This posting should be a minimum of one short paragraph and a maximum of two paragraphs. Word totals for this post should be in the 100–200-word range. Whether you agree or disagree, explain why with supporting evidence and concepts from the readings or a related experience. Include a reference, link, or citation when appropriate.
This discussion is based on a TED Talk by Dan Pink, as well as drawing on readings from the Motivation module. Pink, a former speechwriter, career analyst, and author of the book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, reveals some remarkable facts about motivation that have been confirmed in many social science experiments, but aren’t widely recognized. Pink argues that the way we’re motivating people is all wrong, and he proposes a new model to replace traditional incentives.
Watch Pink’s TED Talk, below:
You can read a transcript of the video by clicking this link (Links to an external site.).
Please respond to both of the following questions in your initial post.
Did you find Pink’s talk surprising? Why or why not?
There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. Here is what science knows. One: Those 20th century rewards, those motivators we think are a natural part of business, do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances. Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity. Three: The secret to high performance isn’t rewards and punishments, but that unseen intrinsic drive–the drive to do things for their own sake. The drive to do things cause they matter.
How do you think managers can use this knowledge to motivate their employees? How will you use this knowledge in your own pursuits?