The Puzzle of Motivation by Daniel Pink - Movie Review Example

The Puzzle of Motivation by Daniel Pink Name Course Instructor Institution Location Date The speech of Daniel pink bases its arguments on the inappropriateness of the traditional forms of motivation to the dynamic world of businesses (Turner 2006). Daniel is an advocate of application of autonomy, mastery and rationale for effective exploitation of employee skills. He refers to the traditional forms of motivation as carrot and stick. He claims that though many companies apply the motivation to attain the goals of the business, there comes a time when the motivation becomes unrealistic. Moreover; the traditional methodology of motivation can be detrimental for the business in the long run (Pink 2006). This article explains how Pink defends the intrinsic motivation of workers in his TED talk. Daniel pink commences the talk by trying to elaborate how traditional forms of motivation can be a source of failure for modern businesses in the long-term (Pink 2006). The speech is expository because he tells the listeners about the subject of speech before giving the final opinion about the topic. It is also persuasive because he aims at giving the audience the reasons to justify his opinion. He begins his speech by ironically making a reference to what happens to him in the previous twenty years. He asserts that the scenario makes him ‘disappointed' since it does not make him proud. He claims that there is an urge to conceal the act forever. The action occurs when he joins law school in the 1980s (Turner 2006). The degree is professional in America. According to the rules, once a student completes the degree from the university, there is a requirement to enter law school. Daniel performs well thus emerging among the top class of law school and is he secures an admission to join the law school for practise. He claims that the talk compels him to apply a good number of the skills he learnt in law school. The revelation of the previous encounter paves way to the ideas he wants to deliver in the speech. Daniel uses the candle problem as a point of clarification. The candle problem comes as a study of a psychologist by the name Karl Dunker in the year 1945. Despite the simplicity of the analysis, there is a universal application of its conclusions to behavioural sciences. The experiment involves a test of matches, a candle and thumbtacks with a task of sticking the candle to the wall of a room without the wax dripping to a table. Pink continues to explain the importance of reason in decision making a reference to the possible ways of raising the burning candle without dripping the molten wax on the table According to Karl; many people can opt to thumbtack the candle to the wall (Turner 2006). However, the thumb stacking of the candle is practically impossible such that it does not provide a solution. Another idea is when some people try to light a match, melt a side of the candle and stick the molten side to the wall. The idea is sound, but it cannot give a solution to the problem too. Taking time to come up with the idea of doing away with functional fixedness can provide a valid solution. Sticking the box to the wall and putting the lit candle inside it provides a solution. Pink proceeds to defend creativity by using another candle research. However, in this case he uses the example of a scientist called Sam Glucksberg. The scientist comes from Princeton University. The design of the experiment is to explain how intensives one can increase efficiency. The researcher gathers the participants of the research and gives them a test of swiftness in solving a particular problem. He divides them into two groups. He assigns to one group a task of establishing average norms for solution of a particular problem. To the second group he assigns rewards with respect to the speed of solving the problem. The design is such that the swiftest of all gets the best reward whereas to the one that emerges last there is a reward that is smallest of all. To the fastest, he promises a reward of five dollars to the ones that emerge in the top 25% and twenty dollars to whoever turns to be the fastest. Pink claims that current value of the amount of money given as a reward is encouraging during the time of conducting the experiment. Surprisingly, the outcomes of the example shock. The participants take an average of three and half minutes longer to complete the tasks than when they can do without a reward. Pink elaborates how the American culture of free markets is influential in shaping the motivation methodologies used by businesses. He says that in American culture, there is a belief in free markets efficiency. The situation calls for rewarding people in order to make them produce an excellent performance (Turner 2006). Rewards are seen as the only way of motivating workers. The rewards can appear as bonuses and commissions to make employees exploit their full capacity. However, Daniel condemns the encouragement by reward methodology of USA. He says that regardless of the people having an incentive to sharpen their thinking and increase their creativity rate, there is an opposite result where dull thinking increases and creativity undergoes a halt (Deal & Kennedy 2000) The experiment does not count to an abnormality. Daniel Pink asserts that there is evidence of duplication of the same continuously for the previous forty years. The transitivity of doing a task to achieve an accurate result in a solving a particular problem does not work in all cases. Some social Science studies show that the method can even lead to harm in some circumstances. However, many individuals ignore the case. Pink makes claims that it has taken too long to determine the critical factors behind human motivation. The overall classification of the motivation factors includes the intrinsic and extrinsic dynamics. There is a large gap between the two forms of motivation to work. The differences arise from the distinction of views that business and science activities have. In business, motivation of people circulates around protocols of extrinsic motivators of rewards and punishments. According to Pink the reward and punishment acts belong to the 20th century because the 21st century the workability of the mechanistic in reward and punishment models is a rare case. The methodology, despite having a moderate workability, there are significant chances of being detrimental. Pink argues that rewards as a form of motivation can constrict the focus of people and enhance increased concentration leading to workability in the cases of application. The