Dan Pink über die überraschende Wissenschaft der Motivation

Palestra incrível!

This is trash science.

If I went into work next Monday (I'm a software developer) and my boss said that for every bug they find in my code, my pay will go down, but for every line of code without bugs my pay will go up, naturally that is not conducive to performance. This is the premise of his argument, and I've seen a few of his videos now with very similar studies cited.

However, this isn't the way it really works, is it? My performance over time is the main factor for determining my pay, but it's not literally at risk every second of my workday, with someone looking over my shoulder with a stopwatch.

He (and the researchers he's citing) are fundamentally conflating two very different scenarios.

OK. I learned some amazing things. Thanks.

Now looking back after Covid and working from home, what an insight demonstrated by Dan Pink even back in 2010!

A very interesting phenomenon, if we ponder over it, we realise how creativity is all about free thinking, with no pressure and no incentives, only intrinsic motivation.

Impressive Presentation

This actually doesn't make any practical sense. I was assigned this video to watch years ago in college. At the time, it seemed true, before I had any significant practical work experience. But now that I am out in the workforce, I realize that most complicated problems are not solved by a "light bulb moment" that is inhibited from happening due to a mental preoccupation with some $0 vs $100 reward. In fact, monetary per-action rewards are relatively rare in the workforce anyway, except for sales- and business-development related roles. And their incentive system isn't based on informing their "creative" capacities. It's to motivate their follow-through on generating significant, valuable contracts that enable the business to function (which is a very valuable role, is quite difficult, and should be compensated accordingly). Profit sharing is more common amongst higher management, not because it motivates their "creativity" but because it motivates their long-term buy-in / dedication / personal sacrifice of many hours.

To be clear, most complicated problems are solved not by flashing insights but by hours of work, tons of research, lots of deep thought, considering many different possibilities, finding and testing a practical solution, getting many people involved in that solution, being extremely diligent and thoughtful about the whole thing, and being invested in it for long periods of time. For time measured in years, not 20 minutes in a room with some strangers. So while the examples that he uses are likely true in a small laboratory with a small group of people solving a "light bulb" creativity test, it just does not translate to the real world. There is a good reason that people are paid a lot of money who solve really important, complicated problems that require creative and intensive solutions. Most of it has to do with how many hours they have to work, and how dedicated they have to remain for such a long period of time, and the personal sacrifices that come along with implementing the solution. So this TED talk is a great example of a good idea that looks good in a lab but does not hold water once you put it into practice.

I liked the concept of functional fixedness it is a great way to solve problems and can also help us in decision making we think that some problems and decisions are fixed however when we think again from different angles forgetting that there is only one fixed solution we will open creativity doors in our brains

Ooh I wonder how this translates over with remote work from 2020 and people fighting for in office or remote!

Such an oversimplification that it simply hurts. The worst thing is that some executives watch such thing and then they apply policies accordingly.

Wonderful! In the end, what matters are the results... the rest is just words! 💎 2023.

Watching after 13yrs🥲 and getting motivated😌🙌🏻

Lolz..interesting..and I do agree with the findings.....Dan, I think you would have made a good lawyer...you sound like the Harvey type..😂

We can change the word if we begin with change our mind like develop motivation not reward or stick. I learn a valuable lesson we should grow inside motivation
We can change the word if we begin with change our mind like develop motivation not reward or stick. I learn a valuable lesson we should grow inside motivation

Thank you! We are using this in our IB class!

big ups mr Virgo for putting me on. gangy.

Our school system needs to use this model. More money doesn't inspire learning or better teachers.

From my perspective despite good presentation skills this information draws in negative consequences for many employed people.

These "revelations" motivate the employers not only to abstain from providing financial incentives and even salary raises while employees are egged on to bring higer financial results for employers.

In my view, intentionally or not, scientists are looking for a way how to manipulate the brain of employee, so he or she would bring the same results for less income...

This seems like hipocrisy :/

if you want to learn how to practice building instinct motivation or correct your self image i recommend the book, Psycho-Cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz. this book changed my life and allowed to accomplish a lot for a period of time.


Overtime I fell off after getting comfortable so i’m now referring back to this book in the hopes to get my crap together again.

This book teaches you to access the right side of your brain (subconscious) and reprogram it with certain methods, practices, and guidelines. good luck.

It's funny that people move laterally for more money, though. Same basic job, more pay...

Being offered something that could actually make someone's life better leads to performance anxiety and the drop in performance. Because they actually know it matters. To the poor person the money is not just a MacGuffin. I think this work just go exemplify the complete and utter lack of understanding between a rich person's mindset and a poor person's mindset. A rich person doesn't care about failing because they have enough in the bank to offset their potential loss of gain. A poor person must do it right perfectly. These two things are fundamentally not the same. Frankly, I get tired of studies that are designed by the rich for the rich to succeed. But the best part is the justification of deprivation for poor people. This agan goes to show, that rich people need to stop acting like they can solve the problems of the poor. If you fundamentally don't understand poverty, how can you even begin to solve it?

The conclusion of whatever he said.....is written in Bhagvad Geeta. 'karm kro fal ki chinta Mt kro' i.e. do your part of work without worrying about the result.

I don't believe this...

Of course wise businessman never take social psychology into account, nobody should take it seriously because those laboratory made up situations do not apply in real life.

This is the second TED speech that I had to skip today because of tha smacking noise the speaker makes. Please, give these people a glass of water!

this is so good

This is dope

Wow I work at decathlon. This is what exactly the company does. Its called IDM and it works tho. Now the company grows globally

This doesn't seem correct.

If the job that someone is doing is mundane to them, then incentive would be the way to go.

