This Pink thing keeps resurfacing. He has a new video on YouTube that uses some real neat white board technology that is attracting attention. Unfortunately, the message on the white board is the same as his book, only the medium is different. Although there are many things about his speeches and writing that bother me, I will list only a few here.
- Pink’s understanding of motivation seems to rely heavily on Edward Deci’s work on intrinsic motivation and Dan Ariely’s study of monetary incentives in India and with college students in the U.S. I have examined the studies he refers to and there are many methodological problems with them. As I read them, both authors generalize beyond their data and Pink generalizes even further. I will not take the time to write about all the problems in the research, but if you are interested make a comment about that and I will be happy to detail them for you later.
- Although Pink considers IF/THEN rewards “so last century,” he seems to discount them in his own life. “If you commit to write a book Mr. Pink then we will give you a cash advance.” “ If you give a speech then we will pay you a speaker’s fee plus expenses.”
- Pink never met a popular writer that he didn’t like. He tries to fit them all into “his science “ and overlooks contradictions in his examples. In his section on The Zen of Compensation (p171), he says, “Paying people the Type I way doesn’t mean paying everyone the same amount. If Fred has a harder job or contributes more to the organization than you, he deserves a richer deal.” Excuse me, but isn’t that an IF/THEN? He states (p.208) that “humans by their nature seek purpose—a cause greater and more enduring than themselves.” Does he mean all humans or just those who are doing 21st century type work?
- Pink presents no science of behavior in his books. Just because a study has an experimental and control group does not make it scientific. Additionally, a variety of scientific studies does not constitute a science. Pink constantly hedges his bets on his presentation of “the surprising truth about what motivates us.” He has a section called: Seven Reasons Carrots and Sticks (Often) Don’t work. Wait a minute. I thought this was about science. He divides behavior into two classes, Type I and Type X. Type I is behavior “fueled by intrinsic desires more than extrinsic ones.” You can guess that Type X is motivated by extrinsic more than intrinsic ones. (I will have more to say about extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation in another blog.) However, he then goes on to say that nobody exhibits only Type I or Type X behavior. Isn’t science about universal laws? When does the law of gravity not work? When does combining two molecules of hydrogen with one molecule of oxygen not produce water? A science of behavior applies to all behavior everywhere. Nothing in the book applies to behavior everywhere.
- Pink evidences no understanding of the concept or practice of positive reinforcement. Every individual on the face of the earth has a different set of reinforcers. Behavioral economists assume money is a universal reinforcer. It is not. Nothing is a positive reinforcer to everyone. Everything is a reinforcer to someone. Can reinforcers be used badly? You bet. Do most organizations understand the proper use of rewards and reinforcers (they are different)? No. As I have said often, “you don’t always get more of what you reward but you always get more of what you reinforce.” Positive reinforcement is as reliable in its effects on behavior as is gravity. Pink is not the only popular business writer that doesn’t understand that fact.
- And the last thing for today is the one that I find the most offensive. Inherent in his book is the notion of a class society that I reject. According to Pink, some people who have routine repetitive jobs are impacted by carrot and stick (inferior rewards) where as people engaged in the important work of the new century (creative work) seek more noble rewards (autonomy, mastery and purpose). Does he not think that Egyptians, Greeks and Romans who built great civilizations were motivated by noble rewards? Isn’t everybody. (I think Pink was in politics too long.) All you have to do to understand that there are people at the front-line of every organization who are motivated as much by autonomy, mastery and purpose, is to watch Undercover Boss on Sunday night. These are conditions that are not the province of a few, they are important to all.
There, I feel better now.
Related posts:
- “DRiVE” Me Crazy! In his new book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What...
- What Can We Do To Motivate Our Employees? What can we do to motivate our employees?” This is...
- Things that Drive Me Crazy: Behavioral Economists What started with Dan Pink’s “Drive” has now compelled me...
- Badges in Social Media: A Behavioral Psychology Perspective An article recently came past my desk that should be...
- Still Driving My recent post DRiVE Me Crazy!, sparked a dialogue...
