TED Talks Austin: Dan Pink on Motivation

TED was here over the weekend.  And he brought with him some really interesting news on what motivates us in the workplace.  Author Dan Pink, who has said many things that I like, including the statement that Right-Brainers will take over the world (GO TEAM), gave an inciting talk about the nature of motivation in business.  Specifically, it incited a conversation between Kevin and I, and this blog post.  Kevin and I spent some time talking about it this week in terms of how we do business around Tech Ranch, and how I get paid for what I do.

Dan Pink and the Right Brainers will Rule the World

I’ll sum up Dan Pink’s talk as very useful and frankly encouraging overall.  Pink makes a solid case for autonomy in the workplace, citing Google as a great example of a company that is hugely successful because they allow their employees to spend 20% of their time working on lo que quieran.  This has meant a high level of billion-dollar innovation for Google.  Pink then contrasts work that is done for individual pleasure, with work done for financial incentives.  He cites comparisons that seem to indicate that only menial jobs are done better, or faster, with incentives attached.  He claims that high level work is impeded by financial incentives, or commissions, for example.

Essentially, Pink is saying, mostly accurately, that the more complicated, or creative a task is, the more unfamiliar the tools at hand are, the more likely incentives are to hinder the process.  This is because incentives externally increase the pressure, which in turn focuses our brains down to the bare essentials, almost like fight or flight.  A heightened state of awareness of only specific variables, ignoring what our brain deems inconsequential.  But the external pressure  may mean we focus only on getting our task done, as opposed to being focused on the joy of doing it.

Most people agree that intrinsic motivations are MUCH more powerful motivators than anything external, and if you let people drive their own excitement, they will produce much greater, more creative work.

I agree with the philosophy of this statement.  I want everyone to work in an open environment where they self-manage the work they do each day.  However, I disagree with his blanket statement that incentivizing work is harmful.  I don’t think it always is.

I think “creativity” is the crucial factor here.  Since the work that I get to do at the Ranch involves lots of creative processes, the question Kevin and I discussed was how to motivate my best work over the long term.  [If he asks any of you, just tell him that money enough to move into The Austonian and hire a personal tailor is sufficient creative motivation.]

At this point, I’m going to delve into semantics for a bit.  I’d like to define creativity as a skill that can be practiced, much like an Olympic athlete practices snowboarding, or even curling.  The Olympic athlete is a good example, because there is a spectrum of different ways in which individuals are naturally talented at being creative.  I also think it works because of the following principle: performance improves in high pressure situations assuming a high level of skill as a result of lots of practice.  Practice results in an internal feeling of control.

Dan Pink talks about pressure focusing our brains and reducing creativity.  I would suggest that the pressure focuses our brains down to what we know, and ignores the unknown. This is great if you know that running will save you from a sabertooth tiger, or going to the store will re-stock your bacon.  There are simple solutions to these problems.  However, knowledge jobs involve complicated problems that require creative solutions.  Creativity often involves changing the rules into something new that people don’t know and feel less control over.  Hence incentives, which lead to pressure, may mean a decrease in creativity in the workplace by narrowing focus.

Here’s the question I’d like to ask:

I’m wondering what it would take to practice creativity so well that one would become an Olympic caliber “Creative.”  What would it take to be so familiar with unfamiliarity that you could work on a commission-only basis for your innovation? Olympic athletes do their best under the bright lights of competition, with gold medals on the line.  The pressure to be the best in the world, coupled with a lifetime of practice equals broken records reliably.  You can count on the best, each time you turn on the Olympics.  How might this be applicable to creativity in the business world?  Can we cultivate an internal sense of control over the unfamiliar?  Can we practice creative and innovative thought?

For my part, consider me training every day to become the Shaun White of Entrepreneurship.  What are you training for?

Hope this helps.