthenextsevenyears.TakingaSagmeister,asInowcallit,requiresafairbitofplanningandsaving,ofcourse.Butdoesn'tforgoingthatbig-screenTVseemasmallpricetopayforanunforgettableandun-get-backable year of personal exploration? The truth is, this idea is morerealisticthanmanyofusrealize.WhichiswhyIhopetotakeaSagmeisterinacoupleofyearsandwhyyoushouldconsiderit,too.

GIVEYOURSELFAPERFORMANCEREVIEWPerformancereviews,thoseannualorbiannualritualsoforganizationallife,

areaboutasenjoyableasatoothacheandasproductiveasatrainwreck.Nobodylikes them not the giver, not the receiver. They don't really help us achievemasterysincethefeedbackoftencomessixmonthsaftertheworkiscomplete.(ImagineSerenaWilliamsorTwylaTharpseeingtheirresultsorreadingreviewsonly twice a year.) And yet managers keep on hauling employees into their

officesforthoseawkward,painfulencounters.Maybe there'sabetterway.Maybe,asDouglasMcGregorandothershave

suggested,weshouldgiveourselvesourownperformancereviews.Here'show.Figureoutyourgoalsmostly learninggoals,butalsoa fewperformancegoalsandtheneverymonth,callyourselftoyourofficeandgiveyourselfanappraisal.Howareyou faring?Whereareyou falling short?What tools, information,orsupportmightyouneedtodobetter?

Someotherhints:¥Setboth smallerand largergoals so thatwhen it comes time toevaluate

yourselfyou'vealreadyaccomplishedsomewholetasks.¥Makesureyouunderstandhoweveryaspectofyourworkrelatestoyour

largerpurpose.¥ Be brutally honest. This exercise is aimed at helping you improve

performanceandachievemasterysoifyourationalizefailuresorglossoveryourmistakesinsteadoflearningfromthem,you'rewastingyourtime.

Andifdoingthissoloisn'tyourthing,gatherasmallgroupofcolleaguesforregularpeer-baseddo-it-yourselfperformance reviews. Ifyourcomrades reallycare, they'll tell you the truth andholdyou accountable.One last question forbosses:Why inGod'snameareyounotencouragingallyouremployees todothis?

GETUNSTUCKBYGOINGOBLIQUEEventhemostintrinsicallymotivatedpersonsometimesgetsstuck.Sohere's

a simple, easy, and fun way to power out of your mental morass. In 1975,producer Brian Eno and artist Peter Schmidt published a set of one hundredcards containing strategies that helped them overcome the pressure-packedmomentsthatalwaysaccompanyadeadline.Eachcardcontainsasingle,ofteninscrutable, question or statement to push you out of a mental rut. (Someexamples: What would your closest friend do? Your mistake was a hiddenintention.Whatisthesimplestsolution?Repetitionisaformofchange.Don'tavoidwhat iseasy .) Ifyou'reworkingonaprojectandfindyourselfstymied,pullanObliquecardfromthedeck.Thesebrainbombsareagreatwaytokeepyourmindopendespiteconstraintsyoucan'tcontrol.YoucanbuythedeckatorfollowoneoftheTwitteraccountsinspiredbythestrategies,suchas:.

MOVEFIVESTEPSCLOSERTOMASTERYOnekey tomastery iswhatFloridaStateUniversitypsychologyprofessor

Anders Ericsson calls deliberate practice a lifelong period of . . . effort toimprove performance in a specific domain.Deliberate practice isn't running afewmileseachdayorbangingon thepianofor twentyminuteseachmorning.It'smuchmorepurposeful, focused, and, yes, painful.Follow these stepsover

andoveragainforadecadeandyoujustmightbecomeamaster:¥ Remember that deliberate practice has one objective: to improve

performance.Peoplewhoplaytennisonceaweekforyearsdon'tgetanybetterif they do the same thing each time, Ericsson has said. Deliberate practice isabout changing your performance, setting new goals and straining yourself toreachabithighereachtime.

¥Repeat,repeat,repeat.Repetitionmatters.Basketballgreatsdon'tshoottenfreethrowsattheendofteampractice;theyshootfivehundred.

¥Seekconstant,criticalfeedback.Ifyoudon'tknowhowyou'redoing,youwon'tknowwhattoimprove.

¥Focusruthlesslyonwhereyouneedhelp.Whilemanyofusworkonwhatwe're already good at, says Ericsson, those who get better work on theirweaknesses.

¥Prepare for theprocess tobementallyandphysicallyexhausting .That'swhysofewpeoplecommittoit,butthat'swhyitworks.

TAKEAPAGEFROMWEBBERANDACARDFROMYOURPOCKETInhisinsightfulbookRulesofThumb,FastCompanymagazinecofounder

AlanWebberoffersasmartandsimpleexerciseforassessingwhetheryou'reonthepathtoautonomy,mastery,andpurpose.Getafewblankthree-by-five-inchcards.Ononeofthecards,writeyouranswertothisquestion:Whatgetsyouupinthemorning?Now,ontheothersideofthecard,writeyouranswertoanotherquestion:Whatkeepsyouupatnight?Pareeachresponsetoasinglesentence.Andifyoudon'tlikeananswer,tossthecardandtryagainuntilyou'vecraftedsomethingyoucanlivewith.Thenreadwhatyou'veproduced.Ifbothanswersgiveyouasenseofmeaninganddirection,Congratulations!saysWebber.Usethemasyourcompass,checkingfromtimetotimetoseeifthey'restilltrue.Ifyoudon'tlikeoneorbothofyouranswers,itopensupanewquestion:Whatareyougoingtodoaboutit?

CREATEYOUROWNMOTIVATIONALPOSTEROfficepostersthattrytomotivateushaveagrimreputation.Asonewagput

it, For the last two decades, motivational posters have inflicted unimaginablesufferingontheworkplacesoftheworld.Butwhoknows?Perhapsthefirstonewas a thing of beauty.Maybe those cave drawings in Lascaux, France, weresomePaleolithicmotivationalspeaker'swayofsaying,Ifyouknowwhereyou'regoing,you'llnevertakeawrongturn.Nowyou'vegotachancetofightback(orperhapstoreclaimthatancientlegacy).Thankstoanumberofwebsites,youcancreateyourownmotivationalpostersandyounolongerhavetosettleforphotosof kittens climbing out of baskets. You can be as serious or silly with thisexercise as you like.Motivation is deeply personal and only you knowwhat

wordsorimageswillresonatewithyou.Tryanyofthesesites:DespairInc()BigHugeLabs()Automotivator()Toofferyousome,er,motivation,herearetwopostersIcreatedmyself:TypeIforOrganizations:NineWaystoImproveYourCompany,Office,or

GroupWhether you're theCEOor the new intern, you can help create engaging,

productiveworkplacesthatfosterTypeIbehavior.Hereareninewaystobeginpulling your organization out of the past and into the brighter world ofMotivation3.0.

TRY20PERCENTTIMEWITHTRAININGWHEELSY ou've read about the wonders of 20 percent time where organizations

encourageemployees to spendone-fifthof theirhoursworkingonanyprojectthey want. And if you've ever used Gmail or read Google News, you'vebenefited from the results. But for all the virtues of this Type I innovation,puttingsuchapolicyinplacecanseemdaunting.Howmuchwillitcost?Whatif it doesn't work? If you're feeling skittish, here's an idea: Go with a moremodest version 20 percent time . . . with training wheels. Start with, say, 10percenttime.That'sjustoneafternoonofafive-dayworkweek.(Whoamongushasn'twastedthatamountoftimeatworkanyway?)Andinsteadofcommittingto it forever, try it for sixmonths.By creating this island of autonomy, you'llhelp people act on their great ideas and convert their downtime into moreproductivetime.Andwhoknows?SomeoneinyouroperationjustmightinventthenextPost-itnote.

ENCOURAGEPEER-TO-PEERNOWTHATREWARDSK imley-Horn and Associates, a civil engineering firm in Raleigh, North

Carolina,hasestablishedarewardsystemthatgetstheTypeIstampofapproval:At any point,without asking permission, anyone in the company can award a$50bonustoanyofhercolleagues.Itworksbecauseit'sreal-time,andit'snothanded down from anymanagement, the firm's human resources director toldFast Company . Any employee who does something exceptional receivesrecognition from their peers within minutes. Because these bonuses arenoncontingent now that rewards, they avoid the seven deadly flaws of mostcorporate carrots. And because they come from a colleague, not a boss, theycarry a different (and perhaps deeper) meaning. You could even say they'remotivating.

CONDUCTANAUTONOMYAUDITH owmuch autonomy do the people in your organization really have? If

you'relikemostfolks,youprobablydon'thaveaclue.Nobodydoes.Butthere's

awaytofindoutwithanautonomyaudit.Askeveryoneinyourdepartmentoronyourteamtorespondtothesefourquestionswithanumericalranking(usingascaleof0to10,with0meaningalmostnoneand10meaningahugeamount):

1. Howmuch autonomy do you have over your tasks at work your mainresponsibilitiesandwhatyoudoinagivenday?

2.Howmuchautonomydoyouhaveoveryour timeatwork for instance,whenyouarrive,whenyouleave,andhowyouallocateyourhourseachday?

3.Howmuchautonomydoyouhaveoveryourteamatworkthatis,towhatextentareyouabletochoosethepeoplewithwhomyoutypicallycollaborate?

4.Howmuchautonomydoyouhaveoveryourtechniqueatworkhowyouactuallyperformthemainresponsibilitiesofyourjob?

Makesureallresponsesareanonymous.Thentabulatetheresults.What'stheemployeeaverage?Thefigurewillfallsomewhereona40-pointautonomyscale(with 0 being aNorthKorean prison and40 beingWoodstock).Compare thatnumbertopeople'sperceptions.Perhapsthebossthoughteveryonehadplentyoffreedom but the audit showed an average autonomy rating of only 15. Alsocalculateseparate results for task, time, team,and technique.Ahealthyoverallaverage can sometimes mask a problem in a particular area. An overallautonomyratingof,say,27isn'tbad.However,ifthataverageconsistsof8eachfortask,technique,andteam,butonly3fortime,you'veidentifiedanautonomyweakspotintheorganization.

It'sremarkablesometimeshowlittlethepeoplerunningorganizationsknowabout the experiences of the people working around them. But it's equallyremarkablehowoftenleadersarewillingtodothingsdifferentlyiftheyseerealdata.That'swhatanautonomyauditcando.Andifyouincludeasectioninyourauditforemployeestojotdowntheirownideasaboutincreasingautonomy,youmightevenfindsomegreatsolutions.

TAKETHREESTEPSTOWARDGIVINGUPCONTROLTypeXbosses relish control.Type I bosses relinquish control.Extending

peoplethefreedomtheyneedtodogreatworkisusuallywise,butit'snotalwayseasy.Soifyou'refeelingtheurgetocontrol,herearethreewaystobeginlettinggoforyourownbenefitandyourteam's:

1. Involvepeople ingoal-setting .Wouldyou rather setyourowngoalsorhavethemfoisteduponyou?Thoughtso.Whyshouldthoseworkingwithyoubeanydifferent?Aconsiderablebodyofresearchshowsthatindividualsarefarmoreengagedwhenthey'repursuinggoalstheyhadahandincreating.Sobringemployeesintotheprocess.Theycouldsurpriseyou:Peopleoftenhavehigheraimsthantheonesyouassignthem.

2. Use noncontrolling language . Next time you're about to say must or

should, try saying think about or consider instead.A small change inwordingcan help promote engagement over compliance and might even reduce somepeople'surgetodefy.Thinkaboutit.Oratleastconsiderit,okay?

3. Hold office hours . Sometimes you need to summon people into youroffice.Butsometimesit'swisetoletthemcometoyou.Takeacuefromcollegeprofessorsand set asideoneor twohoursaweekwhenyour schedule is clearandanyemployeecancomeinandtalktoyouaboutanythingthat'sonhermind.Yourcolleaguesmightbenefitandyoumightlearnsomething.

