Daniel Pink, journalist, lecturer, "feather" the Vice President Al Gore between 1995 and 1997, tackled the subject with, which makes it even better, a nice narrative talent and pedagogy.
He starts his investigation by comparing the motivation - that is to say what makes "walk" human beings - to a computer operating system. "Any kind of computer runs on an operating system that enables the proper functioning of all elements with a set of instructions, protocols and assumptions. In general, we do not think except in case of malfunction. A human society also has its operating system, which is largely based on assumptions about human behavior. "
At the beginning of humanity, the principles governing human behavior were simple, dictated by survival: food, protection, reproduction. "Motivation 1.0" as D. Pink calls it, was based on the satisfaction of basic needs.
As humanity has become more complex, 1.0 Motivation has shown its limits. In an applicant company a minimum of cooperation, flying dinner of his neighbor or his wife began to have more disadvantages than advantages. Motivation 2.0 is then gradually appeared, based on different premises: get rewards and avoid punishment.
Motivation 2.0 really took off with Taylor's OST. Today is the most widely used operating system. It assumes that the best way to "motivate" people to do what they are asked is to reward (usually in the form of the realm ringing) when they do, that does not reward them - even the punish - otherwise.
But in recent decades, Motivation 2.0 appears to cause more inconvenience it makes services. The gap between intentions and results increases.
What is it that makes the system hiccup?
A slow and silent transformation tasks we perform, says the author.
D. Pink are two types of tasks: tasks "algorithmic" and "heuristics" tasks. For the former, it is to follow specific instructions provided in advance, in an often tedious repetition. For the latter, on the contrary, it is to think, to invent, to create new ways of doing things.
Gold says Pink, "today, in much of the world, the number of jobs that have become more complex, more interesting and more conducive to personal development has increased significantly, challenging the assumptions Motivation 2.0 . "
An example? You are in 1995 and ask a group of students to predict which of the following 2 online encyclopedia projects have survived 15 years later.
* The first is launched by Microsoft, renowned multinational and large means, and shall aim to create an encyclopedia pay line. To do so, it mandates its best project managers, managed, one suspects, according to the precepts of 2.0 Motivation. It is expected that thousands of articles are written by leading international experts, well paid for the job.
* The second is somewhat unlikely: no commercial company does is the source; it is designed to be completely free to users; its creators and its contributors will not be remunerated; Articles will be written by volunteers, and will not be controlled by any "super body" of experts. In short, a true managerial aberration.
What do you think happened? On 31 October 2009, Microsoft threw in the towel.
With 2.0 Motivation as background paradigmatic Wikipedia history just would not have been possible.
Motivation 2.0 does not work well with the heuristic tasks because it draws attention to what is not the task, what some would call the motivations "extrinsic": money, honors, thickness carpet, depending on the car, the holidays ... In short, just about everything except the job itself.
In the very short term, these "benefits" may work, and cause extra motivation. In the medium term, it is the opposite: they turn to the task. Everybody could already feel the difference felt, for the same given task, as it is done because we feel like it or because we are forced to. The same book read for pleasure (that is to say, against the criteria of 2.0 Motivation for "nothing") or for a note, will not have the same flavor.
A US study showed that the effect on the motivation of a salary increase ... lasted 6 days. The question then becomes: what do you do the rest of the time?
We thus find ourselves in a paradoxical situation: the more the more sophisticated their organizations reward-punishment systems, unless they manage to motivate their troops. If I were systémicien, I would say that the solution becomes the problem.
But if Motivation 2.0 no longer works for heuristic tasks, what to replace it?
Based on fifty years of work on motivation, Daniel Pink updates the three pillars of the future operating system: autonomy, mastery, purpose.
"Have you ever seen a baby 6 months showed no curiosity or propensity to act by itself? Our true nature, here. If someone is passive and inert, be it 14 years or 43 years, it is not because it is his nature, it is because something has modified its default setting. That something could be the management. "
Motivation 2.0 is based on the premise that we must control the people, if they pull to the side and try to avoid their work. Motivation 3.0 implies the opposite: if people have an activity that interests them, they will want accountability, if only for that recognition. So rather than asking them incessantly reporting, control their schedules or their workplace, the best thing to do is ... to do nothing.
Pink cites the case of businesses, more and more, that allow their employees to work a significant part of their time (one day per week) on "off field" projects. So Google: "More than half of Google's innovations are born during these periods of pure autonomy. It was during his time 20% of total autonomy Krishna Bharat, frustrated by the difficulty of finding them online news, has created Google News. This site now receives millions of visitors per day. A number of other Google products were created under similar conditions: Gmail, today one of the most used electronic messaging worldwide, Orkut (social networking software), Google Talk (instant messaging), Google Sky ( observation site of the universe) Google Translate (translation software). "
Autonomy as the first pillar so.
The second pillar of motivation is "control", that is to say the desire to grow in what we do, become good, excellent, best. "Mastering guess work again and again. This is obviously a difficult process, but it is not the problem but rather the solution. "
The third and equally necessary pillar is the "purpose", the act of doing things that make sense. "Motivation 2.0 focused on profit maximization. Motivation 3.0 does not exclude profit, but places equal importance on maximizing finality. "
If our Martian Book knew it would be struck by the difference between the updated results from human sciences and practices in organizations aeuvre - designed yet practical, it has been said, by people supposedly formed in the best facilities.
Now that finds our little green man?
* Autonomy? Despite extensive programs of empowerment and training on "how to develop the autonomy of your employees' organizations function is every day more standardized, regulated, quantified, monitored. "Be autonomous", continue to proclaim the leaders, while strengthening the controls of all kinds.
* Mastery? How to do when the expertise is, whatever people say, devalued in favor of "management"? when restructuring chain are changing trades faster they change their computer?
* Purpose? This is probably where the difference is most abysmal between what is needed and what is observed. During training seminars for leading change, one of my ritual questions is to ask project leaders what are the projects they lead. Their answers are often embarrassed their finger on the challenges they face from many more purposes "doubtful, fragile or false" that if the practice "resistance to change".
One of the merits of this book is to wring the neck of an idea that never ceases to haunt the managers that their role is to "motivate their employees."
Motivation looks very much like a default art. Just like Voltaire, who said, "Keep me from my friends, my enemies I support myself," managers would do well, rather than seeking by all means to "motivate" their employees, letting do, and not to demotivate. It would be not bad.
