Mindfulness Mondays 53: Just Two Words
May 31, 2010 by dr. lam · 2 Comments
There was once a Franciscan monastery that was very strict. All the monks would swear to a vow of silence except every ten years they were allowed to speak just two words. After the first ten years, one monk turned to the head monk and stated, “Bed…hard.” ”I see,” replied the head monk. Another ten years passed, and the same monk was given the chance to speak two words. This time, he said, “Food…stinks.” ”I see,” replied the head monk. Another ten years passed, and the same monk was given the chance to speak two words. The monk this time says, “I…quit.” The head monk retorts, “Well, I can see why. All you ever do is complain.”
The lesson of this story is obviously couched in a funny tale. Several things are apparent. First that a spiritual individual like the monk is spending decades focused on the physical limitations of his life. The second is that it took him 30 years to realize that before quitting. How often are we complaining or moaning about our situation? How does that complaining prevent us from becoming enlightened? How long are we going to continue with this silly ranting that colors our entire world view?
Happy Memorial Day!
Drive Part 4 of 7: Type I and Type X
May 28, 2010 by dr. lam · Leave a Comment
Paying homage to the idea of a Type A and a Type B personality with which we are all familiar, Pink coins a new verbiage to describe how he sees people based on their motivation. Type I’s are intrinsically motivated, and Type X’s are extrinsically motivated.
Now both Type I’s and Type X’s need money. If they are being underpaid against their peers or being cheated, then they can be demoralized and lose their own sense of motivation. However, for Type X’s, it is only the money that counts. Type I’s are intrinsically motivated by purpose, autonomy, and a desire for mastery (three topics coming up).
Are Type I’s born that way then? Actually, no. They can be created given the right context, experience, and situation. We can elevate a Type X into a Type I. Even if you take the case of your children, do you pay them for household chores? If so, you may be robbing them of the intrinsic value of working to support the family. Pink suggests paying an allowance and asking them to work on household chores by making them part of an intrinsic concern.
Now, if a task is overly mundane, boring, or inane, even Type I’s may need some Type X motivation. That is perhaps when a carrot could help. But over the long-term, ongoing carrots turn robust Type I’s into meaningless Type X’s. They lose their ability for long-term goal thinking and become clouded by short-term monetary compensation. What are you doing in your career? Is it all about the paycheck and TGIF? If so, maybe you should be looking for something that can help elevate you more into a Type I.
Drive Part 3 of 7: The Downfall of Carrots and Sticks
May 27, 2010 by dr. lam · Leave a Comment
This is perhaps one of the most amazing chapters in the entire book. In deference to the writer, I shall only recap some of the salient lessons in the chapter. Pink argues that providing carrots to motivate people actually can lead to a worsening of performance, creativity, long-term thinking, ethical behavior, and desire. Sticks fail spectacularly as well. How is this possible?
Let’s take an example of an experiment conducted in India. One group of participants was given 4 rupees (or 50 cents, equal to a day’s salary), a second group received a medium prize of 40 rupees (or 5 dollars, equivalent to 2 weeks salary), and finally a third received 400 rupees (or 50 dollars, equivalent to about 5 months of salary). The first two groups scored about the same, whereas the third group did miserably poorer.
What was interesting is that when people are asked to perform heuristic (creative) tasks, their creativity narrows as they start to focus on the prize. They stop looking at all the options, and their brains blur. They begin to become greedy and cannot think straight.
Studies have shown also that artists who are motivated by money produce socially less significant work than those who are intrinsically motivated. In fact, setting price targets per month can create even unethical behavior, as employees scramble to get the desired number oftentimes through the low road and through cheating.
Monetary rewards may be a good thing but they can also create a crack cocaine addiction in which the individual becomes short sighted and fixated only on the money. They fail to think long term and they start to get accustomed to the extra money (like any addiction) so that it no longer becomes anything special.
The example taken from Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational, which we covered last year, discussed how a day care center started to impose a late charge on parents who did not show up on time to pick up their children. Instead of helping the parents show up on time, it made the parents lose their love and respect for the teachers and the institution and just compelled them to be even later. When the fine was lifted, the parents cared even less now that they lost a moral obligation as well as a financial one. Sticks are not necessarily the best motivator.
Although extrinsic motivation may help those in algorithmic jobs perform better, they still do not compete against the more powerful intrinsic motivation. Pink tries to help turn people to start thinking intrinsically.
Drive Part 2 of 7: Getting Beyond Motivation 2.0
May 26, 2010 by dr. lam · 3 Comments
In 1995, if you asked a far-sighted economist to bet on one of two upcoming encyclopedias, Microsoft’s Encarta or Wikipedia, which would he bet on? Encarta would be a masterful CD that would be developed by the all-powerful Microsoft Corporation to replace the outdated Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia would be created by novices who gave their time freely with no compensation to write articles on a vast array of topics. Of course, most economists would bet that in 2010 Microsoft would own the market and Wikipedia would be a blip or gone by then. How wrong would they be?
Wikipedia thrives on individuals who do what they do because they love doing it not because they get paid doing it. Motivation 1.0 describes ancient man’s motivation of pure survival. What dominated throughout most of the twentieth century is Motivation 2.0 that describes a series of carrots and sticks to stimulate behavioral changes in others. Pink is calling for a new Motivation upgrade that is based on intrinsic meaning rather than extrinsic rewards.
He sets apart two types of work: algorithmic and heuristic. Algorithmic work describes a set protocol to perform a duty that will lead down a single pathway until the job is completed. Heuristic work involves creating your own pathway to find out the best solution or perhaps even what an appropriate solution should be. He encourages people to try to find the heuristic elements in work that can make work inspiring, fun, and motivational. How can you make your work more heuristic?
Drive Part 1 of 7: Harry Harlow & His Monkeys
May 25, 2010 by dr. lam · Leave a Comment
In 2007, I received Daniel Pink’s first book, A Whole New Mind, from my cousin Yolanda who thought of me when she bought it . I devoured it on the plane ride back from Hong Kong. Pink’s thesis of his other book was that right-brained individuals, those who are more gifted creatively, would lead the world over those who were left-brain dominant, i.e., analytical and mathematical. I am more right-brained as an individual, so of course I agree with the thesis. Pink argued that left-brain work has been continuously outsourced to other countries where right-brain work simply cannot.
In his new book, Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us, Pink investigates another paradigm-shifting idea, that we are intrinsically motivated by purpose rather than by direct rewards for money, etc. I wholeheartedly agree. We will investigate his ideas in greater detail over this blog series.
Pink opens his book with an experiment by the famous Harry Harlow (whom we have discussed directly and indirectly before in other blog series). In the 1940s, Harlow, a professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin, evaluated eight rhesus monkeys over a period of 14 days using a simple contraption placed inside their steel cages. What would be deemed simple for a human may be maddeningly complex for a primate: the puzzle involved a pin that required removing, followed by a latch that needed unlatching, and finally a hinge that needed lifting.
Over a period of 14 days, the monkeys got better and better at the task, completing it in less than 60 seconds by the end of the observation period. What was amazing was that the monkeys were provided no material reward for their efforts: no food, applause, etc. Further, the monkeys’ faces seemed to communicate fascination, focus, and enjoyment. Harlow concluded that the “The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward.”
Pink talks about how many individuals and companies are focused on an “if-then” proposition: if you do this, I will reward you this way. Instead, the effort should be at providing meaning to the individual to attain optimal reward through the task itself.