PLAYWHOSEPURPOSEISITANYWAY?This isanotherexercisedesigned toclose thegapbetweenperceptionand

reality.Gatheryourteam,yourdepartment,or, ifyoucan,all theemployeesinyour outfit. Hand everyone a blank three-by-five-inch card. Then ask eachpersontowritedownhisorherone-sentenceanswertothefollowingquestion:What isour company's (ororganization's)purpose?Collect the cards and readthemaloud.Whatdo they tellyou?Are theanswers similar, everyonealignedalongacommonpurpose?Oraretheyallovertheplacesomepeoplebelievingonething,otherssomethingcompletelydifferent,andstillotherswithoutevenaguess?Forallthetalkaboutculture,alignment,andmission,mostorganizationsdo a pretty shabby job of assessing this aspect of their business. This simpleinquirycanofferaglimpseintothesoulofyourenterprise.Ifpeopledon'tknowwhythey'redoingwhatthey'redoing,howcanyouexpectthemtobemotivatedtodoit?

USEREICH'SPRONOUNTESTFormerU.S. labor secretaryRobertB.Reichhasdeviseda smart, simple,

(andfree)diagnostictoolformeasuringthehealthofanorganization.Whenhetalkstoemployees,helistenscarefullyforthepronounstheyuse.Doemployeesrefertotheircompanyastheyoraswe?Theysuggestsatleastsomeamountofdisengagement, and perhaps even alienation. We suggests the opposite thatemployeesfeelthey'repartofsomethingsignificantandmeaningful.Ifyou'reaboss, spenda fewdays listening to thepeople aroundyou,not only in formalsettings likemeetings,but in thehallwaysandat lunchaswell.Areyouaweorganization or a they organization? The differencematters. Everybodywantsautonomy,mastery,andpurpose.Thethingis,wecangetitbuttheycan't.

DESIGNFORINTRINSICMOTIVATIONI nternet guru and author Clay Shirky () says that the most successful

websites and electronic forums have a certain Type I approach in theirDNA.They're designed often explicitly to tap intrinsic motivation. You can do thesamewithyouronlinepresenceifyoulistentoShirkyand:

¥Createanenvironmentthatmakespeoplefeelgoodaboutparticipating.

¥Giveusersautonomy.¥Keepthesystemasopenaspossible.And what matters in cyberspace matters equally in physical space. Ask

yourself:Howdoesthebuiltenvironmentofyourworkplacepromoteorinhibitautonomy,mastery,andpurpose?

PROMOTEGOLDILOCKSFORGROUPSA lmost everyonehasexperienced the satisfactionofaGoldilocks task the

kindthat'sneithertooeasynortoohard,thatdeliversadelicioussenseofflow.Butsometimesit'sdifficulttoreplicatethatexperiencewhenyou'reworkinginateam.Peopleoftenendupdoingthejobstheyalwaysdobecausethey'veproventhey cando themwell, and anunfortunate fewget saddledwith the flow-freetasksnobodyelsewants.HereareafewwaystobringalittleGoldilockstoyourgroup:

¥Beginwithadiverseteam.AsHarvard'sTeresaAmabileadvises,Setupworkgroupssothatpeoplewillstimulateeachotherandlearnfromeachother,sothatthey'renothomogeneousintermsoftheirbackgroundsandtraining.Youwantpeoplewhocanreallycross-fertilizeeachother'sideas.

¥Makeyour group a no competition zone . Pitting coworkers against oneanother in the hope that competition will spark them to perform better rarelyworksandalmostalwaysunderminesintrinsicmotivation.Ifyou'regoingtouseac-word,gowithcollaborationorcooperation.

¥Tryalittletask-shifting.Ifsomeoneisboredwithhiscurrentassignment,seeifhecantrainsomeoneelseintheskillshe'salreadymastered.Thenseeifhecantakeonsomeaspectofamoreexperiencedteammember'swork.

¥Animatewithpurpose,don'tmotivatewithrewards.Nothingbondsateamlikeasharedmission.Themorethatpeopleshareacommoncausewhetherit'screatingsomethinginsanelygreat,outperforminganoutsidecompetitor,orevenchanging the world the more your group will do deeply satisfying andoutstandingwork.

TURNYOURNEXTOFF-SITEINTOAFEDEXDAYB ehold the company off-site, a few spirit-sapping days of forced fun and

manufacturedmoralefeaturingawkwardpeptalks,wretcheddancing,andafewtrust falls. To be fair, some off-sites reengage employees, recharge people'sbatteries,andrestartconversationsonbigissues.Butifyourorganization'soff-sitesarefallingshort,whynottryreplacingthenextonewithaFedExDay?Setaside an entire day where employees can work on anything they choose,however theywant,withwhomever they'd like.Makesure theyhave the toolsand resources they need. And impose just one rule: People must deliversomething a new idea, a prototype of a product, a better internal process the

followingday.TypeIorganizationsknowwhattheirTypeXcounterpartsrarelycomprehend:Realchallengesarefarmoreinvigoratingthancontrolledleisure.

TheZenofCompensation:PayingPeopletheTypeIWayEverybodywantstobepaidwell.Isuredo.Ibetyou'rethesame.TheTypeI

approach to motivation doesn't require bargain basement wages or an all-volunteerworkforce,butitdoesdemandanewapproachtopay.

ThinkofthisnewapproachastheZenofcompensation:InMotivation3.0,thebestuseofmoneyistotaketheissueofmoneyoffthetable.

Themoreprominentsalary,perks,andbenefitsare insomeone'swork life,themore theycan inhibitcreativityandunravelperformance.AsEdwardDeciexplainedinChapter3,whenorganizationsuserewardslikemoneytomotivatestaff, that's when they're most demotivating. The better strategy is to getcompensation right and then get it out of sight. Effective organizationscompensate people in amounts and in ways that allow individuals to mostlyforgetaboutcompensationandinsteadfocusontheworkitself.

Herearethreekeytechniques.

1.ENSUREINTERNALANDEXTERNALFAIRNESS

Themost important aspect of any compensation package is fairness.Andhere, fairness comes in two varieties internal and external. Internal fairnessmeans paying people commensurate with their colleagues. External fairnessmeans paying people in line with others doing similar work in similarorganizations.

Let's look at each type of fairness. Suppose you and Fred have adjoiningcubicles. And suppose you've got pretty much equivalent responsibility andexperience.IfFredmakesscadsmoremoneythanyou,you'llbemiffed.Becauseof this violation of internal fairness, your motivation will plummet. Nowsuppose instead thatyouandFredarebothauditorswith tenyears' experienceworking in aFortune200company. Ifyoudiscover that similarly experiencedauditors at otherFortune200 firms aremakingdoubleyour salaries, bothyouandFredwillexperiencealargelyirreversiblemotivationdip.Thecompanyhasviolatedtheethicofexternalfairness.(Oneimportantaddendum:PayingpeopletheType Iwaydoesn'tmeanpayingeveryone the sameamount. IfFredhas aharderjoborcontributesmoretotheorganizationthanyou,hedeservesaricherdeal.And,asitturnsout,severalstudieshaveshownthatmostpeopledon'thaveabeefwiththat.Why?It'sfair.)

Gettingtheinternalandexternalequityrightisn'titselfamotivator.Butitisawaytoavoidputtingtheissueofmoneybackonthetableandmakingitade-motivator.

2.PAYMORETHANAVERAGE

Ifyouhaveprovidedadequatebaselinerewardsandestablishedinternalandexternal fairness, consider borrowing a strategy first surfaced by a Nobellaureate. In themid-1980s,GeorgeAkerlof,who laterwon theNobelPrize ineconomics,andhiswife,JanetYellen,who'salsoaneconomist,discoveredthatsome companies seemed to be overpaying their workers. Instead of payingemployeesthewagesthatsupplyanddemandwouldhavepredicted, theygavetheirworkersalittlemore.Itwasn'tbecausethecompanieswereselflessanditwasn'tbecause theywerestupid. Itwasbecause theyweresavvy.Payinggreatpeoplealittlemorethanthemarketdemands,AkerlofandYellenfound,couldattractbettertalent,reduceturnover,andboostproductivityandmorale.

Higherwagescouldactuallyreduceacompany'scosts.Thepay-more-than-averageapproachcanofferanelegantwaytobypassif-

then rewards, eliminate concerns about unfairness, and help take the issue ofmoneyoffthetable.It'sanotherwaytoallowpeopletofocusontheworkitself.Indeed,othereconomistshaveshownthatprovidinganemployeeahighlevelofbasepaydoesmore toboostperformanceandorganizationalcommitment thananattractivebonusstructure.

Ofcourse,bytheverynatureoftheexercise,payingabovetheaveragewillworkforonlyabouthalfofyou.Sogetgoingbeforeyourcompetitorsdo.

3. IF YOU USE PERFORMANCE METRICS, MAKE THEM WIDE-RANGING,RELEVANT,ANDHARDTOGAME

Imagineyou'reaproductmanagerandyourpaydependslargelyonreachinga particular sales goal for the next quarter. If you're smart, or if you've got afamily to feed, you're going to trymightily to hit that number. You probablywon't concern yourself much with the quarter after that or the health of thecompanyorwhetherthefirmisinvestingenoughinresearchanddevelopment.Andifyou'renervous,youmightcutcornerstoreachyourquarterlygoal.

Nowimagineyou'reaproductmanagerandyourpayisdeterminedbythesefactors: your sales for the next quarter; your sales in the current year; thecompany'srevenueandprofitinthenexttwoyears;levelsofsatisfactionamongyourcustomers; ideas fornewproducts;andevaluationsofyourcoworkers. Ifyou'resmart,you'llprobablytrytosellyourproduct,serveyourcustomers,help

your teammates, and, well, do good work. When metrics are varied, they'rehardertofinagle.

In addition, thegain for reaching themetrics shouldn't be too large.Whenthepayoffforreachingtargets ismodest,ratherthanmassive, it's lesslikelytonarrowpeople'sfocusorencouragethemtotakethelowroad.

To be sure, finding the right mix of metrics is difficult and will varyconsiderablyacrossorganizations.Andsomepeoplewill inevitablyfindawayto game even the most carefully calibrated system. But using a variety ofmeasures that reflect the totality of great work can transform oftencounterproductiveif-thenrewardsintolesscombustiblenowthatrewards.

TypeIforParentsandEducators:NineIdeasforHelpingOurKidsAllkidsstartoutascurious,self-directedTypeI's.Butmanyofthemendup

asdisengaged,compliantTypeX's.What'sgoingon?Maybetheproblemisusthe adultswho are running schools and heading families. Ifwewant to equipyoungpeopleforthenewworldofworkand,moreimportant,ifwewantthemtoleadsatisfyinglivesweneedtobreakMotivation2.0'sgriponeducationandparenting.

Unfortunately, as with business, there's a mismatch between what scienceknows and what schools do. Science knows (and you do, too, if you readChapter 2) that if you promise a preschooler a fancy certificate for drawing apicture,thatchildwilllikelydrawapictureforyouandthenlosefurtherinterestindrawing.Yetinthefaceofthisevidenceandastheworldeconomydemandsmorenonroutine,creative,conceptualabilities toomanyschoolsaremovinginthe wrong direction. They're redoubling their emphasis on routines, rightanswers, and standardization. And they're hauling out a wagon full of if-thenrewardspizza for readingbooks, iPods for showingup toclass, cash forgoodtestscores.We'rebribingstudents intocomplianceinsteadofchallengingthemintoengagement.

Wecandobetter.Andweshould.IfwewanttoraiseTypeIkids,atschooland at home, we need to help them move toward autonomy, mastery, andpurpose.Hereareninewaystostartthejourney.

