Daniel Pink— Drive

Type I (intrinsically motivated) and Type X (extrinsically motivated)

"self-determination theory"
The main mechanisms of Motivation 2.0 are more stifling than supportive...the less salient they are the better. When people use rewards to motivate, that's when they're most demotivating...instead, create environments where our innate psychological needs can flourish.

Human beings have an innate inner drive to be autonomous, self-determined, and connected to one another. And when that drive is liberated, people achieve more and live richer lives.

Type I behavior is made, not born.
Type I's almost always outperform Type X's in the long run.
Type I behavior does not disdain money or recognition.
If an employee's compensation doesn't hit the baseline— i.e doesn't pay her an adequate amount, or if her pay isn't equitable compared to others doing similar work— that person's motivation will crater, regardless of whether that person in Type I or Type X...one reason adequate pay is so essential is that it tkaes the issue of money off the table so they can focus on the work itself.
Recognition is similar. Type I's like to be recognized for their accomplishments because recognition is a form of feedback...but it is not the goal itself.

Type I behavior is a renewable resource.

Type I behavior promotes greater physical and mental well-being.
Ultimately it depends on three nutrients: autonomy, mastery, and purpose...self-directed...connects the quest for excellence to a larger purpose.

Autonomy
Our default setting is to be autonomous and self-directed. Unfortunately, circumstances— including outdated notions of "management"— often conspire to change that default setting and turn us from Type I to Tyoe X. To encourage Type I behavior, and the high performance, it enables, the first requirement is autonomy. People need autonomy over task (what they do), time (when they do it), team (who they do it with), and technique (how they do it). Companies that offer autonomy, sometimes in radical doses, are outperforming their competitors. (what about due dates)

Mastery
While Motivation 2.0 required compliance. Motivation 3.0 demands engagement. Only engagement can produce mastery— becoming better at something that matters. And the pursuit of mastery, an important but often dormant part of our third drive, has become essential to making one's way in the economy.
Mastery begins with "flow"— optimal experiences when the challenges we face are exquisitely matched to our abilities. Small workplaces therefore supplement day-to-day activities with "Goldilocks tasks"— not too hard and not too easy. But mastery also abides by three peculiar rules:
• Mastery is mindset: it requires the capacity to see your abilities not as finite, but as infinitely improvable.
• Mastery is pain: it demands effort, grit, and deliberate practice.
• Mastery is an asymptote: it's impossible to fully realize, which makes it simultaneously frustrating and alluring.

Purpose
Humans, by their nature, seek purpose— a cause greater and more enduring than themselves. But traditional business have long considered purpose ornamental— a perfectly nice accessory, so long as it didn't get in the way of the important things.
But that's changing— thanks in part to the rising tide of baby boomers reckoning with their own mortality. In Motivation 3.0, purpose maximization is taking its place alongside profit maximization as an aspiration and a guiding principle. Within organizations, this new "purpose motive" is expressing itself in three ways: — in goals that use profit to reach purpose;
— in words that emphasize more than self-interest;
— in policies that allow people to pursue purpose on their own terms.
This move to accompany profit maximization with purpose maximization has the potential to rejuvenate businesses and remake our world.

Daniel Pink— Drive

The Rise and Fall of Motivation 2.0

• Motivation 1.0— biological motivations that come from within

• Motivation 2.0— external rewards and punishments delivered by the environment

•Motivation 3.0— 'intrinsic motivation' fueled by the innate, internal desire for Mastery, Autonomy, and Purpose"self-motivation"

Motivation 2.0 has endured for a very long time due to industrialization and Frederick Taylor's "Scientific Management" (workers are just small cogs in the 'machine' that is a company or business); however, as scientifically proven, it can actually work to undermine the goals it professes to achieve— once you introduce monetary rewards into work it actually reduces people's pure enjoyment of a task and therefore reduces their productivity; this is especially applicable in relation to heuristic (open-ended) tasks versus algorithmic (rote) tasks; similar to Ariely's social/moral norms versus market norms (once you pay people for volunteering it no longer has its moral value and is thus less satisfying on an intrinsic level; money as a reward can become addicting— you need more of it each time you want to 'inspire' someone to do a task s/he obviously didn't want to do to begin with

Why Carrot and Sticks Don't (Often) Work

Seven Deadly Flaws of Carrots and Sticks:
1. They can extinguish intrinsic motivation.
2. They can diminish performance.
3. They can crush creativity.
4. They can crowd out good behavior.
5. They can encourage cheating, shortcuts, and unethical behavior. (most recently, like the teachers and administrators in Atlanta Schools)
6. They can become addictive.
7. They can foster short-term thinking.

If you have routine/rote task that must be done and you need to offer a reward (which can be effective in these circumstances), make sure you:
— offer a rationale for why the task is necessary;
— acknowledge that the task is boring;
— allow people to complete the task their own way. (doesn't sound like a lot of assignments in school)
Then offer an extrinsic reward that is unexpected (i.e. not necessarily promised at the beginning of the task). Engage in "now that" rewarding versus "if-then."