It seems to be common knowledge that people work better if they have some sort of carrot that they're striving toward. Say, monetary compensation. But there is a LOT of evidence that seems to point out that this is one of those "known facts" that just isn't true. We reward the good and punish the bad, but is this really the best way to encourage people? How would this explain things like Wikipedia or Firefox where people are being neither tangibly rewarded nor punished. Instead, they participate because it's good for the programmer community, it will boost their knowledge, and because it helps boost their creativity and it's fun ("flow").
Even more surprising, studies have shown that incentives often cause people to do <i>worse</i>. But not all extrinsic incentives are bad. Mixing rewards with inherently noble tasks usually keeps people working.
The ingredients for genuine motivation are autonomy, mastery, and purpose. If people have these (either already set in place or can create them for themselves), they tend to work harder.
Pink also discussed "Type I" people (intrinsically motivated, more concerned about the happiness found in doing the project) vs. "Type X" people (extrinsically motivated, done for personal gain).
There's a nice chapter-by-chapter review at the end.
Is it riveting? Not really. Did I forget that I had listened to it before? Yes, I did. But some of the ideas are interesting and it is something to listen to.
Three and a half stars
This book came out December 29, 2009
Borrowed as audiobook from Libby
Opinions are my own