increased attention is due to the existence of a precise destination established. The goals of the firms become conspicuous. The tasks that require creativity such as the candle problem have no clear focus. There is no predetermination of the solution. It is possible that rewards narrow the people's focus and restrict the capacity to solve problems. Daniel Pink states that in the west of Europe, some parts of Asia, America and Australia, the people do not engage in creative jobs. In these countries instead there is importing of manpower or computer programmes to do the creative jobs. These types of creative jobs include accounting, financial analysis and programming. The preference of computer application is the belief about the machine in doing the tasks quickly. Some of the economists argue that imported workforce can be cheaper than training the citizens to do the tasks. The things that matter in the current world of business include creative and conceptual kinds of abilities in problem solution. A real focus on life shows that challenges that people encounter have indefinite set of rules and distinct solutions. The rules are mystic, and solutions have different forms of versions. The rewards that revolve around the business world as a way of arriving at solutions cannot always work. The reward for performance is generalised. Managers think that all people attach a similar value for money that is not realistic. Daniel proceeds with the analysis of an economist called Dan Ariel. Ariel's focuses on MIT students. He gives the students a group of games that require application of creativity, motor skills engagement and concentration. The performance in the games is subject to rewards with the size of each reward being directly proportional to the level of performance. The research requires not only physical effort but creativity. The results shock too. The result shows that the tasks that require essential cognitive skill lead to overall a poor performance. The experiment makes one to agree with Pink’s preference for intrinsic motivation because if indeed the motivation is effective, then it must take the subjects a short time to do the task. However, the motivation works retrogressively by making the take more time than when there is no motivation. Then there is a test to determine a cultural bias in Ariel's research. There is performing of the test in Madurai part of India where the same amount that he gives as a reward to the North Americans. The money is significant here than in North America due to the differences in living standards. The Indians have lower living standards than the North Americans. The outcome is that the individuals in the small rewards section show a similar effect to those that get an offering of medium results. However, the individuals that are offered the highest rewards display the worst results. The experiment concludes that the higher the reward, the worse the performance in people. The research of Ariel is worth approving because it does not portray a sensitive social conspiracy according to Pink. The lack of social conspiracy is due to the evidence that it involves economists from different recognized institutions such as MIT, Carnegie Melon and university of Chicago. The studies also incorporate sponsorship from the Federal Reserve Bank of USA. Again Daniel Pinks refers to the London School of Economics to support his idea of worker creativity by referring to the School’s examination of 51 studies of paying for the level of performance plans inside the companies. The school establishes that there is a possibility that the financial incentive can result into a negative impact to the overall performance of the company. Pink Claims that there is a disparity in between business knowledge and science knowledge. Embracing the outdated ideas can be a threat to the economic stability (Lorida 2002). Many companies are on the verge of trying to exploit talent and ability of workers by using incentives. The approach is outdated, unexamined and emerges from myths rather than science. The incentive policies are the root of the economic mess in USA that requires elimination for there to be an increase in economic performance in the 21st century. Scientists of motivation advocate for intrinsic motivation for there to be an increased performance (Darrington & Howell 2011). Daniel Pink says that the intrinsic motivation incorporates the desire to do things because they are necessary rather than doing them with the expectation of a reward out of it. The basis for doing something is the fact that the thin matters and it is interesting. The systems with which modern businesses require to run under are independence, purpose and mastery. Freedom involves creating of direction in people's lives. Mastering involves the desire for improvement in something that matters whereas purpose involves yearning to do something that is above one's capacity. To elaborate more about worker autonomy, there is more to talk about the theory of management. Management is a skill that has worth. The ability to manage is subject to change in the coming years. Pink declares that sticking to the traditional management skills enhances observance, but self-direction encourages engagement( Osakiewicz & Piguła 2013).Self-direction encompasses having ability to notice the roots of something unusual going on and minimising putting money first till it pays off. The final result of creativity determines the rewarding of the participants. Daniel makes a reward-after-success reference to the Australian software company called Atlassian. He claims that often in a year the management tells the engineers to work within a day to come up with something that has no association with the activities of the company. The engineers use the time to invent new ideas overnight. There is a culture of sharing the ideas amongst themselves for analysis and combination to come up with few but viable business ideas. There is a joint presentation of the combination of the new ideas to the company where they get a reward. Pink says that autonomy is responsible for the current production of softwares. The softwares can otherwise be non-existent. To ascertain on how the approach of creativity remains applicable to the current world, Pink uses the example of Google Company. Google workers spend a fifth of their annually trying to come up with something that appears desirable. The idea is the origin of products such as Gmail, Orkut and Google News. There is a typical example to elaborate how the steering effect of results towards works. The Results Only work Environment is a discovery of