APPLYTHETHREE-PARTTYPEITESTFORHOMEWORKDoesthehomeworkbulgingfromkids'backpackstrulyhelpthemlearn?Or

does it simply steal their free time in the service of a false sense of rigor?Teachers, before you dole out yet another time-consuming assignment, run itthroughthisTypeIhomeworktestbyaskingyourselfthreequestions:

¥AmIofferingstudentsanyautonomyoverhowandwhentodothiswork?¥Doesthisassignmentpromotemasterybyofferinganovel,engagingtask

(asopposedtorotereformulationofsomethingalreadycoveredinclass)?

¥Domy students understand the purpose of this assignment?That is, canthey see how doing this additional activity at home contributes to the largerenterpriseinwhichtheclassisengaged?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, can you refashion theassignment?And parents, are you looking at homework assignments every sooften to seewhether theypromotecomplianceorengagement?Let'snotwasteourkids'timeonmeaninglessexercises.Withalittlethoughtandeffort,wecanthenhomeworkintohomelearning.

HAVEAFEDEXDAYInChapter4,welearnedhowthesoftwarecompanyAtlassianinjectsaburst

of autonomy into its workplace by setting aside a day each quarter whenemployees can work on any project they choose, however they want, withwhomever they'd like.Why not try thiswith your students or even your ownsonsanddaughters?Setasideanentireschoolday(orafamilyvacationday)andaskkidstocomeupwithaproblemtosolveoraprojecttotackle.Inadvance,helpthemcollectthetools,information,andsuppliestheymightneed.Thenletthemhaveatit.Thenextmorning,askthemtodeliverbyreportingbacktotheclassorthefamilyontheirdiscoveriesandexperiences.It'slikeProjectRunwayonlythekidscomeupwiththeprojectthemselves,andtherewardattheendofthedayisthechancetosharewhatthey'vecreatedandallthey'velearnedalongtheway.

TRYDIYREPORTCARDST oo many students walk through the schoolhouse door with one aim in

mind:togetgoodgrades.Andalltoooften,thebestwaytoreachthisgoalistogetwiththeprogram,avoidrisks,andserveuptheanswerstheteacherwantsthewaytheteacherwantsthem.Goodgradesbecomearewardforcompliancebutdon't havemuch to dowith learning.Meanwhile, studentswhose grades don'tmeasureupoftenseethemselvesasfailuresandgiveuptryingtolearn.

TheTypeIapproachisdifferent.Reportcardsarenotapotentialprize,butaway to offer students useful feedback on their progress. And Type I studentsunderstandthatagreatwaytogetfeedbackistoevaluatetheirownprogress.

So try experimenting with the DIY (do it yourself ) report card. At thebeginningofasemester,askstudentstolisttheirtoplearninggoals.Then,attheendofthesemester,askthemtocreatetheirownreportcardalongwithaone-ortwo-paragraph review of their progress. Where did they succeed?Where didtheyfallshort?Whatmoredotheyneedtolearn?Oncestudentshavecompletedtheir DIY report cards, show them the teacher's report card, and let thecomparisonofthetwobethestartofaconversationonhowtheyaredoingontheir path towardmastery.Maybe even include students in any parent-teacher

conferences.(Parents:Ifyourchild'steacherwon'tgofortheseDIYreportcards,try ityourselfathome. It'sanotherway toprevent school fromchangingyourchild'sdefaultsettingandturninghimfromTypeItoTypeX.)

GIVE YOUR KIDS AN ALLOWANCE AND SOME CHORES BUTDON'TCOMBINETHEM

H ere's why an allowance is good for kids: Having a little of their ownmoney,anddecidinghowtosaveorspendit,offersameasureofautonomyandteachesthemtoberesponsiblewithcash.

Here's why household chores are good for kids: Chores show kids thatfamilies arebuilt onmutualobligations and that familymembersneed tohelpeachother.

Here's why combining allowances with chores is not good for kids. Bylinkingmoneytothecompletionofchores,parentsturnanallowanceintoanif-thenreward.Thissendskidsaclear(andclearlywrongheaded)message:Intheabsence of a payment, no self-respecting child would willingly set the table,empty the garbage, or make her own bed. It converts a moral and familialobligation into just another commercial transaction and teaches that the onlyreason to do a less-than-desirable task for your family is in exchange forpayment. This is a casewhere combining two good things give you less, notmore.Sokeepallowanceandchoresseparate,andyoujustmightgetthattrashcanemptied.Evenbetter, yourkidswill begin to learn thedifferencebetweenprinciplesandpayoffs.

OFFERPRAISE...THERIGHTWAYD one right, praise is an important way to give kids feedback and

encouragement.Butdonewrong,praisecanbecomeyetanother if-thenrewardthatcansquashcreativityandstifleintrinsicmotivation.

The powerfulwork of psychologist CarolDweck, aswell as others in thefield, offers a how-to list for offering praise in a way that promotes Type Ibehavior:

¥ Praise effort and strategy, not intelligence . As Dweck's research hasshown, children who are praised for being smart often believe that everyencounter is a testofwhether they really are.So to avoid lookingdumb, theyresist new challenges and choose the easiest path. By contrast, kids whounderstand that effort and hard work lead to mastery and growth are morewillingtotakeonnew,difficulttasks.

¥ Make praise specific . Parents and teachers should give kids usefulinformationabouttheirperformance.Insteadofbathingthemingeneralities,tellthemspecificallywhatthey'vedonethat'snoteworthy.

¥Praiseinprivate.Praiseisfeedbacknotanawardceremony.That'swhyit's

oftenbesttoofferitone-on-one,inprivate.¥Offerpraiseonlywhenthere'sagoodreasonforit.Don'tkidakid.Hecan

see through fake praise in a nanosecond. Be sincere or keep quiet. If youoverpraise,kidsregarditasdishonestandunearned.Plus,overpraisingbecomesanother if-then reward that makes earning praise, rather than moving towardmastery,theobjective.

HELPKIDSSEETHEBIGPICTUREI n education systems tilted toward standardized tests, grades, and if-then

rewards,studentsoftenhavenoideawhythey'redoingwhatthey'redoing.Turnthataroundbyhelpingthemglimpsethebigpicture.Whateverthey'restudying,be sure they can answer these questions:Why am I learning this? How is itrelevant to theworld I live in now?Then get out of the classroom and applywhatthey'restudying.Ifthey'relearningSpanish,takethemtoanoffice,astore,or a community centerwhere they can actually speak the language. If they'restudyinggeometry,havethemdrawuparchitecturalplansforanadditiontoyourschoolorhome.Ifthey'retakinghistory,askthemtoapplywhatthey'velearnedtoaneventinthenews.ThinkofitasthefourthR:reading,writing,arithmetic...andrelevance.

CHECKOUTTHESEFIVETYPEISCHOOLSAlthoughmostschoolsaroundtheworldarestillbuiltatoptheMotivation

2.0 operating system, a number of forward-thinking educators have longunderstood thatyoungpeoplearebrimmingwith the thirddrive.Hereare fiveType I schools in the United States with practices to emulate and stories toinspire.

¥BigPictureLearning.Since1996,withtheopeningofitsflagshippublichigh school, theMet, in Providence, Rhode Island, Big Picture Learning hasbeencreatingplacesthatcultivateengagementrather thandemandcompliance.Foundedbytwoveteraneducationinnovators,DennisLittkyandElliotWashor,Big Picture is a nonprofit that now has sixty-plus schools around the UnitedStatesthatputstudentsinchargeoftheirowneducation.BigPicturekidsgetthebasics.Buttheyalsousethosebasicsandacquireotherskillsbydoingrealworkin the community all under the guidance of an experienced adult tutor. Andinstead of easily gamed Motivation 2.0 measurements, Big Picture kids areassessed the way adults are on work performance, individual presentations,effort, attitude, and behavior on the job.Most of the students at theMet andotherBigPictureschoolsareatrisklow-incomeandminoritykidswho'vebeenpoorly served by conventional schools. Yet thanks to this innovative Type Iapproach, more than 95 percent graduate and go on to college. For moreinformation, go to . (Full disclosure: I have served, unpaid, on the board of

directorsofBigPicturesince2007.)¥ Sudbury Valley School . Take a look at this independent school in

Framingham, Massachusetts, to see what happens when young kids havegenuine autonomy. Working from the assumption that all human beings arenaturally curious and that thebest kindof learninghappenswhen it's initiatedand pursued by the one doing the learning, Sudbury Valley School gives itsstudents total control over the task, time, and technique of their learning.Teachersandstaffare there tohelp themmakethingshappen.This isaschoolwhere engagement is the rule and compliance isn't an option. For moreinformation,goto.

¥TheTinkeringSchool.Moreofalabthanaschool,thissummerprogram,createdbycomputerscientistGeverTulley,letschildrenfromseventoseventeenplayaroundwith interestingstuffandbuildcool things.At theheadquarters inMontara, California, Tulley's tinkerers have built: working zip-lines,motorcycles, toothbrush robots, roller coasters, and plastic bag bridges strongenoughtoholdpeople.Mostofusaren'tabletoshipourkidsouttoCaliforniafor aweek of tinkering, butwe can all learn the FiveDangerous ThingsYouShouldLetYourChildrenDo.So take nineminutes to listen toTulley's 2007onlineTEDTalkofthattitle.Thenhandyourkidsapocket-knife,somepowertools,andabookofmatchesandgetoutoftheway.Formoreinformation,goto(includesalinktoTulley'stalk).

¥PugetSoundCommunitySchool.LikeSudburyandBigPicture,thistinyindependent school inSeattle,Washington,gives its students a radicaldoseofautonomy, turning theonesize fitsallapproachofconventional schoolson itshead.Eachstudenthasanadviserwhoactsasherpersonalcoach,helpinghercomeupwithherownlearninggoals.Schoolconsistsofamixtureofclasstimeand self-created independent study projects, along with community servicedevisedbythestudents.Sinceyoungstersareoftenawayfromcampus,theygainaclearsensethattheirlearninghasareal-worldpurpose.Andratherthanchaseafter grades, they receive frequent, informal feedback from advisers, teachers,andpeers.Formoreinformation,goto.

¥ Montessori Schools . Dr. Maria Montessori developed the Montessorimethodofteachingintheearly1900safterobservingchildren'snaturalcuriosityandinnatedesiretolearn.Herearlyunderstandingofthethirddrivespawnedaworldwidenetworkofschools,mostlyforpreschoolandprimary-agedchildren.ManyofthekeytenetsofaMontessorieducationresonatewiththeprinciplesofMotivation 3.0 that children naturally engage in self-directed learning andindependentstudy; that teachersshouldactasobserversandfacilitatorsof thatlearning, and not as lecturers or commanders; and that children are naturally

inclined to experience periods of intense focus, concentration, and flow thatadultsshoulddotheirbestnottointerrupt.AlthoughMontessorischoolsarerareatthejuniorhighandhighschoollevels,everyschool,educator,andparentcanlearn from its enduring and successful approach. Meantime, while you'reinvestigatingMontessori, checkout twoother approaches to learning that alsopromote Type I behavior: the Reggio Emilia philosophy for the education ofyoung children and the Waldorf schools. For more information, visit thesewebsites:,,,,and.

TAKEACLASSFROMTHEUNSCHOOLERSIn theUnitedStates, thehomeschoolingmovementhasbeengrowingata

remarkablepaceoverthepasttwentyyears.Andthefastest-growingsegmentofthatmovementistheunschoolersfamiliesthatdon'tuseaformalcurriculumandinstead allow their children to explore and learn what interests them.UnschoolershavebeenamongthefirsttoadoptaTypeIapproachtoeducation.Theypromoteautonomybyallowingyoungsters todecidewhat theylearnandhowtheylearnit.Theyencouragemasterybyallowingchildrentospendaslongas they'd likeand togoasdeepas theydesireon the topics that interest them.Even if unschooling is not for youor your kids, you can learn a thingor twofrom these educational innovators. Start by reading John Taylor Gatto'sextraordinary book, Dumbing Us Down . Take a look at Home EducationMagazineanditswebsite.ThencheckoutsomeofthemanyotherunschoolingsitesontheWeb.Formoreinformation,goto,,and.

TURNSTUDENTSINTOTEACHERSOneofthebestwaystoknowwhetheryou'vemasteredsomethingistotry

toteachit.Givestudentsthatopportunity.Assigneachpupilinaclassadifferentaspect of the broader topic you're studying and then have them take turnsteachingwhatthey'velearnedtotheirclassmates.Andoncethey'vegotitdown,givethemawideraudiencebyinvitingotherclasses,teachers,parents,orschooladministratorstolearnwhattheyhavetoteach.

Also, at the start of a school term, ask students about their individualpassionsandareasofexpertise.Keepalistofyourexperts,andthencalluponthemasneededthroughouttheterm.Aclassroomofteachersisaclassroomoflearners.

TheTypeIReadingList:FifteenEssentialBooksAutonomy,mastery,andpurposeareintegraltothehumancondition,soit's

nosurprisethatanumberofwritersfrompsychologiststojournaliststonovelistshave explored these three elements and probedwhat theymean for our lives.This listofbooks, arrangedalphabeticallybyauthor, isn't exhaustivebut it's agoodstartingpointforanyoneinterestedincultivatingaTypeIlife.

FiniteandInfiniteGames:AVisionofLifeasPlayandPossibilityBYJAMESP.CARSEIn his elegant little book, religious scholar Carse describes two types of

games.Afinitegamehasawinnerandanend;thegoalistotriumph.Aninfinitegame has no winner and no end; the goal is to keep playing. Nonwinnablegames,Carseexplains,aremuchmore rewarding than thewin-loseoneswe'reaccustomedtoplayingatourworkandinourrelationships.

Type I Insight :Finiteplayersplaywithinboundaries; infiniteplayersplaywithboundaries.

Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers fromEverybodyElse

BYGEOFFCOLVINWhat'sthedifferencebetweenthosewhoareprettygoodatwhattheydoand

those who are masters? Fortune magazine's Colvin scours the evidence andshows that theanswer is threefold:practice,practice,practice.But it'snot justanypractice,hesays.Thesecretisdeliberatepracticehighlyrepetitive,mentallydemandingworkthat'softenunpleasant,butundeniablyeffective.

TypeIInsight:Ifyousetagoalofbecominganexpertinyourbusiness,youwouldimmediatelystartdoingallkindsofthingsyoudon'tdonow.

Flow:ThePsychologyofOptimalExperienceBYMIHALYCSIKSZENTMIHALYIIt'stoughtofindabetterargumentforworkinghardatsomethingyoulove

thanCsikszentmihalyi's landmarkbookonoptimalexperiences.Flowdescribesthoseexhilaratingmomentswhenwefeelincontrol,fullofpurpose,andinthezone.Anditrevealshowpeoplehaveturnedeventhemostunpleasanttasksintoenjoyable,rewardingchallenges.

TypeIInsight:Contrarytowhatweusuallybelieve...thebestmomentsinourlivesarenotthepassive,receptive,relaxingtimesalthoughsuchexperiencescanalsobeenjoyable,ifwehaveworkedhardtoattainthem.Thebestmomentsusually occur when a person's body or mind is stretched to the limits in avoluntaryefforttoaccomplishsomethingdifficultandworthwhile.

Formore of Csikszentmihalyi's ideas, check out three of his other books:FindingFlow:ThePsychologyofEngagementwithEverydayLife;Creativity:Flowand thePsychologyofDiscovery and Invention; and the classicBeyondBoredomandAnxiety:ExperiencingFlowinWorkandPlay.

WhyWeDoWhatWeDo:UnderstandingSelf-MotivationBYEDWARDL.DECIWITHRICHARDFLASTEIn 1995, Edward Deci wrote a short book that introduced his powerful

theories to a popular audience. In clear, readable prose, he discusses the

limitations of a society based on control, explains the origins of his landmarkexperiments, and showshow topromote autonomy in themany realmsof ourlives.

Type I Insight : The questions so many people ask namely, ÔHow do Imotivatepeopletolearn?towork?todotheirchores?ortotaketheirmedicine?'arethewrongquestions.Theyarewrongbecausetheyimplythatmotivationissomethingthatgetsdonetopeopleratherthansomethingthatpeopledo.

Mindset:TheNewPsychologyofSuccessBYCAROLDWECKStanford'sDweckdistillsherdecadesof research toa simplepairof ideas.

People can have twodifferentmindsets, she says.Thosewith a fixedmindsetbelieve that their talentsandabilitiesarecarved instone.Thosewithagrowthmindsetbelievethattheirtalentsandabilitiescanbedeveloped.Fixedmindsetsseeeveryencounterasatestoftheirworthiness.Growthmindsetsseethesameencountersasopportunitiestoimprove.Dweck'smessage:Gowithgrowth.

Type I Insight : In the book and likewise on her website, , Dweck offersconcretestepsformovingfromafixedtoagrowthmindset:

¥ Learn to listen for a fixed mindset voice that might be hurting yourresiliency.

¥ Interpret challenges not as roadblocks, but as opportunities to stretchyourself.

¥Usethelanguageofgrowthforexample,I'mnotsureIcandoitnow,butIthinkIcanlearnwithtimeandeffort.

ThenWeCametotheEndBYJOSHUAFERRISThis darkly hilarious debut novel is a cautionary tale for the demoralizing

effectsoftheTypeXworkplace.AtanunnamedadagencyinChicago,peoplespendmoretimescarfingfreedoughnutsandscammingofficechairsthandoingactualworkallwhilefrettingaboutwalkingSpanishdownthehall,officelingoforbeingfired.

TypeIInsight:Theyhadtakenawayourflowers,oursummerdays,andourbonuses,wewereonawagefreezeandahiringfreezeandpeoplewereflyingoutthedoorlikesomanydismantleddummies.Wehadonethingstillgoingforus: theprospectof apromotion.Anew title: true, it camewithnomoney, thepower was almost always illusory, the bestowal a cheap shrewd deviceconcocted bymanagement to keep us frommutiny, butwhenword circulatedthatoneofushad jumpedupanacronym, thatpersonwas just a littlequieterthatday, tooka longer lunch thanusual,camebackwithshoppingbags, spenttheafternoonspeakingsoftlyintothetelephone,andleftwhenevertheywanted

that night, while the rest of us sent emails flying back and forth on the loftytopicsofInjusticeandUncertainty.

GoodWork:WhenExcellenceandEthicsMeetBY HOWARD GARDNER, MIHALY CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, AND

WILLIAMDAMONHow can you do good work in an age of relentless market forces and

lightning-fast technology?By considering three basic issues: your profession'smission , its standardsorbestpractices,andyourown identity .Although thisbookfocusesmainlyonexamplesfromthefieldsofgeneticsandjournalism,itsinsightscanbeappliedtoanumberofprofessionsbuffetedbychangingtimes.The authors have also continued their effort to identify individuals andinstitutionsthatexemplifygoodworkontheirwebsite:.

TypeI Insight :Whatdoyoudo ifyouwakeup in themorninganddreadgoingtowork,becausethedailyroutinenolongersatisfiesyourstandards?

¥Startgroupsor forumswithothers inyour industryoroutside it to reachbeyondyourcurrentareaofinfluence.

¥Workwith existing organizations to confirm your profession's values ordevelopnewguidelines.

¥Takeastand.Itcanberisky,sure,butleavingajobforethicalreasonsneednotinvolveabandoningyourprofessionalgoals.

Outliers:TheStoryofSuccessBYMALCOLMGLADWELLWithaseriesofcompellingandgracefullytoldstories,Gladwelldeftlytakes

a hammer to the idea of the self-mademan. Success ismore complicated, hesays.Highachievers fromyoungCanadianhockeyplayers toBillGates to theBeatles are often the products of hidden advantages of culture, timing,demographics, and luck that helped them become masters in their fields.Readingthisbookwillleadyoutoreevaluateyourownpath.Moreimportant,itwillmakeyouwonderhowmuchhumanpotentialwe're losingwhensomanypeoplearedeniedtheseadvantages.

TypeIInsight:Itisnothowmuchmoneywemakethatultimatelymakesushappybetweennine-to-five.It'swhetherourworkfulfillsus.IfIofferedyouachoicebetweenbeinganarchitectfor$75,000ayearandworkinginatollbootheverydayfor therestofyour lifefor$100,000ayear,whichwouldyoutake?I'm guessing the former, because there is complexity, autonomy, and arelationshipbetweeneffortandrewardindoingcreativework,andthat'sworthmoretomostofusthanmoney.

TeamofRivals:ThePoliticalGeniusofAbrahamLincolnBYDORISKEARNSGOODWIN

Inherentertainingpopularhistory,GoodwinshowsAbrahamLincolnasanexemplarofTypeIbehavior.Heworkedmightilytoachievemasteryinlawandpolitics.Hegavehisstaunchestrivalspowerandautonomy.Andhedevelopedaleadershipstylerootedinahigherpurposeendingslaveryandkeepingtheunionintact.

Type I Insight :Goodwinsheds lightonLincoln'sType I leadership skills.Amongthem:

¥Hewasself-confidentenoughtosurroundhimselfwithrivalswhoexcelledinareaswherehewasweak.

¥Hegenuinely listenedtootherpeople'spointsofview,whichhelpedhimformmorecomplexopinionsofhisown.

¥Hegavecreditwhereitwasdueandwasn'tafraidtotaketheblame.The Amateurs: The Story of Four Young Men and Their Quest for an

OlympicGoldMedalBYDAVIDHALBERSTAMWhat would compel a group of men to endure untold physical pain and

exhaustionforasportthatpromisednomonetarycompensationorfame?That'sthequestionat theheartofHalberstam'srivetingnarrativeaboutthe1984U.S.rowingtrials,abookthatoffersaglimpseintothefiresofintrinsicmotivation.

Type I Insight : No chartered planes or buses ferried the athletes intoPrinceton.No teammanagers hustled their baggage from the bus to the hoteldesk andmade arrangements so that atmealtime theyneedonly showup andsignatab.Thiswasaworldofhitchedridesandborrowedbeds,andmeals, ifnotscrounged,weredesperatelybudgetedbyappallinglyhungryyoungmen.

Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's,Praise,andOtherBribes

BYALFIEKOHNFormerteacherKohnthrowsdownthegauntletatsociety'sblindacceptance

ofB.F.Skinner'sDo thisandyou'llget that theoryofbehaviorism.This1993book rangesacross school,work, andprivate life in its indictmentof extrinsicmotivatorsandpaintsacompellingpictureofaworldwithoutthem.

Type I Insight : Do rewards motivate people? Absolutely. They motivatepeopletogetrewards.

Kohnhaswrittenelevenbooksonparenting,education,andbehavioraswellas scoresof articleson that topic all ofwhichare interesting andprovocative.There'smoreinformationonhiswebsite:.

OnceaRunnerBYJOHNL.PARKER,JR.Parker's novel, originally published in 1978 and kept alive by a devoted

coterieoffans,offersafascinatinglookintothepsychologyofdistancerunning.ThroughthetaleofcollegemilerQuentonCassidy,weseethetollthatmasterycantakeandthethrillitcanproducewhenit'srealized.

TypeIInsight:Herannotforcrypto-religiousreasonsbuttowinraces, tocovergroundfast.Notonlytobebetterthanhisfellows,butbetterthanhimself.Tobefasterbyatenthofasecond,byaninch,bytwofeetortwoyards,thanhehadbeentheweekoryearbefore.Hesoughttoconquerthephysicallimitationsplaced on him by a three-dimensional world (and if Time is the fourthdimension, that toowas his province). If he could conquer theweakness, thecowardiceinhimself,hewouldnotworryabouttherest;itwouldcome.

TheWar of Art: Break Through the Blocks andWinYour Inner CreativeBattles

BYSTEVENPRESSFIELDPressfield'spotentbookisbothawisemeditationontheobstaclesthatstand

in the way of creative freedom and a spirited battle plan for overcoming theresistancethatariseswhenwesetouttodosomethinggreat.Ifyou'relookingforaquickjoltonyourjourneytowardmastery,thisisit.

TypeIInsight:Itmaybethatthehumanraceisnotreadyforfreedom.Theairoflibertymaybetoorarifiedforustobreathe.CertainlyIwouldn'tbewritingthisbook,onthissubject,iflivingwithfreedomwereeasy.Theparadoxseemsto be, as Socrates demonstrated long ago, that the truly free individual is freeonly to the extent of his own self-mastery.While those who will not governthemselvesarecondemnedtofindmasterstogovernoverthem.

Maverick:TheSuccessStoryBehindtheWorld'sMostUnusualWorkplaceBYRICARDOSEMLERWhilemanybossesarecontrol freaks,Semlermightbe the first autonomy

freak.HetransformedtheBrazilianmanufacturingfirmSemcothroughaseriesof radical steps. He canned most executives, eliminated job titles, let thecompany'sthreethousandemployeessettheirownhours,gaveeveryoneavoteinbigdecisions, andeven let someworkersdetermine their own salaries.Theresult:UnderSemler's (non)command,Semcohasgrown20percentayear forthepast twodecades.This book, alongwithSemler'smore recentTheSeven-DayWeekend,showshowtoputhisiconoclasticandeffectivephilosophyintoaction.

TypeIInsight:IwanteveryoneatSemcotobeself-sufficient.Thecompanyisorganizedwell,maybethat'snotquitetherightwordforusnottodependtoomuchonanyindividual,especiallyme.Itakeitasapointofpridethattwiceonmy return from long trips my office had been moved and each time it gotsmaller.

TheFifthDiscipline:TheArtandPracticeoftheLearningOrganizationBYPETERM.SENGEIn his management classic , Senge introduces readers to learning

organizationswhereautonomous thinkingandsharedvisions for the futurearenotonlyencouraged,butareconsideredvital to thehealthof theorganization.Senge's five disciplines offer a smart organizational companion to Type Ibehavior.

Type I Insight : People with a high level of personal mastery are able toconsistently realize the results thatmattermost deeply to them in effect, theyapproach their life as anartistwouldapproachaworkof art.Theydo thatbybecomingcommittedtotheirownlifelonglearning.

ListentotheGurus:SixBusinessThinkersWhoGetItWhile the list of companies that embrace Type I thinking is distressingly

short, the blueprints for building such organizations are readily available. Thefollowing six business thinkers offer some wise guidance for designingorganizationsthatpromoteautonomy,mastery,andpurpose.

DOUGLASMCGREGORWho:A social psychologist and one of the first professors atMIT's Sloan

SchoolofManagement.Hislandmark1960book,TheHumanSideofEnterprise,gavethepracticeofmanagementabadlyneededshotofhumanism.

Big Idea: TheoryX vs. TheoryY.McGregor described two very differentapproachestomanagement,eachbasedonadifferentassumptionabouthumanbehavior.The first approach,whichhe calledTheoryX , assumed that peopleavoid effort, work only for money and security, and therefore need to becontrolled . The second, which he called Theory Y, assumed that work is asnatural for human beings as play or rest, that initiative and creativity arewidespread,and that ifpeoplearecommitted toagoal, theywillactuallyseekresponsibility.TheoryY,heargued,wasthemoreaccurateandultimatelymoreeffectiveapproach.

Type I Insight: Managers frequently complain to me about the fact thatsubordinatesÔnowadays'won'ttakeresponsibility.Ihavebeeninterestedtonotehowoftenthesesamemanagerskeepaconstantsurveillanceovertheday-to-dayperformanceofsubordinates,sometimestwoorthreelevelsbelowthemselves.

MoreInfo:AsIexplainedinChapter3,TheHumanSideofEnterpriseisakeyancestorofMotivation3.0.AlthoughMcGregorwrotethebookafullfiftyyearsago,hisobservationsabout the limitsofcontrol remainsmart, fresh,andrelevant.

PETERF.DRUCKERWho:Themostinfluentialmanagementthinkerofthetwentiethcentury.He

wroteanastonishingforty-onebooks,influencedthethinkingoftwogenerationsofCEOs, receivedaU.S.PresidentialMedalofFreedom,and taught for threedecadesat theClaremontGraduateUniversityBusinessSchool thatnowbearshisname.

Big Idea: Self-management.Drucker's primary contribution is not a singleidea, Jim Collins once wrote, but rather an entire body of work that has onegiganticadvantage:nearlyallof it isessentiallyright.Druckercoinedthetermknowledgeworker,foresawtheriseofthenonprofitsector,andwasamongthefirsttostresstheprimacyofthecustomerinbusinessstrategy.Butalthoughhe'sbest known for his thoughts on managing businesses, toward the end of hiscareer Drucker signaled the next frontier: self-management .With the rise ofindividuallongevityandthedeclineofjobsecurity,heargued,individualshavetothinkhardaboutwheretheirstrengthslie,whattheycancontribute,andhowtheycanimprovetheirownperformance.Theneedtomanageoneself,hewroteshortlybeforehediedin2005,iscreatingarevolutioninhumanaffairs.

TypeIInsight:Demandingofknowledgeworkersthattheydefinetheirowntaskanditsresultsisnecessarybecauseknowledgeworkersmustbeautonomous...workersshouldbeaskedtothinkthroughtheirownworkplansandthentosubmit them.What am I going to focus on?What results can be expected forwhichIshouldbeheldaccountable?Bywhatdeadline?

More Info:Druckerwrotemanybooks,andmanyhavebeenwrittenabouthim,butagreatstartingplaceisTheDailyDrucker,asmallgemthatprovides366insightsandactionpointsforputtinghisideasintopractice.Onthetopicofself-management, read Drucker's 2005 Harvard Business Review article,ManagingOneself. Formore information and access to digital archives of hiswriting,checkout.

JIMCOLLINSWho:Oneofthemostauthoritativevoicesinbusinesstodayandtheauthor

ofBuilttoLast(withJerryPorras),GoodtoGreat,and,mostrecently,HowtheMightyFall.AformerprofessorattheStanfordGraduateSchoolofBusiness,henowoperateshisownmanagementlabinBoulder,Colorado.

Big Idea: Self-motivation and greatness . Expending energy trying tomotivatepeopleislargelyawasteoftime,CollinswroteinGoodtoGreat.Ifyouhavetherightpeopleonthebus,theywillbeself-motivated.Therealquestionthenbecomes:Howdoyoumanageinsuchawayasnottode-motivatepeople?

Type I Insight: Collins suggests four basic practices for creating a culturewhereself-motivationcanflourish:

1.Leadwithquestions,notanswers.2.Engageindialogueanddebate,notcoercion.

3.Conductautopsies,withoutblame.4.BuildÔredflag'mechanisms.Inotherwords,makeiteasyforemployees

andcustomerstospeakupwhentheyidentifyaproblem.MoreInfo:Collins'swebsite,,containsmoreinformationabouthiswork,as

wellasexcellentdiagnostictools,guides,andvideos.CALIRESSLERANDJODYTHOMPSONWho: These two former human resources professionals at Best Buy

persuaded theirCEO toexperimentwitha radicalnewapproach toorganizingwork.Theywroteabookabouttheirexperiences,WhyWorkSucksandHowtoFixIt,andnowruntheirownconsultancy.

BigIdea:Theresults-onlyworkenvironment.ROWE,describedinChapter4, affords employees complete autonomyoverwhen,where, and how they dotheirwork.Theonlythingthatmattersisresults.

TypeIInsight:AmongthebasictenetsofROWE:Peopleatall levelsstopdoinganyactivitythatisawasteoftheirtime,the

customer'stime,ortheircompany'stime.Employeeshavethefreedomtoworkanywaytheywant.Everymeetingisoptional.Therearenoworkschedules.MoreInfo:YoucanlearnmoreaboutROWEattheirwebsite:.GARYHAMELWho: The world's leading expert on business strategy, according to

BusinessWeek . He's the coauthor of the influential book Competing for theFuture , a professor of the London Business School, and the director of theCalifornia-basedMLab,wherehe's spearheading thepursuitofmoonshots formanagement a set of huge challenges to reform the theory and practice ofrunningorganizations.

BigIdea:Managementisanoutdatedtechnology.Hamellikensmanagementtotheinternalcombustionengineatechnologythathaslargelystoppedevolving.Puta1960s-eraCEOinatimemachineandtransporthimto2010,Hamelsays,and that CEO would find a great many of today's management rituals littlechangedfromthosethatgovernedcorporatelifeagenerationortwoago.Smallwonder,Hamelexplains.Mostof theessential toolsand techniquesofmodernmanagement were invented by individuals born in the 19th century, not longaftertheendoftheAmericanCivilWar.Thesolution?Aradicaloverhaulofthisagingtechnology.

Type I Insight:Thenext timeyou're in ameeting and folks arediscussinghow to wring another increment of performance out of your workforce, youmightask:ÔTowhatend,andtowhosebenefit,areouremployeesbeingasked

togiveof themselves?Havewecommittedourselves toapurpose that is trulydeservingoftheirinitiative,imagination,andpassion?'

MoreInfo:Hamel'sTheFutureofManagement(writtenwithBillBreen)isanimportantread.FormoreonHamel'sideasandresearch,seeand.

TheType IFitnessPlan:FourTips forGetting (andStaying)Motivated toExercise

On the jacket of this book is a runner and that's no accident.Running canhavealltheelementsofTypeIbehavior.It'sautonomous.Itallowsyoutoseekmastery.And thepeoplewhokeepat it, andenjoy itmost,often run towardagreaterpurposetestingtheirlimitsorstayinghealthyandvital.Tohelpyoubringthespiritofintrinsicmotivationoutoftheofficeandclassroomandintoanotherrealmofyourlife,herearefourtipsforstayingfittheTypeIway.

Setyourowngoals.Don'tacceptsomestandardized,cookie-cutterexerciseplan.Createone that's tailored toyourneeds and fitness level. (Youcanworkwithaprofessionalonthis,butyoumakethefinalcalls.)Equallyimportant,settherightkindsofgoals.Ampleresearchinbehavioralscienceshowsthatpeoplewhoseektoloseweightforextrinsicreasonstoslimdownforaweddingortolook better at a class reunion often reach their goals. And then they gain theweight back as soon as the target event ends.Meanwhile, peoplewho pursuemore intrinsicgoals toget fit inorder to feelgoodor to stayhealthy for theirfamilymake slowerprogress at first, but achieve significantlybetter results inthelongterm.

Ditch the treadmill.Unlessyoureally like treadmills, that is. If trudging tothe gym feels like a dreary obligation, find a form of fitness you enjoy thatproduces those intoxicating moments of flow. Gather some friends for aninformalgameoftennisorbasketball,joinanamateurleague,goforwalksatalocalpark,danceforahalf-hour,orplaywithyourkids.UsetheSawyerEffecttoyouradvantageandturnyourwork(out)intoplay.

Keepmasteryinmind.Gettingbetteratsomethingprovidesagreatsourceofrenewableenergy.Sopickanactivityinwhichyoucanimproveovertime.Bycontinually increasing thedifficultyofwhat you takeon thinkGoldilocks andsettingmore audacious challenges for yourself as time passes, you can renewthatenergyandstaymotivated.

Rewardyourself the rightway. Ifyou're reallystruggling,consideraquickexperimentwithStickk(),awebsiteinwhichyoupubliclycommittoagoalandmusthandovermoneytoafriend,acharity,orananti-charityifyoufailtoreachit.Butingeneral,don'tbribeyourselfwithif-thenrewardslikeIfIexercisefourtimes this week, then I'll buymyself a new shirt. They can backfire. But theoccasionalnowthatreward?Notaproblem.Soifyou'veswumthedistanceyou

hopedtothisweek,there'snoharmintreatingyourselftoamassageafterward.Itwon'thurt.Anditmightfeelgood.

