Table of Contents
Pinks ideas deserve a wide hearing. Corporate boards, in fact, could do well by kicking out their pay consultants for an hour and reading Pinks conclusions instead.
Forbes
Fascinating... If Pinks proselytizing helps persuade employers to make work more fulfilling, Drive will be a powerhouse.
USA Today
Pink makes a convincing case that organizations ignore intrinsic motivation at their peril.
Scientific American
Persuasive... Harnessing the power of intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic remuneration can be thoroughly satisfying and infinitely more rewarding.
The Miami Herald
These lessons are worth repeating, and if more companies feel emboldened to follow Mr. Pinks advice, then so much the better.
The Wall Street Journal
Pink is rapidly acquiring international guru status... He is an engaging writer, who challenges and provokes.
Financial Times
Pinks analysisand new modelof motivation offers tremendous insight into our deepest nature.
Publishers Weekly
Pinks a gifted writer who turns even the heaviest scientific study into something digestibleand often amusingwithout losing his intellectual punch.
New York Post
Enchanting... an important book offering a whole new way to think about motivation.
Globe and Mail
Provocative and fascinating... I spent as much time thinking about what this book meant as I did reading it.
Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker
Compelling... Drive reprises decades of often-overlooked research by psychologists and behavioral economists.
The Washington Post
A worthwhile read. It reminds us that those of us on the right side of the brain are driven furthest and fastest in pursuit of what we love.
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Pinks deft traversal of research at the intersection of psychology and economics make this a worthwhile readno sticks necessary.
SEED
[Pink] continues his engaging exploration of how we work.
Inc. Magazine
Drive is the rare book that will get you to think and inspire you to act. Pink makes a strong, science-based case for rethinking motivationand then provides the tools you need to transform your life.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, co-author of YOU: The Owners Manual
ALSO BY DANIEL H. PINK
Free Agent Nation
A Whole New Mind
The Adventures of Johnny Bunko
For Sophia, Eliza, and Saulthe surprising trio that motivates me
INTRODUCTION
The Puzzling Puzzles of Harry Harlow and Edward Deci
In the middle of the last century, two young scientists conducted experiments that should have changed the worldbut did not.
Harry F. Harlow was a professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin who, in the 1940s, established one of the worlds first laboratories for studying primate behavior. One day in 1949, Harlow and two colleagues gathered eight rhesus monkeys for a two-week experiment on learning. The researchers devised a simple mechanical puzzle like the one pictured on the next page. Solving it required three steps: pull out the vertical pin, undo the hook, and lift the hinged cover. Pretty easy for you and me, far more challenging for a thirteen-pound lab monkey.
Harlows puzzle in the starting (left) and solved (right) positions.
The experimenters placed the puzzles in the monkeys cages to observe how they reactedand to prepare them for tests of their problem-solving prowess at the end of the two weeks. But almost immediately, something strange happened. Unbidden by any outside urging and unprompted by the experimenters, the monkeys began playing with the puzzles with focus, determination, and what looked like enjoyment. And in short order, they began figuring out how the contraptions worked. By the time Harlow tested the monkeys on days 13 and 14 of the experiment, the primates had become quite adept. They solved the puzzles frequently and quickly; two-thirds of the time they cracked the code in less than sixty seconds.
Now, this was a bit odd. Nobody had taught the monkeys how to remove the pin, slide the hook, and open the cover. Nobody had rewarded them with food, affection, or even quiet applause when they succeeded. And that ran counter to the accepted notions of how primatesincluding the bigger-brained, less hairy primates known as human beingsbehaved.
Scientists then knew that two main drives powered behavior. The first was the biological drive. Humans and other animals ate to sate their hunger, drank to quench their thirst, and copulated to satisfy their carnal urges. But that wasnt happening here. Solution did not lead to food, water, or sex gratification, Harlow reported.
But the only other known drive also failed to explain the monkeys peculiar behavior. If biological motivations came from within, this second drive came from withoutthe rewards and punishments the environment delivered for behaving in certain ways. This was certainly true for humans, who responded exquisitely to such external forces. If you promised to raise our pay, wed work harder. If you held out the prospect of getting an A on the test, wed study longer. If you threatened to dock us for showing up late or for incorrectly completing a form, wed arrive on time and tick every box. But that didnt account for the monkeys actions either. As Harlow wrote, and you can almost hear him scratching his head, The behavior obtained in this investigation poses some interesting questions for motivation theory, since significant learning was attained and efficient performance maintained without resort to special or extrinsic incentives.
What else could it be?
To answer the question, Harlow offered a novel theorywhat amounted to a third drive: The performance of the task, he said, provided intrinsic reward. The monkeys solved the puzzles simply because they found it gratifying to solve puzzles. They enjoyed it. The joy of the task was its own reward.
If this notion was radical, what happened next only deepened the confusion and controversy. Perhaps this newly discovered driveHarlow eventually called it intrinsic motivationwas real. But surely it was subordinate to the other two drives. If the monkeys were rewardedwith raisins!for solving the puzzles, theyd no doubt perform even better. Yet when Harlow tested that approach, the monkeys actually made more errors and solved the puzzles less frequently. Introduction of food in the present experiment, Harlow wrote, served to disrupt performance, a phenomenon not reported in the literature.
Now, this was really odd. In scientific terms, it was akin to rolling a steel ball down an inclined plane to measure its velocityonly to watch the ball float into the air instead. It suggested that our understanding of the gravitational pulls on our behavior was inadequatethat what we thought were fixed laws had plenty of loopholes. Harlow emphasized the strength and persistence of the monkeys drive to complete the puzzles. Then he noted: