Comments on: Dan Pink: Why Rewards Don’t Work

By: Hashim Warren

Hashim Warren — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:51:28 +0000

Mark – that part of the E-Myth doesn’t do it for me either!

Thanks for introducing me to Pink’s work. I thumbed through one of his books yesterday, and I plan to buy one of them today.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:44:35 +0000

Hashim – That’s the one part of the E-Myth that didn’t do it for me.

‘Beating Wikipedia’ sounds a bit futile to me. ‘Doing something radically different – and valuable’ – now that would be interesting…

By: Hashim Warren

Hashim Warren — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:54:47 +0000

Mark,
if Michael E. Gerber who wrote the E-Myth saw Dan pink’s talk he would argue that businesses need to turn their messy functions into standard processes that don’t need creativity.

It’s interesting that the new crop of online “encyclopedias” that are coming out are using paid incentives to beat Wikipedia. I wonder if any of them will work.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:49:14 +0000

@ Robyn – Thanks for the in

@ Nathan – When we rule the world…

@ Gagan –

royalties, profit-sharing and commissions provide material motivation – aligned perfectly with the three keys described by Dan Pink.

Interesting point. I’m not sure it’s 100% aligned with Pink’s keys, but maybe not far off – autonomy yes, mastery maybe, purpose – yes, depending on the nature of the commission.

I’ve seen some other research about the effect of commissions on artists’ work – after analysing some commissioned v non-commissioned work, an expert panel judged the non-commissioned work to be the best. But with the exception of those commissions that enabled the artist to “do something interesting or exciting”, which were judged the best of all. They concluded that in these cases there was an optimum balance between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.

@ Mary – The Kohn book does look good, thanks for the recommendation.

Unfortunately, the people who believe in controlling, punishing and strict “behavioral” paradigms and approaches greatly outnumber the people who believe in constructivist, inquiry, creative and motivational learning.

Fortunately it’s the other way round among Lateral Action readers.

@ Marelisa – Thanks, that’s a good acid test! Looking back I think I applied it once or twice without thinking of it like that.

@ Kruse – Robert Twigger writes a very funny account of corporate life, where he says all the work has to be done in the evenings and early morning, because “working hours are for power displays”.

By: Incentivisation and Motivation - the Daniel Pink Way | Behind the Scenes at Global-Roam

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:55:54 +0000

[...] a start, suggest you read this commentary at “Lateral Action”, and follow the links on that [...]

By: Marvelous Monday!

Marvelous Monday! — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:11:06 +0000

[...] thought this talk by Dan Pink at TED was really [...]

By: Kruse Marketing SEO

Kruse Marketing SEO — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:23:29 +0000

Businesses aren’t run to make money. They’re run to satisfy the urges of their proprietors. They have to make a little money to survive but from what I’ve seen over the years their principal function is to create an environment in which the proprietor can press the button in their head which gives them the most buzz. That’s the point of the exercise, not making money. It means their often anti-social behaviour can be justified as socially acceptable (and even laudable) so they get praised for acting infantile. It’s a forebrain excuse for hindbrain behaviour, self-gratification masquerading as industry. This is why economic models don’t work, they’re all built around the concept of business-owners acting in a rational fashion and the basis of their actions is money-making. They do act rationally but the basis is self-gratification and making money will often be discarded in pursuit of that aim. Did I just wipe out the science of economics? You betcha!

By: Marelisa

Marelisa — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:11:52 +0000

Hi Mark: Thank you for mentioning my blog post. What you say at the end reminds me of another Dan Pink video I watched on YouTube where he argues that if you’re in an organization which doesn’t encourage creativity, that you should pick a project and do something amazing with it anyway. You might be pleasantly surprised to discover that you get praised for taking a creative initiative. If, instead, you’re scolded for “stepping out of line”, then you know you need to leaven as soon as you can.

By: Mary E. Ulrich

Mary E. Ulrich — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:09:10 +0000

Check out the work by Alfie Kohn. I think you will love it. “Punished by Rewards” is a classic in educational literature, his other books are also paradigm shifting works.

It is not surprising that businesses use behaviorist models. Most educational practices are based in the behaviorist paradigm you described in your blog post. “A’s” and “F’s” and stars and detention are the philosophy of good discipline and drilled in our heads as the best and only way. In Special Education there are people who use Fruit Loops and “good boy” for positive rewards, and everything from electric shock, cattle prods and “time out” on children who don’t do as the adults want–all in the name of conformity and discipline. Some even argue this is a biblical mandate.

Unfortunately, the people who believe in controlling, punishing and strict “behavioral” paradigms and approaches greatly outnumber the people who believe in constructivist, inquiry, creative and motivational learning.

I’m hoping your post reaches many people and help give food for thought. Much more effective than fruit loops.

By: Gagan Saxena

Gagan Saxena — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:55:40 +0000

Pieces of silver and whiplashes from the widget producing world does not work in the creative economy; but creative efforts can still be inspired by actual ownership in the finished product. Various mechanisms on royalties, profit-sharing and commissions provide material motivation – aligned perfectly with the three keys described by Dan Pink.