Drive:TheRecapThisbookhascoveredalotofgroundandyoumightnotbeabletoinstantly

recalleverything in it.Sohereyou'll find threedifferent summariesofDrive .Thinkofitasyourtalkingpoints,refreshercourse,ormemoryjogger.

TWITTERSUMMARYCarrots& sticks are so last century.Drive says for 21st centurywork,we

needtoupgradetoautonomy,mastery&purpose.COCKTAILPARTYSUMMARYWhenitcomestomotivation,there'sagapbetweenwhatscienceknowsand

whatbusinessdoes.Ourcurrentbusinessoperatingsystemwhichisbuiltaroundexternal,carrot-and-stickmotivatorsdoesn'tworkandoftendoesharm.Weneedan upgrade. And the science shows the way. This new approach has threeessentialelements:(1)Autonomythedesiretodirectourownlives;(2)Masterytheurge togetbetterandbetteratsomething thatmatters;and(3)Purpose theyearningtodowhatwedointheserviceofsomethinglargerthanourselves.

Drive

CHAPTER-BY-CHAPTERSUMMARY

Introduction: The Puzzling Puzzles of Harry Harlow and Edward DeciHumanbeingshaveabiologicaldrivethat includeshunger, thirst,andsex.Wealsohaveanotherlong-recognizeddrive:torespondtorewardsandpunishmentsinourenvironment.Butinthemiddleofthetwentiethcentury,afewscientistsbegandiscovering thathumansalsohavea thirddrivewhatsomecall intrinsicmotivation.Forseveraldecades,behavioralscientistshavebeenfiguringoutthedynamics and explaining the power of our third drive. Alas, business hasn'tcaughtup to thisnewunderstanding. Ifwewant to strengthenour companies,elevateourlives,andimprovetheworld,weneedtoclosethegapbetweenwhatscienceknowsandwhatbusinessdoes.

PARTONE.ANEWOPERATINGSYSTEMChapter1.TheRiseandFallofMotivation2.0Societies, like computers, have operating systems a set ofmostly invisible

instructionsandprotocolsonwhicheverythingruns.Thefirsthumanoperatingsystem call itMotivation 1.0was all about survival. Its successor,Motivation2.0,was built around external rewards andpunishments.Thatworked fine forroutinetwentieth-centurytasks.Butinthetwenty-firstcentury,Motivation2.0isproving incompatiblewith howweorganizewhatwedo, howwe think aboutwhatwedo,andhowwedowhatwedo.Weneedanupgrade.

Chapter2.SevenReasonsCarrotsandSticks(Often)Don'tWork...When carrots and sticks encounter our third drive, strange things begin to

happen.Traditionalif-thenrewardscangiveuslessofwhatwewant:Theycanextinguish intrinsic motivation, diminish performance, crush creativity, andcrowdoutgoodbehavior.Theycanalsogiveusmoreofwhatwedon'twant:Theycanencourageunethicalbehavior,createaddictions,andfostershort-termthinking.Thesearethebugsinourcurrentoperatingsystem.

Chapter2a. . . .andtheSpecialCircumstancesWhenTheyDoCarrotsandsticksaren'tallbad.Theycanbeeffectiveforrule-basedroutine tasksbecausethere'slittleintrinsicmotivationtoundermineandnotmuchcreativitytocrush.Andtheycanbemoreeffectivestillifthosegivingsuchrewardsofferarationalefor why the task is necessary, acknowledge that it's boring, and allow peopleautonomyoverhowtheycompleteit.Fornonroutineconceptualtasks,rewardsaremoreperilousparticularlythoseoftheif-thenvariety.Butnowthatrewardsnoncontingentrewardsgivenafterataskiscompletecansometimesbeokayfor

more creative, right-brain work, especially if they provide useful informationaboutperformance.

Chapter3.TypeIandTypeXMotivation2.0dependedonand fosteredTypeXbehaviorbehavior fueled

morebyextrinsicdesiresthanintrinsiconesandconcernedlesswiththeinherentsatisfaction of an activity and more with the external rewards to which anactivity leads. Motivation 3.0, the upgrade that's necessary for the smoothfunctioning of twenty-first-century business, depends on and fosters Type Ibehavior. Type I behavior concerns itself less with the external rewards anactivitybringsandmorewiththeinherentsatisfactionoftheactivityitself.Forprofessional success and personal fulfillment,we need tomove ourselves andourcolleaguesfromTypeXtoTypeI.ThegoodnewsisthatTypeI'saremade,notbornandTypeIbehaviorleadstostrongerperformance,greaterhealth,andhigheroverallwell-being.

PARTTWO.THETHREEELEMENTSChapter4.AutonomyOur default setting is to be autonomous and self-directed. Unfortunately,

circumstances including outdated notions of management often conspire tochange that default setting and turn us fromType I to TypeX. To encourageType I behavior, and the high performance it enables, the first requirement isautonomy.Peopleneedautonomyovertask(whattheydo),time(whentheydoit),team(whotheydoitwith),andtechnique(howtheydoit).Companiesthatofferautonomy,sometimesinradicaldoses,areoutperformingtheircompetitors.

Chapter5.MasteryWhile Motivation 2.0 required compliance, Motivation 3.0 demands

engagement. Only engagement can produce mastery becoming better atsomething that matters. And the pursuit of mastery, an important but oftendormantpartofourthirddrive,hasbecomeessentialtomakingone'swayintheeconomy.Masterybeginswithflowoptimalexperienceswhenthechallengesweface are exquisitely matched to our abilities. Smart workplaces thereforesupplementday-to-dayactivitieswithGoldilockstasksnottoohardandnottooeasy.Butmastery also abides by three peculiar rules.Mastery is amindset: Itrequires the capacity to see your abilities not as finite, but as infinitelyimprovable.Mastery is a pain: It demands effort, grit, and deliberate practice.Andmastery is an asymptote: It's impossible to fully realize, whichmakes itsimultaneouslyfrustratingandalluring.

Chapter6.PurposeHumans, by their nature, seek purpose a cause greater andmore enduring

than themselves. But traditional businesses have long considered purpose

ornamentalaperfectlyniceaccessory,solongasitdidn'tgetinthewayoftheimportant things.But that's changing thanks in part to the rising tide of agingbaby boomers reckoningwith their ownmortality. InMotivation 3.0, purposemaximization is taking itsplacealongsideprofitmaximizationasanaspirationand a guiding principle. Within organizations, this new purpose motive isexpressingitselfinthreeways:ingoalsthatuseprofittoreachpurpose;inwordsthat emphasize more than self-interest; and in policies that allow people topursue purpose on their own terms. This move to accompany profitmaximization with purpose maximization has the potential to rejuvenate ourbusinessesandremakeourworld.

DriveDrive:TheGlossary

Anewapproachtomotivationrequiresanewvocabularyfortalkingaboutit.Here'syourofficialDrivedictionary.

Baseline rewards:Salary,contractpayments,benefits, anda fewperks thatrepresent the floor for compensation. If someone's baseline rewards aren'tadequateorequitable,herfocuswillbeontheunfairnessofhersituationortheanxietyofhercircumstance,makingmotivationofanysortextremelydifficult.

FedExDays:Createdby theAustralian software companyAtlassian, theseone-dayburstsofautonomyallowemployees to tackleanyproblem theywantand thenshowtheresults to therestof thecompanyat theendof twenty-fourhours.Whythename?Becauseyouhavetodeliversomethingovernight.

Goldilocks tasks: The sweet spotwhere tasks are neither too easy nor toohard.Essentialtoreachingthestateofflowandtoachievingmastery.

If-thenrewards:Rewardsofferedascontingenciesasin,Ifyoudothis,thenyou'llgetthat.Forroutinetasks,if-thenrewardscansometimesbeeffective.Forcreative,conceptualtasks,theyinvariablydomoreharmthangood.

Masteryasymptote:Theknowledgethatfullmasterycanneverberealized,whichiswhatmakesitspursuitsimultaneouslyalluringandfrustrating.

Motivation1.0,2.0,and3.0:Themotivationaloperatingsystems,orsetsofassumptionsandprotocolsabouthowtheworldworksandhowhumansbehave,that run beneath our laws, economic arrangements, and business practices.Motivation1.0presumed thathumanswerebiologicalcreatures, struggling forsurvival.Motivation2.0presumed thathumans also responded to rewards andpunishments in their environment.Motivation 3.0, the upgradewe now need,presumesthathumansalsohaveathirddrivetolearn,tocreate,andtobettertheworld.

Nonroutine work: Creative, conceptual, right-brain work that can't bereducedtoasetofrules.Today,ifyou'renotdoingthissortofwork,youwon'tbedoingwhatyou'redoingmuchlonger.

Now that rewards: Rewards offered after a task has been completed as inNowthatyou'vedonesuchagreatjob,let'sacknowledgetheachievement.Nowthat rewards, while tricky, are less perilous for nonroutine tasks than if-thenrewards.

Results-onlywork environment (ROWE):The brainchild of twoAmericanconsultants,aROWEisaworkplaceinwhichemployeesdon'thaveschedules.Theydon'thavetobeintheofficeatacertaintimeoranytime.Theyjusthavetogettheirworkdone.

Routinework:Workthatcanbereducedtoascript,aspecsheet,aformula,orasetofinstructions.Externalrewardscanbeeffectiveinmotivatingroutinetasks. But because such algorithmic, rule-based, left-brain work has becomeeasier to send offshore and to automate, this type of work has become lessvaluableandlessimportantinadvancedeconomies.

Sawyer Effect: A weird behavioral alchemy inspired by the scene in TheAdventuresofTomSawyer inwhichTomand friendswhitewashAuntPolly'sfence. This effect has two aspects. The negative: Rewards can turn play intowork.Thepositive:Focusingonmasterycanturnworkintoplay.

20 percent time: An initiative in place at a few companies in whichemployees can spend 20 percent of their time working on any project theychoose.

Type I behavior: A way of thinking and an approach to life built aroundintrinsic, rather than extrinsic,motivators. It is poweredbyour innate need todirectourownlives,tolearnandcreatenewthings,andtodobetterbyourselvesandourworld.

Type X behavior: Behavior that is fueled more by extrinsic desires thanintrinsic ones and that concerns itself lesswith the inherent satisfaction of anactivityandmorewiththeexternalrewardstowhichthatactivityleads.

The Drive Discussion Guide: Twenty Conversation Starters to Keep YouThinkingandTalking

Thesedaysauthorsmightgetthefirstword.Buttheydon'tandshouldn'tgetthelastword.That'syourjob.Sonowthatyou'vereadthisbook,gooutandlaudorlashitonyourblogoryourfavoritesocialnetworkingsite.ButifyouwanttomaketheideasinDrivetrulycometolife,talkthemoverinpersonwithsomecolleaguesfromwork,friendsatschool,oryourbookclub.That'showtheworldchanges conversation by conversation. Here are twenty questions to get yourconversationgoing.

1.HasPinkpersuadedyouabout thegapbetweenwhatscienceknowsandwhatorganizationsdo?Doyouagreethatweneedtoupgradeourmotivationaloperatingsystem?Whyorwhynot?

2.HowhasMotivation2.0affectedyourexperiencesatschool,atwork,orinfamily life? If Motivation 3.0 had been the prevailing ethic when you wereyoung,howwouldyourexperienceshavediffered?

3.DoyouconsideryourselfmoreTypeIorTypeX?Why?Thinkof three

peopleinyourlife(whetherathome,work,orschool).AretheymoreTypeIorTypeX?Whatleadsyoutoyourconclusions?

4.Describeatimewhenyou'veseenoneofthesevendeadlyflawsofcarrotsand sticks in action. What lessons might you and others learn from thatexperience? Have you seen instances when carrots and sticks have beeneffective?

5. How well is your current job meeting your need for baseline rewardssalary,benefits,afewperks?Ifit'sfallingshort,whatchangescanyouoryourorganizationmake?

