11/16/2014

Morgan Stacy
EDUC602
November 16, 2014
Scholarly Book Review
Introduction
Over the years the goals of humans have changed, and therefore what
motivates them has also changed. A very long time ago humans roamed the
earth with one specific goal in mind, to survive, and as a result any
motivation we needed was intrinsic. Daniel Pink, the author of Drive: The
Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us would call this Motivation 1.0. As
time went by, technology progressed, and humans started to live
comfortably without the worry of falling prey to a vicious animal or
succumbing to an early death because of a lack of resources. In this period
humans became more motivated by extrinsic resources and what they could
gain from completing a task or activity. Motivation 2.0 is what 90% of the
world operates on, which the author says is starting to phase out because of
its lack of reliability. Pink refers to Motivation 2.0 as the carrots and sticks
method, where rewarding an activity will get you more of it, and punishing
an activity will get you less of it (Pg. 32). Pinks purpose behind this book is
to inform people that this type of motivation system is becoming outdated,
while he provides reasoning as to why is doesnt work anymore. This is the
first of the three parts of this book. The author addresses the three elements
that comprise the new method of motivation: autonomy, mastery and
purpose. In part two, you can a very good idea of why this new method
works and why it works. Finally, Pink gives several activities that will allow
the reader to become more intrinsically involved, and how to motivate
people to work the same way. This book addresses almost every kind of
person working in any type of atmosphere. Anybody, no matter where they
are in their life, can benefit from this book.
Thesis Statement

The author split the book into three different parts each serving
the purposed of addressing the main topic of the book, motivation. Although
the three parts of the book are different they all address the same issue,
which lead me to believe the following statement is the thesis of the book.
Pink writes, for too long, theres been a mismatch between what science
knows and what does business does. The goal of this book is to repair that
breach (Pg. 9). Science has provided us with what we need to know, but we
refuse to use the information to make our lives easier. Specifically, people
use the carrot and stick method and expect to have favorable outcomes,
when science has proved the opposite. Pink helps us to exam these flaws in
our thinking and proposes a new level of thinking in part one. According the
author type I personalities are favorable for maximum success, and in part
two he breaks this personality types as well as providing mechanisms on how
individuals are using this personality type for success. In essence, he is
providing what is necessary to help the masses, repair the breach.
Major Points
Part 1
In part one of Pinks book, he lays out the exact problems the
carrot and stick method cause, and gives explicit reasoning on why this
method is unreliable. According to science, and Pinks analysis of the
research, rewards perform a weird sort of behavioral alchemy: They can
transform an interesting task into drudgery (pg. 34). He attributes this to
the Sawyer Effect, which refers to an incident in the book, The Adventures
of Tom Sawyer. His point was that rewards could turn any fun activity into
something that is boring or undesirable. People give rewards to help others
master an activity, and as a results turn that activity into work. Ultimately
the carrot and stick method kills any creativity or self-motivation a human
possesses. Last, this method makes people lose their long-term focus and
start focusing on what is right in front of them.
There is always that one time when extrinsic rewards do work. The
problem with making an extrinsic reward the only destination that matters is
that some people will choose the quickest route there, even if it means
taking the low road (Pink, Pg. 49). Extrinsic rewards lead to addiction and
unethical behavior much of the time when it does work. Ask someone why
he or she cheated at a task and most of the time they will respond that it
was because they didnt want to miss out on the reward. Second, Pink
Attributes extrinsic rewards working to the fact that a task might not have a
great deal of creativity involved, and therefor little room to turn their
enjoyment into drudgery. If the task is something that must be done, they
work will continue with the reward, but you can insure that the person wont
complete the task without the reward in the future. Overall, Pink believes
that sometimes extrinsic rewards work, but the cost of them working isnt
worth offering the reward.

The last main point Pink addresses in part 1 is that he believes there
are two different types of people in the world. Type A and Type B
personalities are a classification of humans that we are used to, and they are
used in the old type of motivation, Motivation 2.0, but Pink came up with his
own type of classification. He suggests that there are two types of people
Type X and Type Y. Type X personalities are motivated extrinsically, and Type
Y are motivated intrinsically, and in order to reach the highest potential
people need to evolve into a Type Y personality. He definitively states that
Type Y people are made, not born. Daniel Pink attributed Douglas McGregor
with coming up with the idea that humans can be made to enjoy their work,
instead of viewing it as a responsibility or a means to an end. This
perspective held that taking an interest in work is as natural as play or rest,
that creativity and ingenuity were widely distributed in the population, and
that under the proper conditions, people will accept, even seek,
responsibility (Pink, Pg. 74). People need to feel like they are creating
something, or should be able to accomplish a task in a way that makes sense
to them in order to enjoy their work. Inherent satisfaction is easily achieved
when one can be creative or inventive, especially when they succeed at their
task.
Part 2
Part two of Daniel Pinks book deals with the three elements of
Type I behavior. The first element Pink addresses is autonomy. Pink states,
Our default setting is to be autonomous and self-directed (Pg. 222). This
is a problem because 90% of the time humans are in a situation where
another person manages them. In this situation most managers and
educators require an activity to be completed in one way, leaving almost no
room for creativity. This is what makes an activity or task seem boring, like
work, which prevents a person from becoming a Type I personality. People
need autonomy over task, time, team and technique (Pink Pg. 222). The
point is that is shouldnt matter how the job gets done, but only that it
becomes a quality, finished product. In classrooms and organizations where
autonomy over tasks is boosted performance and scores are higher.

