Work is as natural as play even more so
Building on the work of McGregor, Maslow, Harlow, et al, Daniel Pink challenges modern motivation theory in particular the motivational factors of heuristic work (that requiring a novel solution) versus algorithmic work (established instructions). In his exceptional and compelling book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Pink contends extrinsic rewards are not only not motivational, they may act to demotivate heuristic workers. With 70% of US jobs growth anticipated to come from heuristic work, Pink’s insights merit deeper examination. At Innové, we believe this is a perfect application of our view of the company as a connector in our “thin layer” model. In the connector or matchmaker role we seek to precisely deliver knowledge to a well-defined and focused need. Overlaying lessons from Drive, this matchmaking should consider individual preferences, talents and abilities to promote the intrinsic motivation of the task. Adding this motivational overlay to match making requires a pool of candidates, second and third order information on those candidates, flexibility in work assignment and the right matching technology. While I’m traditional enough to believe that first order success is meeting the customer’s specific needs, I believe the degree of success is enhanced when knowledge workers are intrinsically motivated by the task. We are not forgetting the extrinsic, but this is a definite shift in thought from working to live to living to work. Is it realistically possible to throw away the plans and policy playbook, provide unlimited time off and allow associates to do as they please? Could you see yourself in an organization without “walls”, working when, where and how you wanted? When do you want to start?
[Is it realistically possible to ... do as they please?] The blog basically is asking .. do you believe it is possible to do what you love when and where you want? It infers that it is possible. I think the blog did a good job of jumping past pragmatic responsibility levied on most individuals to sociological ideology wished for by most individuals. The reason why winning the lottery is one of the most popular fantasies is because it would “supposedly” create an environment free of demands. We all want it, but how many of us will win the lottery? So “yes” it is possible in isolated cases.. but not as a general rule. The common person cannot free themselves from all the governing elements in their life to truly work in such an open concept. From traffic signs, to illegal drugs, to paying the rent.. all of it either creates structure to live within, or promotes impetus to work. People “live to work” out of necessity and work within structured entities because of dependencies. To achieve otherwise requires 2 critical components.. 1. Person A only needs to succeed to fulfill their own expectations (i.e. no necessities or dependencies are riding on Person A’s results).. and 2. Company B will not suffer if Person A fails (i.e. read last i.e.). Michael Jackson was able to live – for a short time – within a structure of self-made rules, but he had to build his own imaginary world to do it. In business, how common is that combination of elements? Not very, which is why .. we work to live.. is such a novel idea (defined here as contrary to what is most common) even after decades of people saying it. Regarding person-job overlay, absolutely the best work is achieved by those that love their work the most. I met someone once who achieved both.. did what he wanted and was able to free himself from necessities and dependencies. He drove a dump truck in town. One load per day was all he had to do, but he could do more when he felt ambitious. He drove locally so he would never be far from home, or gone overnight. He received his jobs via phone, so there was no office.. just a pick up and destination per trip. Bosses were far removed and customers were happy if the load showed up as promised. He had a MBA and I considered him one of the smartest guys I knew. Not because of the MBA, but because he married a very successful surgeon. I guess you can say he won the lottery.
Reply to this