6.Pinkdrawsadistinctionbetweenroutineworkandnonroutinework.Howmuchofyourownworkisroutine?Howmuchisnonroutine?

7. If you're a boss, how might you replace if-then rewards with a moreautonomousenvironmentandtheoccasionalnowthatreward?

8.As you think about your own best work, what aspect of autonomy hasbeenmostimportanttoyou?Autonomyoverwhatyoudo(task),whenyoudoit(time),howyoudoit(technique),orwithwhomyoudoit(team)?Why?Howmuchautonomydoyouhaveatworkrightnow?Isthatenough?

9.WouldinitiativeslikeFedExDays,20percenttime,andROWEworkinyourorganization?Whyorwhynot?WhatareoneortwootherideasthatwouldbringoutmoreTypeIbehaviorinyourworkplace?

10.Describeatimerecentlywhenyou'veexperiencedflow.Whatwereyoudoing?Wherewere you?Howmight you tweak your current role to bring onmoreoftheseoptimalexperiences?

11. Is there anythingyou'veeverwanted tomaster thatyou'veavoided forreasons like I'm toooldor I'llneverbegoodat thator Itwouldbeawasteoftime? What are the barriers to giving it a try? How can you remove thosebarriers?

12.Areyouinapositiontodelegateanyofthetasksthatmightbeholdingyoubackfrommorechallengingpursuits?Howmightyouhandoffthesetasksinawaythatdoesnottakeawayyourcolleagues'autonomy?

13.Howwouldyouredesignyouroffice,yourclassroom,oryourhomethephysical environment, the processes, the rules to promote greater engagementandmasterybyeveryone?

14.When tackling the routine tasks your job requires,what strategies canyoucomeupwithtotriggerthepositivesideoftheSawyerEffect?

15.Drive talks a lot about purpose both for organizations and individuals.Doesyourorganizationhaveapurpose?Whatisit?Ifyourorganizationisfor-profit, ispurposeevenarealisticgoalgiventhecompetitivepressures ineveryindustry?

16.Areyouinyourpaidwork,familylife,orvolunteeringonapathtowardpurpose?Whatisthatpurpose?

17.IseducationtodaytooTypeXthatis,doesitputtoogreatanemphasisonextrinsicrewards?Ifso,howshouldwereconfigureschoolsandclassrooms?Isthereanelegantwaytoreconcileintrinsicmotivationandaccountability?

18.Ifyou'reamomordad,doesyourhomeenvironmentpromotemoreTypeIorTypeXbehaviorinyourchildorchildren?How?What,ifanything,shouldyoudoaboutit?

19.DoesPinkunderplaytheimportanceofearningaliving?IshisviewofMotivation 3.0 a bit too utopian that is, is Pink, if you'll pardon the pun, toorosy?

20.What are the things that trulymotivate you?Now think about the lastweek.Howmanyofthose168hoursweredevotedtothesethings?Canyoudobetter?

Yourownquestions:FINDOUTMOREABOUTYOURSELFANDTHISTOPICAreyouTypeIorTypeX?Takethecomprehensive,freeonlineassessmentatInterested in regular updates on the science and practice of human

motivation?SubscribetoDriveTimes,afreequarterlye-mailnewsletterat

DriveACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Andnowatipofthehattothosewhokeptmemotivated.AtRiverheadBooks,JakeMorrissey'sskillsasaneditorwerematchedonly

by his talents as a therapist. He made this a better book without making itsauthor a crazier person. Thanks also to Geoff Kloske, who threw his supportbehind this project early and enthusiastically and to Riverhead's extraordinaryproductionteamfortheirskillandpatience.

Rafe Sagalyn understood the promise of this book even before I did andchampioned itwithhisusual deft touch. I'mgrateful tohavehimas a literaryagentandafriend.Ahugeshout-outaswelltothetalentedBridgetWagner,whohasspreadthewordaboutDrivetopublishersaroundtheworld.

VanessaCarrdidaterrificjoboffindingobscuresocialpsychologystudiesin the crevices of the Internet andon the dusty shelves of university libraries.RobTenPasonceagainusedhisconsiderabletalentstocraftpicturestoenlivenmy less considerablewords. SarahRainoneprovided spectacular help pushingtheprojectover the finish lineduringahotanddrearysummer.Rememberallthreeofthosenames,folks.They'restars.

OneofthejoysofworkingonthisbookwashavingafewlongconversationsandinterviewswithMikeCsikszentmihalyi,EdDeci,andRichRyan,whohavelongbeenheroesofmine.Iftherewereanyjusticeintheworld,allthreewouldwinaNobelPrizeandifthatjusticehadaslightsenseofhumor,theprizewouldbeineconomics.Anyerrorsormisinterpretationsoftheirworkaremyfault,nottheirs.

It'saboutatthispointthatauthorswhoareparentsapologizetotheirchildrenformisseddinners.Notme.Idon'tmissmeals.ButIdidskipnearlyeverythingelseforseveralmonthsandthatforcedtheamazingPinkkidsSophia,Eliza,andSaul, towhomDrive is dedicated into a dad-less existence for awhile. Sorry,guys.Fortunately,asyou'venodoubtalreadydiscovered,Ineedyoualotmorethanyouneedme.

Thenthere's the threesome'smom,JessicaAnneLerner.Asalways,Jessicawasthefirst,last,andmosthonestsoundingboardforeveryideaIspitout.Andasalways, Jessica readeveryword Iwrote includingmany thousandsof themaloudwhileIsatinaredchaircringingattheirsound.Forthesesmallreasons,

and many larger ones that are none of your business, this gorgeous, gracefulwomanleavesmeslack-jawedinaweandinlove.

NOTESINTRODUCTION: THE PUZZLING PUZZLES OF HARRY HARLOW

ANDEDWARDDECIHarryF.Harlow,MargaretKuenneHarlow,andDonaldR.Meyer,Learning

Motivated by a Manipulation Drive, Journal of Experimental Psychology 40(1950):231.

Ibid.,233-34.Harry F. Harlow, Motivation as a Factor in the Acquisition of New

Responses,inCurrentTheoryandResearchonMotivation(Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress,1953),46.

Harlow,insomeways,becamepartoftheestablishment.HewonaNationalScience Medal and became president of the American PsychologicalAssociation.FormoreaboutHarlow'sinterestinglife,seeDeborahBlum,LoveatGoonPark:HarryHarlowand theScienceofAffection (Cambridge,Mass.:Perseus, 2002), and Jim Ottaviani and Dylan Meconis, Wire Mothers: HarryHarlowandtheScienceofLove(AnnArbor,Mich.:G.T.Labs,2007).

Edward L. Deci, Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on IntrinsicMotivation,JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology18(1971):114.

EdwardL.Deci,IntrinsicMotivation,ExtrinsicReinforcement,andInequity,JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology22(1972):119-20.

CHAPTER1.THERISEANDFALLOFMOTIVATION2.0ImportantNotice:MSNEncartatoBeDiscontinued,Microsoftpressrelease

(March 30, 2009); Ina Fried,Microsoft Closing the Book on Encarta, CNETNews,March30,2009;Microsoft toShutEncartaasFreeSitesAlterMarket,WallStreetJournal,March31,2009.Up-to-dateWikipediadataareavailableat:About.

KarimR. Lakhani andRobertG.Wolf,WhyHackersDoWhat TheyDo:UnderstandingMotivationandEffortinFree/OpenSourceSoftwareProjects,inPerspectivesonFreeandOpenSoftware ,editedbyJ.Feller,B.Fitzgerald,S.Hissam,andK.Lakhani(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,2005),3,12.

Jurgen Blitzer, Wolfram Schrettl, and Philipp J. H. Schroeder, IntrinsicMotivation in Open Source Software Development, Journal of ComparativeEconomics35(2007):17,4.

Vermont Governor Expected to Sign Bill on Charity-Business Hybrid,ChronicleofPhilanthropy,NewsUpdates,April21,2008.

MuhammadYunus,CreatingaWorldWithoutPoverty:SocialBusinessandtheFutureofCapitalism(NewYork:PublicAffairs,2007),23;AspenInstitute,

Fourth Sector Concept Paper (Fall 2008); B Corporation, MIT SloanManagementReview,December11,2008,and.

StephanieStrom,BusinessesTrytoMakeMoneyandSavetheWorld,NewYorkTimes,May6,2007.

Colin Camerer, Behavioral Economics: Reunifying Psychology andEconomics, Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 96 (September1999):10576.

BrunoS. Frey,Not Just for theMoney:AnEconomicTheory of PersonalMotivation(Brookfield,Vt.:EdwardElgar,1997),118-19,ix.SeealsoBrunoS.Frey and Alois Stutzer , Happiness and Economics: How the Economy andInstitutions Affect Well-Being (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,2002).

Bradford C. Johnson, James M. Manyika, and Lareina A. Yee, The NextRevolutioninInteraction,McKinseyQuarterly4(2005):25-26.

Careful readersmight remember that Iwrote about this general topic inAWhole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future (New York:RiverheadBooks,2006).Lookforitatyourlocallibrary.It'snotbad.

TeresaM.Amabile,Creativity inContext(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress,1996), 119. Amabile also says that, used properly and carefully, extrinsicmotivatorscanbeconducivetocreativityapointI'llexaminemoreinChapter2.

TeleworkTrendlines2009,datacollectedbytheDieringerResearchGroup,publishedbyWorldatWork,February2009.

CHAPTER 2. SEVEN REASONS CARROTS AND STICKS (OFTEN)DON'TWORK...

MarkTwain,TheAdventuresofTomSawyer(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1998),23.

Mark Lepper, David Greene, and Robert Nisbett, Undermining Children'sIntrinsic Interest with Extrinsic Rewards: A Test of the ÔOverjustification'Hypothesis,JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology28,no.1(1973):129-37.

EdwardL.Deci,RichardM.Ryan,andRichardKoestner,AMeta-AnalyticReviewofExperimentsExaminingtheEffectsofExtrinsicRewardsonIntrinsicMotivation,PsychologicalBulletin125,no.6(1999):659.

Jonmarshall Reeve, Understanding Motivation and Emotion , 4th ed.(Hoboken,N.J.:JohnWiley&Sons,2005),143.

DanAriely,UriGneezy,GeorgeLowenstein,andNinaMazar,LargeStakesandBigMistakes,FederalReserveBankofBostonWorkingPaperNo.05-11,July23,2005(emphasisadded).YoucanalsofindaveryshortsummaryofthisandsomeotherresearchinDanAriely,What'stheValueofaBigBonus?New

YorkTimes,November20,2008.LSE:WhenPerformance-RelatedPayBackfires,Financial,June25,2009.Sam Glucksberg, The Influence of Strength of Drive on Functional

FixednessandPerceptualRecognition, JournalofExperimentalPsychology63(1962): 36-41. Glucksberg obtained similar results in his Problem Solving:ResponseCompetitionUnder theInfluenceofDrive,PsychologicalReports15(1964).

Teresa M. Amabile, Elise Phillips, and Mary Ann Collins, Person andEnvironment in Talent Development: The Case of Creativity, in TalentDevelopment: Proceedings from the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn WallaceNational Research Symposium on Talent Development , edited by NicholasColangelo, Susan G. Assouline, and DeAnn L. Ambroson (Dayton: OhioPsychologyPress,1993),273-74.

JeanKathrynCarney,IntrinsicMotivationandArtisticSuccess(unpublisheddissertation, 1986, University of Chicago); J. W. Getzels and MihalyCsikszentmihalyi, The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem-FindinginArt(NewYork:Wiley,1976).

TeresaM.Amabile,Creativity inContext(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress,1996),119;JamesC.KaufmanandRobertJ.Sternberg,eds.,TheInternationalHandbook ofCreativity (Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversity Press, 2006),18.

Richard Titmuss, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to SocialPolicy, editedbyAnnOakleyand JohnAshton, expandedandupdatededition(NewYork:NewPress,1997).