Mastery, or becoming better at something that matters is the

second most important thing in transforming your personality (Pink, Pg. 109).
The only thing that can improve mastery is engagement in the activity or
task. This is why mastery is hard in the education setting, because of the
lack of engagement of the students. On the other hand, the single most
motivating aspect of many jobs is making progress (Pink, Pg. 120). Pink
broke down mastery into two different sections. First, the pursuit of
mastery is all in our head, as discovered by Carol Dweck (Pink, Pg. 118).
Dweck published that what humans believe defines their achievements,
which can be developed over time. Second, mastery is pain. Practice,
perseverance, dedication and passion over an extended period of time are
what it takes to master a task. Dweck said, effort is one of the things that
gives meaning to life, it makes you care about something, that something is
important to you, and you are willing to work for it (Pink, Pg. 123).
The third element part of a Type I personality is purpose.
Humans, by their nature, seek purpose (Pink, pg. 223). Companies
practicing Motivation 3.0 are maximizing profit by increasing purpose.
People who are striving for a higher purpose in order to achieve goals
achieve more than someone who just works hard. The author uses these
three different subject to help the reader build an understanding of what it
takes to transform into a Type I personality. The author then follows section
two with a list of activities that will help you breach the gap, and help
others succeed by transforming themselves into a Type I person.
Critical Assessment
Pinks view of motivation and education closely corresponds with
Rousseaus view of a proper education. A child-centered curriculum contains
all three criteria important for developing a Type I personality. Autonomy in
education is providing the students a means to control and shape their own
experience in your classroom. By creating a rich and positive experience as
ordered by Jean Rousseau we are motivating our students to work harder and
go further than they would have originally (Dunn, Pg. 162). Autonomy is the
perfect way to create a positive experience for students. No one likes being
ordered around, especially a teenage student who is in the middle of the
biggest biological and social change in their life. They are more likely to
remember and respond positively to a teacher or adult who gives them the
tools that they need to take control of their education over someone who
tells them what to do. At this age it is also more likely that autonomy will
work over the carrot and stick method. During this stage of life, according to
Rousseau, the student begins to develop as personal, and tries to find out
what they are made of. Rousseau agrees with the success autonomy can
provide in his book, Emile, when he says,

What is thought of that cruel education which sacrifices the

present to be uncertain future, that burdens a child with all sorts of
restrictions, and begins by making him miserable in order to prepare
him for some far-off happiness which he may never enjoy (Dunn, Pg.
160)
Pink brings up a very valid point that people who are not engaged will
not learn to master a task. This can very well be said for a student in the
classroom. By providing autonomy we are able to let a student explore his
interests, and possible find a new interest that he/she would not have found
under a restrictive curriculum. Rousseau and Pink agree that mastery will be
accomplished if the student is allowed to learn on his or her own. If the
student has the means to find the answers, and can continuously do so he or
she will be able to go back to that method every time they need to solve a
problem. One of the most important things a student needs to be able to
accomplish is how to solve a problem, or complete a task on his own.
Rousseau says this can be accomplished by having the teacher stand back,
and letting the student find his or her own way, which leads directly back to
the most important factor in a Type I personality, autonomy. The last
criterion for a Type I personality is purpose. A student needs to have a
purpose in his or her education in order to be more engaged and therefor
more motivated. According to Dunn, the most effective schools are those
that have clear academic goals (Pg. 173). Why can it not also be true that
the most effective students also have clear academic goals? Pink, Rousseau,
and Carole Sansone all agree that goal setting is one of the most important
things in a child-centered curriculum because it provides the student with
purpose. Sansone states, learning goals may be induced by encouraging
children to view intelligence as a malleable quality rather than a fixed
entity. This would require teachers to lead by example and allow students a
little extra leeway, or autonomy in the classroom. Conclusively, if Rousseau
were alive today I believe he would be a strong advocate of the Type I
personality.