(Autonomy)If they know what they would like to be doing but don't have the mean to do so, incentive would motivate them to change their situation.

(Mastery) If they are uninterested in what they are currently doing why would they want to master it, if they don't plan to do it long term?

(Purpose) All jobs have a purpose, it might not have the biggest impact on the world overall but it has a purpose, and people can still be unmotivated in these positions.

Of all of these Autonomy is the most important, which is confirmed in the FedEx days and 20 percent time methods mentioned in the video, but at the end of the new creations/ideas who owns the new creations/ideas? Is it the company, or the employee? What if what was created isn't related to the company in the slightest, does the company branch into a new industry?

These methods appear to just be swapping the financial incentive which you would use to swap what it is your doing full time in the future, to temporarily doing it now for another benefactor with no compensation, simply because its what you want to be doing. Which results in you never having the means to swap over fully into your preferred occupation.

It works if the employee is where they want to be for their entire career, but if they aren't it doesn't.

That may be why companies now ask "Why do you want to work here?" in the employment process.

The candle problem states “Attach the candle to the wall” the solution does not have the candle attached to the wall.

He got the whole squad laughin

What a magnificent time that was. When TED talks were truly about ideas worth sharing, NOT a platform for pornstars to promote their degeneracy as revolutionary ideas, or cocoland social studies nobodies encouraging gender confusion and doing funny emotional dances on stages.

Entertaining, and interesting and does propose a structure that would also be attractive in "some" cases. There is little parallel being made in regard to the quality of the information in his "encyclopedia" example. We can all submit information to this Wikipedia with total disregard for validity of information and sources...most information is opinion based including the original sources of numerous theories. This does not mean that there is not a volume of useful and accurate information in Wikipedia, but it does underline the importance of doing the impossible task of verifying the validity of sources. What we see as true today changes by tomorrow. This does not mean Encarta is better than Wikipedia...but the information is sourced drastically differently.

In regard to the statement that rewards only work in a narrow band of circumstances, there is no mention of what types of rewards. This also disregards the fact that "intrinsic drive" is only there because one feels a sense of reward for what they are doing. The bigger issue is having ineffective or inappropriate rewards. We should not say we will get fat if we eat.

Self-governing may be appropriate for some, and it may leave others with feelings of anxiety, lack of direction, and difficulty in determining what will be perceived as "good work". Self-governing is also a wonderful way to transfer personal accountability for those who want a reason when asked why their self-governing staff is not performing. We would all love to float around and invent new mousetraps while our self-governing neighbor is doing the same, but this will not necessarily pave the way to progress.

”There is a mismatch between what science knows, and what busniness does.”
”In 8 out of 9 cases, higher incentives led to worse performance.”
”As soon as a task needed even rudimentarly cognitive ability, (and not only mechanic ability), rewards had an increasingly detrimental effect on performance.”
”The secret to high performance is not rewards and punishments, but that unseen intrinsic drive, the drive to do things because they matter.”

Businesses can be whatever it works to them, but I think parents shld und this if then thing l, and let their children make decisions based on wht it matters

What if the purpose is money, to provide for your family. Maybe the real problem is me. have lost that purpose.

Simplesmente espetacular!

This guy is a white supremacist as far as I see.

could someone recap this

This guy is full time communists…😂

For those interested in exploring these concepts further, Pink’s book and TED Talk largely repackage/summarize Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory.

I am going to be, sort of, contradictory.
The meat of this Ted Talk leaves out millions upon millions upon millions of Americans that are in the work place.
I am talking about the the socio economically marginalized.
These people have no reason to go to work except to avoid homelessness. And even working they still wind up homeless. Their refrigerators run on E. They may or may not qualify for some token amount of food stamps.
Maybe they have reduced child care or maybe not. Many millions of these workers do not qualify for insurance, can't possibly afford it or just barely miss the threshold for Medicaid. There are no Holidays, no vacations, no sick days. They are given pay cards instead of paper checks. These pay cards charge the employees for every imaginable service going. These pay cards normally offer loans with sky high interest rates.
These employees are coerced into working a double shift but they get no overtime. Most are scheduled for 32 hours or less. But if they're a 36hr per week employee....one of their scheduled days is taken from them.
These workers are mandated to be at work sick or well. An employee can not call out because they can't afford to go to an Urgent Care to get a Doctor's excuse. Many times employees are clocked out but still must perform side work or closing procedures...off the clock.
So I DISAGREE with this Ted Talk unless it is corrected to say "Contingent on..."

Offer these employees Holiday days with pay.iffer these employees on site or nearby day & child care. Give them a paid vacation.
Pay them a sustainable wage that will give them just a half empty pantry. Refrain from bullying them...the list goes on & on. I'm certain this is the only Ted Talk that has pissed me off.
I am disabled via neuropathy (ran over by a van; not my fault) I draw SSI. I listen to Ted talks because I have no TV and I simply Love Ted Talks.
I've watched people be abused for years via the work place.

I love when there are subtitles in Portuguese

I guess this explains why the CEOs who make hundreds of times more than the workers and are highly incentivized by monetary rewards perform so poorly. Maybe they shouldn't get those $$ bonuses.

I've quoted Daniel Pink's "and to my mind, that new operating system for our business revolves around three elements: Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose." The problem is ... these are not from Daniel's Pink's mind. They the foundations of Self Determinism Theory. I appreciate that Pink sites sources for the other research, but why doesn't he site the work of Edward Deci and others for the three main points in his talk?

I would have melted the candle onto the wall. house of wax lol

The "business operating system" is, in the large, simply capitalism. So he's kind of making the case against the profit motive for addressing big societal issues.

Motivation is the energy that keeps us going no matter what.