CarlMellstršmandMagnusJohannesson,CrowdingOutinBloodDonation:WasTitmussRight? Journal of theEuropeanEconomicAssociation6, no. 4 (June2008):845-63.

Other research has found that monetary incentives are especiallycounterproductive when the charitable act is public. See Dan Ariely, AnatBracha,andStephanMeier,DoingGoodorDoingWell?ImageMotivationandMonetary Incentives inBehavingProsocially,FederalReserveBankofBostonWorkingPaperNo.07-9,August2007.

BrunoS. Frey,Not Just for theMoney:AnEconomicTheory of PersonalMotivation(Brookfield,Vt.:EdwardElgar,1997),84.

Nicola Lacetera and Mario Macias, Motivating Altruism: A Field Study,InstitutefortheStudyofLaborDiscussionPaperNo.3770,October28,2008.

LisaD.Ordonez,MauriceE. Schweitzer,AdamD.Galinsky, andMaxH.Braverman,GoalsGoneWild:TheSystematicSideEffectsofOver-PrescribingGoal Setting,HarvardBusiness SchoolWorking PaperNo. 09-083 , February

2009.PeterApplebome,WhenGradesAreFixedinCollege-EntranceDerby,New

YorkTimes,March7,2009.UriGneezyandAldoRustichini,AFineIsaPrice,JournalofLegalStudies

29(January2000).GneezyandRustichini,AFineIsaPrice,3,7(emphasisadded).Anton Suvorov, Addiction to Rewards, presentation delivered at the

EuropeanWinterMeetingoftheEconometricSociety,October25,2003.Mimeo(2003)availableat.

Brian Knutson, CharlesM. Adams, GraceW. Fong, and Daniel Hommer,Anticipation of Increasing Monetary Reward Selectively Recruits NucleusAccumbens,JournalofNeuroscience21(2001).

CameliaM.KuhnenandBrianKnutson,TheNeuralBasisofFinancialRiskTaking,Neuron47(September2005):768.

MeiCheng,K.R.Subramanyam,andYuanZhang,EarningsGuidanceandManagerialMyopia,SSRNWorkingPaperNo.854515,November2005.

LisaD.Ordonez,MauriceE. Schweitzer,AdamD.Galinsky, andMaxH.Braverman,GoalsGoneWild:TheSystematicSideEffectsofOver-PrescribingGoal Setting,HarvardBusiness SchoolWorking PaperNo. 09-083 , February2009.

RolandBŽnabouandJeanTirole,IntrinsicandExtrinsicMotivation,ReviewofEconomicStudies70(2003).

CHAPTER 2A. . . . AND THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHENTHEYDO

EdwardL.Deci,RichardKoestner,andRichardM.Ryan,ExtrinsicRewardsand Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again, Review ofEducationalResearch71,no.1(Spring2001):14.

DanAriely,What'stheValueofaBigBonus?NewYorkTimes,November20,2008.

TeresaM.Amabile,Creativity inContext(Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress,1996),175.

Deci, Ryan, and Koestner, Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation inEducation.

Amabile,CreativityinContext,117.Deci, Ryan, and Koestner, Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in

Education.Amabile,CreativityinContext,119.CHAPTER3.TYPEIANDTYPEXRichardM.Ryan andEdwardL.Deci, Self-DeterminationTheory and the

Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,AmericanPsychologist55(January2000):68.

MeyerFriedmanandRayH.Rosenman,TypeABehavior andYourHeart(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1974),4.

Ibid.,70.Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise: 25th Anniversary

Printing(NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1985),33-34.RyanandDeci,Self-DeterminationTheory and theFacilitationof Intrinsic

Motivation,SocialDevelopment,andWell-Being.CHAPTER4.AUTONOMYEdwardL.DeciandRichardM.Ryan,FacilitatingOptimalMotivationand

PsychologicalWell-BeingAcrossLife'sDomains,CanadianPsychology49,no.1(February2008):14.

Valery Chirkov, Richard M. Ryan, Youngmee Kim, and Ulas Kaplan,Differentiating Autonomy from Individualism and Independence: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization of Cultural OrientationsandWell-Being, Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog y 84 ( January2003);JoeDevine,LauraCamfield,andIanGough,AutonomyorDependenceorBoth?:PerspectivesfromBangladesh,JournalofHappinessStudies9,no.1(January2008).

Deci and Ryan, Facilitating Optimal Motivation and Psychological Well-BeingAcrossLife'sDomains,citingmanyotherstudies.

Paul P. Baard, Edward L. Deci, and Richard M. Ryan, Intrinsic NeedSatisfaction:AMotivationalBasisofPerformanceandWell-BeinginTwoWorkSettings,JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology34(2004).

FrancisGreen,DemandingWork:TheParadoxofJobQualityintheAffluentEconomy(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,2006).

Atlassian's20%TimeExperiment,AtlassianDeveloperBlog,postbyMikeCannon-Brookes,March10,2008.

QuotedinHarvardBusinessEssentials:ManagingCreativityandInnovation(Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress,2003),109.

Theobservationcomesfromformer3MexecutiveBillCoyne,quotedinBenCasnocha, Success on the Side, The American: The Journal of the AmericanEnterprise Institute , April 2009.A nice account of 3M's practices appears inJames C. Collins and Jerry L. Porras, Built to Last: Successful Habits ofVisionaryCompanies(NewYork:HarperBusiness,2004).

ErinHayes,Google's20PercentFactor,ABCNews,May12,2008.V.DionHayes,WhatNursesWant,WashingtonPost,September13,2008.MartinSeligman,AuthenticHappiness:UsingtheNewPositivePsychology

toRealizeYourPotentialforLastingFulfillment(NewYork:FreePress,2004),178 ; Paul R. Verkuil,Martin Seligman, and TerryKang, Countering LawyerUnhappiness: Pessimism, Decision Latitude and the Zero-Sum Dilemma atCardozoLawSchool,PublicResearchPaperNo.19,September2000.

KennonM.SheldonandLawrenceS.Krieger,Understanding theNegativeEffects of Legal Education on Law Students: A Longitudinal Test of Self-Determination Theory, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 ( June2007).

WilliamH.Rehnquist,TheLegalProfessionToday ,62 Ind.L.J.151,153(1987).

JonathanD.Glater,EconomyPinchestheBillableHouratLawFirms,NewYorkTimes,January19,2009.

CaliResslerandJodyThompson,WhyWorkSucksandHowtoFixIt(NewYork:Portfolio,2008).

Tamara J. Erickson, Task, Not Time: Profile of a Gen Y Job, HarvardBusinessReview(February2008):19.

DianeBradyandJenaMcGregor,CustomerServiceChamps,BusinessWeek,March2,2009.

MarthaFrase-Blunt,CallCentersComeHome,HRMagazine52 ( January2007):84;AnnBednarz,CallCentersAreHeadingforHome,NetworkWorld,January30,2006.

PaulRestuccia,WhatWillJobsoftheFutureBe?Creativity,Self-DirectionValued, Boston Herald , February 12, 2007. Gary Hamel, The Future ofManagement(Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress,2007).

BharatMediratta, as told to Julie Bick, TheGoogleWay:Give EngineersRoom,NewYorkTimes,October21,2007.

See, for example, S. Parker, T.Wall, and P.Hackson, That'sNotMy Job:Developing Flexible Employee Work Orientations, Academy of ManagementJournal40(1997):899-929.

MaryleneGagnŽandEdwardL.Deci,Self-DeterminationTheoryandWorkMotivation,JournalofOrganizationalBehavior26(2005):331-62.

CHAPTER5.MASTERYJackZenger, Joe Folkman, and Scott Edinger,HowExtraordinaryLeaders

DoubleProfits,ChiefLearningOfficer,July2009.RikKirkland,ed.,WhatMatters?TenQuestionsThatWillShapeOurFuture

(McKinseyManagementInstitute,2009),80.Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing

FlowinWorkandPlay,25thanniversaryedition(SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass,2000),xix.

AnnMarch,TheArtofWork,FastCompany,August2005.ThisaccountcomesfrombothaninterviewwithCsikszentmihalyi,March3,

2009,andfromMarch,TheArtofWork.Henry Sauerman andWesley Cohen,WhatMakes Them Tick? Employee

MotivesandFirmInnovation,NBERWorkingPaperNo.14443,October2008.Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane E. Dutton, Crafting a Job: Revisioning

EmployeesasActiveCraftersofTheirWork,AcademyofManagementReview26(2001):181.

Carol S.Dweck, Self-Theories: TheirRole inMotivation, Personality, andDevelopment(Philadelphia:PsychologyPress,1999),17.

Ibid.Angela L. Duckworth, Christopher Peterson, Michael D. Matthews, and

DennisR.Kelly,Grit:PerseveranceandPassionforLong-TermGoals,JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology92(January2007):1087.

K.AndersEricsson,RalfT.Krampe,andClemensTeschRomer,TheRoleofDeliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance, PsychologicalReview100(December1992):363.

For two excellent popular accounts of some of this research, see GeoffColvin,Talented IsOverrated:WhatReallySeparatesWorld-ClassPerformersfrom Everybody Else (New York: Portfolio, 2008), and Malcolm Gladwell,Outliers:TheStoryofSuccess(NewYork:Little,Brown,2008).BothbooksarerecommendedintheTypeIToolkit.

DanielF.Chambliss,TheMundanityofExcellence:AnEthnographicReportonStratificationandOlympicSwimmers,SociologicalTheory7(1989).

Duckworthetal.,Grit.Dweck,Self-Theories,41.ClydeHaberman,DavidHalberstam, 73, Reporter andAuthor, Dies, New

YorkTimes,April24,2007.The passage is quoted in David Galenson, Painting Outside the Lines:

Patterns of Creativity in Modern Art (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress,2001),53.SeealsoDanielH.Pink,WhatKindofGeniusAreYou?Wired14.07(July2006).

ThisstudyisexplainedindetailinChapters10and11ofCsikszentmihalyi'sBeyondBoredomandAnxiety,whichisthesourceofallquotationshere.

Csikszentmihalyi,BeyondBoredomandAnxiety,190.CHAPTER6.PURPOSEUnited Nations Statistics Division, Gender Info 2007 , Table 3a (2007).

Availableat.OldestBoomersTurn60,U.S.CensusBureauFactsforFeatures,No.CB06-

FFSE.01-2,January3,2006.Gary Hamel, Moon Shots for Management, Harvard Business Review ,

February2009):p.91.SylviaHewlett,TheÔMe'GenerationGivesWay to theÔWe'Generation,

FinancialTimes,June19,2009.MarjorieKelly,NotJustforProfit,strategy+business54(Spring2009):5.KellyHolland,IsItTimetoRe-TrainB-Schools?NewYorkTimes,March

14, 2009; Katharine Mangan, Survey Finds Widespread Cheating in M.B.A.Programs,ChronicleofHigherEducation,September19,2006.

SeetheMBAOathwebsite,.Hamel,MoonShotsforManagement,p.93.Fulldisclosure:IworkedforReichforafewyearsintheearly1990s.You

canreadashortaccountofthisideaatRobertB.Reich,TheÔPronounTest'forSuccess,WashingtonPost,July28,1993.

EvaluatingYourBusinessEthics:AHarvardProfessorExplainsWhyGoodPeople Do Unethical Things, Gallup Management Journal ( June 12, 2008).Availableat.

ElizabethW.Dunn,LaraB.Ankin,andMichaelI.Norton,SpendingMoneyonOthersPromotesHappiness,Science21(March2008).

Drake Bennett, Happiness: A Buyer's Guide, Boston Globe , August 23,2009.

Tait Shanafelt et al., Career Fit and Burnout Among Academic Faculty,ArchivesofInternalMedicine169,no.10(May2009):990-95.

Christopher P.Niemiec, RichardM.Ryan, and Edward L.Deci, The PathTaken:ConsequencesofAttainingIntrinsicandExtrinsicAspirations,JournalofResearchinPersonality43(2009):291-306.

Ibid.