The question of motivation is one that plagues the mind of the procrastinator, the binge watcher of Netflix, and the collegiate student alike. There is no doubt that motivation is one of the most ambiguous terms in our language in the sense that not only is it hard to adequately state what motivation is, but it is also challenging because each individual is motivated by different things.
The reason I have selected to write about motivation is two fold: first, I have recently been plagued with the challenging task of attempting to motivate a close friend and second, I was recommended looking at the Facebook page “Goalcast.”
The academic pretense of this blog post stems from the book Drive by Daniel Pink. (I have referenced Pink multiple times in my short blogging tenure, and I will most likely not stop referencing him.) Pink’s work is highly ground in analytical ideas about how we seek motivation. More specifically, how we respond to motivation.
In the world of economics, there are two types of motivations: carrot motivations (positive) and stick motivations (negative). These motivations are peeled back into another layer with Pink by his focus more so on carrot incentives.
The two distinguished carrot incentives are based on the action. If an individual is using his/her right brain, or creative mindset, then the person will respond to carrot motivation in the form of “now….that.” What this motivation style looks at is “now that I have completed X, I will receive that as a reward.” The opposite type of motivation is “if…then” in the form “if you complete X, then you will receive a reward.”
The timing of the reward is crucial and can become highly invidious on an individual. Pink concludes that the creative mindset must not be tainted through the concept of a reward, but must be rewarded after the fact. This delay allows for an individual to find their creative spirit without the looming reward being thrown in their face.
A left-brained individual (logic rather than creative), needs to find a motivation to complete the non-creative work. Why should I do this? What is the point? Am I wasting my time? If these questions can be quickly answered through a simple monetary value or a tangible award, then the individual can continue down the logical path. The creative individual would hypothetically not ask these questions as they are engaging in the creative spirit without seeking a reward (though are presently surprised after the fact).
It is through these types of reward systems that I find motivation to be a struggle. Yes, I am focusing on the positive motivation rather than negative, which can be problematic in itself in the sense that I am ignoring an entire area of motivational studies. For example, water boarding may be an effective methodology to ensure homework is completed on time, but I do not think such motivation would be allowed in schools.
When looking at motivating a person, it is essential to determine what type of task they are completing. Dangling a stick will work great for the left-brainers, but the right will face the startup costs of actually beginning down the creative path; that daunting path to start the creativity process is lit by some motivational form that is challenging to place a finger on. Once the fire is lit, I have seen right-brainers find sickening levels of motivation to the point in which the individuals are tiptoeing on being unhealthy.
Can left brainers experience a similar level of motivation?
Is Pink’s logic correct in the differentiation between left and right brain with the focus on incentives?
Are there instances where stick motivation works? (Was my homework example too outlandish?)
Thoughts?
thereisnopeak.com 
I don’t have an exact example of carrot/stick, but I do have an example of Daniel Pink’s 3 elements to entice the Type I behavior: Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose. I am a production manager, or supervisor of supervisors in a factory. I have read Pink’s book 3 times and requested my 4 supervisors to read the book as a team function; we read about a chapter a week, Then we tried to implement.
One autonomous idea was giving the operators control of their work schedule. In factory everyone must basically start at the same time to allow the factory to operate, but what time became the question. A proposal for 4 10-hour days for the summer was created. I helped to clarify the rules and details and submitted to my boss. After three weeks of thinking and an occasional question by the upper management team, it got approved. Wechose to start the second week of July and end on Labor Day; it is now June 18 and so I don’t have results yet.
The Service organization might as well be the underworld to the manufacturing team. The two organizations rarely work together and even more rarely acknowledge one another with any sort of comradery. Luckily I have recently acquired the production manager job as my former job was in Service. The Service team has wonderful classes to teach the field repair team how to repair the equipment. As a step in the Mastery direction, I encouraged my supervisors to send a few top operators to the class to learn additional troubleshooting skills. The operators love the class, learn a lot, and find themselves teaching small portions of the class as they are experts at some parts replacement process, since they perform it several times a day during the normal manufacturing process. To kick start this behavior change, that is taking a dreaded Service class, I made it an expectation on my supervisors annual goals to have 4 people attend the classes. It has become such a success that operators are routinely attending the classes without my prodding and we are well beyond four students.
I am still working on the “purpose” concept. And it is too early to determine if Type I behavior is forming. We will have to chat later.
LikeLike