June 14, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Aubrey,
I laugh when managers think they can create behavior by declaring an incentive for it, then wonder why they get something different. Carrots DO reinforce behavior, some behavior, just not necessarily the behavior we declared.
Pink is misguided declaring reinforcement doesn’t produce desired results. Who is going to tell him, just because he declares the result, doesn’t connect it to the carrot. (Except maybe on a white board).
Bringing Out the Best in People is a wonderful explanation of how reinforcement plays a significant role in gaining meaningful contribution from our team members.
June 16, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I read your response to Pink and wondered about the confusion among many of us about people and their ability to be self-motivated. I see what you are talking about, maybe, but not sure. I htink I do something to that word ‘motivation’…I make it less good if I respond to those things outside that I like or am drawn to and I only like it when it is internal to me or I guess you would say that I ‘think’ it is internal…i am a good person who was raised well and with teh belief in master of my own destiny so such ‘language of purpose’ really appeals, really regardless of whether it is true. The idea however that some of us are ‘better’ because we see ourselves as ‘internal creatives’ vs. those who seem to be ‘controlled’ by outside influences, mundane and purposeless and ‘easily manipulated’, now seems very shallow to me after thinking about that message and how eagerly I am buying into it. I am sorry to be so drawn into Pink and the words he uses. I am. I now have to step back and figure out what is really going on here. I know you are getting at soemthing I need to study. thank you.
June 16, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Although the term intrinsic does not site well wouldn’t somethings be better explained by behaviourist if they made more reference to a persons on own body being part of their external environment. When I eat the satisfaction consequences I receive are delivered by my body. When I find myself frightened and leave a room I escape the external stimuli but have learned this calms my internal strife. I have achieved these respondent bodily states as consequences.
A better debate and explanation of behaviour surely involves description and understand of both operant and respondent behaviour and the relationship between them. Then too behaviourism can better relate to our cultures when they talks of feelings, memories and intrinsic motivation etc.
Best regards
Matt
June 16, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Matt,
I think I understand what you are saying and basically agree. My thoughts and feelings come from the external consequences of my actions. I have often said that reinforcement migrates outside to inside. One of my old sayings is: “You can’t be proud of yourself till someone has been proud of you.” We teach our children our values by arranging favorable consequences for their behavior when we are with them. Then when we are not present, they experience those feelings that were present when we demonstrated in some way that we were pleased with what they had done. You know this has occurred when they will say things like, “Daddy, you would have been proud of me today when I …” To the average person it matters little where the feelings occur. They are just a part of our experience. They affect our behavior and that is enough. From a scientific perspective, we do not know all the ways that consequences affect out behavior but in one sense all behavior is motivated internally. Something goes on inside the body that affects what we say and how we act. However, in order to help people develop those repertories it is important to understand precisely how external events cause thoughts, feelings, etc. Writers, like Pink, do not address this problem in any way that is verifiable or reliable.
Robert Eisenberger has a concept he calls “learned industriousness” that addressed the particular reinforcement histories that produce behavior that fits the “intrinsic motivation” criteria. You can read it at: Psychological Review, 1992, Vol 99, #2, pp248-267.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X04-46V0C33-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1992&_alid=1371971632&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=7204&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2843a0835110160f4996f098b1ca88d1
June 17, 2010 at 8:34 am
Aubrey,
Thank you for the further thoughts. My fundamental point is the intertwined nature of our operant behaviour including deliberate thoughts that are consequence maintained and our respondent behaviour including feelings, emotions, physical states, mental images and memories etc. that are stimuli prompted. I like your saying “You can’t be proud of yourself till someone has been proud of you”; essentially a case of learning and internalising a reinforcer that gives the impression of intrinsic motivation. My argument is that this internalisation is often Pavlovian conditioning that is paired with the operant activity. And as you say the vast majority of writers and other fields outside of behaviourism don’t understand how we are conditioned but conversely behaviourist appear to stick to talking about external operant behaviour alone because it’s generally observable maybe in part because simultaneously talking respondents could sound complex or geeky. In doing this it seems behaviourist are over simplifying and denying their birth right and the origins of this holistic science and risk appearing to describe an incomplete picture of humanity or sound cold when society talks of thoughts and feelings.
Matt