Pink and Locke may have had something is common depending on how
you look at the situation. When you promote creativity and autonomy over
the carrot and stick method you are taking away a certain portion of mastery
of a content area. John Locke believes that all knowledge we obtain
throughout life comes to us through our experiences. If we use the definition
of carrot and stick from Pinks book we can look at how experiences affect
mastery of content areas. The carrot symbolizes the reward we seek by
staying away from the stick, which is the punishment we would receive from
a negative action. This type of situation is known as a if-then reward,
which is rewards offered as contingencies, If you can do this, then youll get
that (Pink, Pg. 224). If we let a student choose they will learn from their
experiences, but their experiences will be limited because they will not
choose to leave their comfort zone or interests. As a teacher, allowing
autonomy is not possible because students will not choose to cover all
materials necessary for the end of year exam. They will not experience all
topics, and therefore will not master all subjects. Locke says that memory
is the storehouse of our ideas, and memory is helped by attention,
repetition, pleasure, and pain (Dunn, Pg. 138). A student would not choose
repetition over a topic that he or she does not enjoy, nor would they pay
attention to it when it is taught if given autonomy. This is where Pink,
unintentionally, and Locke come together to agree that giving a student
autonomy in education leads to a lack of full mastery of that subject.
If we look at this situation in post secondary school we would get an
entirely different result. In college it is important for students to be able to
seek mastery in a content that they think is the most important. The ifthen reward system is used less, and students have to be intrinsically
motivated. It could be said that students who are more intrinsically
motivated seek higher or harder degrees than other students who are
attending college because it is mandatory. I think this is because mastery is
impossible to achieve. In High School students realize this, and arent
equipped with what is necessary to look beyond it. To these students
motivation is a sense of frustration and they tend to shut down. Most adults
see the attainableness of mastery as an allure, and for them the joy is in the
pursuit more than the realization (Pink, Pg.125). A good example of this
would be athletics or competitive sports. Students in Junior High or High
school dont see mastery of a sport as unattainable, and therefor continue to
strive for the impossible. On the contrary students view academics as
something they will never master, and therefor dont try to master. The trick
is to find what causes the intrinsic motivation for academics in adults, and
transferring it over to kids. Why do students think mastery of a sport is
attainable, whereas mastery of a curriculum is impossible? If we can find the
answer to this question, then we can use Motivation 3.0 effectively in the
classroom setting.

The author states that the ball and stick method only works
sometimes, but this is contrary to what most educators practice. If you
polled all the teachers in a school, you would find that the majority of the
teachers use the carrot and stick method over Motivation 3.0. I believe this
is because the majority of teachers are taught to use the carrot and stick
method in college. In, Positive Behavioral Supports for the Classroom, by
Hall and Scheurmann, it says that intrinsic motivation stems from extrinsic
reinforcement (Pg. 346). Hall and Scheurmann go on to say, students may
never exhibit a sufficient level of appropriate behavior to be able to
consistently and predictably access those naturally occurring reinforcers (Pg.
346). This makes more sense to me, than students naturally being
intrinsically motivated. Students have to be guided into intrinsic motivation,
because people learn through their experiences. In this instance, I am in
agreement with John Locke that we are not born with intrinsic motivation, but
we learn it through what we experience. I also feel like if Pink was correct in
his translations of the research backing his book, then more schools would
be teaching his method. I have also experienced in my time working in
education that students needs structure to teach them how to motivate
themselves intrinsically. Overall I believe that colleges teach this method
over Motivation 3.0 because it has had more success in the education
setting, but that is not to say this will not soon change. Children are our
future, and it is hard for most people to experiment or try out new things
when it comes to their education. At this point in time I dont think it is
plausible to change over to Motivation 3.0 from the methods we are currently
using.
Personal Reaction
Overall, the book reinforced a lot of things that are being taught
in the MAT program about motivation and education. Project-based learning
goes very well with the three key concepts that promote a Type I personality.
Project-based learning allows for students to take control of their education,
and show what they know in a way that is easiest for them. They also get to
be creative, which boosts their purpose and inner drive because they can be
proud of the end result. We can use the Sawyer Effect by giving the
students work, but making it appealing by allowing them to put their own
spin on the class work.

Pinks book also aligns with child-centered curriculums. In a

perfect, or extremely small school this is a great type of curriculum, but in a
5A school with classes of 30 it isnt realistic. If I allowed my HS students to
take control of their education they would take naps everyday, with the
exception of a small handful. In order for this type of curriculum to work we
are going to have to start early, and work our students into it gradually in
order for them to fully appreciate it. I am a big fan of the child-centered
curriculum, but it only works in my smaller classes. A child-centered
curriculum takes a lot of extra monitoring on the teachers part because
students are doing different things at all time. This is not something I can in
a class of 25-30 students. Last, I have found that a child-centered curriculum
allows students to make decisions according to their strengths, but leaves
little development for their weaknesses. If a child were allowed to choose
how he/she was to be assessed at the end of each unit, it would be very
unlikely that the student would choose an option that would take them out of
their comfort zone.
There are a few other concerns I have with his type of motivation
that have to deal with overall mastery of content. By allowing PBL you are
only requiring students to work with their strengths and not their
weaknesses. It is also hard to have a student show mastery over complete
units, objectives or standards through one project. Also, the mastery that
Pink describes is mastery over a single task, instead of many, which limits
what we can do with our students. It is helpful that I can teach my students
objectives and standards, and express their importance as whole in the long
term. This will help their focus and inner motivation, but if I cant make it
interesting enough to keep the students engaged, it doesnt matter.

Works Cited

Dunn, Sheila (2005). Philosophical Foundations of Education:

Connecting Theory to Practice.
Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Pink, Daniel H. Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us.
New York, NY: Riverhead,
2009. Print.
Sansone, C. (2000). The Role of Interest in Learning and Self
Regulation. In Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Scheuermann, B.K. and Hall, J.A. (2012). Positive behavior supports for
the classroom (2nd
Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.