two American consultants in North America. According to the researchers, program of work is an undesirable option for businesses. Companies need to allow people come to work when they want. There is a need to redesign the working time to create time for innovation. The only time to schedule is when they need when they need to hold meetings. The methodology leads to increased worker output, increased employee commitment, worker contentment. The research is a proof of the essence of purpose, mastery and independence to improve the turnover of current business. The orator of TED, Daniel Pink does not end his talk without using a failure example for usage of incentives. The appropriate case for him is when Microsoft invests in encyclopaedia by the name Encarta in the 1990s. There is an application of a number of incentives to write several articles. Microsoft managers ensure there is adherence to the financial plan and time to rewrite the articles. However, in the subsequent years there is an introduction of another model of encyclopaedia where the team is allowed to edit the articles for fun without any form of payment. Pink claims that the previous decade has seen impossibility in creating an adjustable encyclopaedia like Wikipedia in the whole world. The creation of the encyclopaedia is through creativity (Lih 2009). I agree with Pink in this because if the developers of Wikipedia are to rely on bonuses and other rewards, Wikipedia were to remain un-ajustable, so that whoever that wants to edit it must first seek compensation. The successive compensations can create a high cost for the encyclopaedia. Technology is improving swiftly hence adoption of extrinsic motivation can be uneconomical in the long run. The scientific information and business acts differ extensively. The alleged rewards of the 20th century that business assumes typical for success are becoming narrower with their workability. The rewards are destructive to creativity and innovation amongst workers, and must prohibit the use of the approach. Pink says that it is not rational to put rewards and punishments before performance (Hazelton 2013. Focus of working is commendable when people do things because they matter and not because of the rewards they expect. Pink ends his talk by stating the apex of the motivation. Pink claims that adoption of the inherent methodology of working lies on the ability of companies to be flexible enough to shift from intrinsic to extrinsic motivators. The migration can be realistic if there is a notable relocation from the habitual notions of extrinsic motivation to the modern concepts of intrinsic motivation.( Turner 2006)The conventional forms of motivation come out lethargic and perilous consequently being a danger to companies. New ideas can transform the world by solving candle problems of companies thus escalating the vigour of the businesses. I agree with Pink’s idea because company employees that manage themselves have a higher concentration than their counterparts that are manipulated by rewards and punishments to deliver. Self management is a source of worker effectiveness. The level of intrinsic motivation is an indication of the level of commitment of workers to the company that translates to the probability of retention of the employee. The employees cannot leave the company for another company that promises to provide them with more rewards than their current company. There is little burnout with intrinsic motivation more positive feelings about working relative to the negative feelings about their job. People that are intrinsically motivated have more job satisfaction and less stress symptoms than those that expect rewards after working. Researchers claim that there is a pronounced win-win motivation for both employees and firms when workers manage themselves to make the company improve. Each employee makes an effective contribution to meaningful purposes for the firm. Economists claim that intrinsic motivation is feasible to apply when sufficient running funds become a riddle for firms. Using intrinsic motivation implies that there need for presence of supervisors because workers manage themselves. The situation creates an ease because managers cannot always make it to the workplace. However, with extrinsic motivation the supervisors and managers must be present to retain the routine work flow. It is valid to argue that extrinsic motivation makes employees lose focus in satisfaction of their intellectual curiosity of learning new skills or having fun with their careers yet these are the things that lead to best business performance. Extrinsic motivation thus ignores the important factors of business success. Consistent use of the outdated form of motivation stands to be a source of failure to the user companies. Finally, one can deduct that extrinsic focuses on an assumption a general valuation of money. Scientists believe that the value attached to money is it indifferent. If managers want to exploit the full potential of each of their employees, then they must base the rewarding on each employee’s unique value attachment for money. Making the value universal to every worker causes a clash of perception about the value for money. The idea of extrinsic motivation is vague according to research. It is the managers’ characteristics matter in the level of employee motivation rather than the rewards and punishments given to them.Workers get job satisfaction from emotional stability, extraversion, agreeability and conscientiousness at the workplace. If they get them, employees can work to improve the company without enforcing supervisory and managerial personnel to look after their work References Darrington, J. W., & Howell, G. A. (2011). Relational Motivation and incentives. Journal 16(1), 42-51. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, (2000).The cultures of Corporate: The rites and rituals. Da Capo Press. Hazelton, S. (2013). Great Days at Work: How Positive Psychology Can Transform Your Working Life. Kogan Page Publishers Lorida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class: and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic books. Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin. Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Reasons that will make the right-brainers to rule the future. Penguin Turner, G. (2006). Film as social practice. Routledge. Osakiewicz, M., & Piguła (2013) Managing motivation in vocational activity. Poznan Family Foundation. 2013, 41. Lih, A. (2009). The Wikipedia revolution: How a bunch of nobodies created the world's greatest encyclopedia. Hyperion. . Read More