Take for instance Daniel Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational – Ariely puts forth an entertaining, often humorous, introduction to the field of behavioral economics and sheds lights on some of the stranger things we do depending on the situations we’re placed in – like why we might like vinegar in our beer if we try it before we’re told it’s there, but almost always dislike if we’re told it’s there first.  Ariely seems to spend much time in the field comparing patterns of behavior from one group to another to make blanket, statistical conclusions of how we will predict in similar scenarios.

Aubrey Daniels’ book Oops! 13 Management Practices That Waste Time & Money also examines behaviors in a business context, but here frames the discussion around common management tools and practices that don’t actually produce the desired results. Daniels explores a spectrum of positive and negative reinforcers that influence (or fail to influence) performance.  A full palette of near and long-term views, certain and uncertain rewards and punishments and our reactions to them become the foundation for advising businesses how to get practical performance improvements.

Somewhere between these two books lies Drive by Daniel Pink.  Pink posits that there are 3 iterations of motivational “operating systems” that humans have evolved. Motivation 1.0 is based on basic, animalistic needs, drives to survive and procreate and not much else. Motivation 2.0 represents the fabled carrot and stick – using rewards and punishments to encourage desired behaviors and discourage unwanted ones.  Motivation 3.0 has just begun to take root – an understanding that humans are governed by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.  Some things we do for passion and intellectual curiosity, other things we do for money, or to avoid being fired. As our world gets more complicated and our tasks more intellectually sophisticated so too does the complexity of our motivational drives. But Pink contends that as Motivation 3.0 is better understood we will see new paradigms in the workplace.

All three of these books offer fascinating perspectives on how we behave, how predictable we can be, and how to reevaluate motivational strategies. However, all of these books tend to lump human behavior together with little granularity regarding natural styles.  Pink does put forth the idea of Type I’s and Type X’s to connote persons more intrinsically or extrinsically motivated, while Ariely and Daniels tend to pay more attention to the external circumstances and stimuli and their impact on an entire group rather than the individual’s. It would be fascinating to explore all of these concepts through the lens of DISC and the study of Passions & Priorities to provide other vectors for understanding individual’s reactions and behavioral dispositions rather than just focusing on cumulative results.  There are excellent tools already available like Workplace Motivators which were specifically designed to analyze and define the very factors that mesh so well with Pink’s definition of Motivation 3.0.

Bookmark It