Drive: reading list

At the end of Drive, Dan Pink offers a dozen or so books that provide more depth.  All of them intrigued, but these stood out:

Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation by Edward Deci.
"The questions so many people ask -- namely, 'How do I motivate people to learn?  to work?  to do their chores?  or to take their medicine?' -- are the wrong questions.  They are wrong because they imply that motivation is something that gets done to people, rather than something that people do." 

Fascinating.  Those are questions I'm asking all the time, so I've got the wrong ones.

Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes by Alfie Kohn.
"Do rewards motivate people?  Absolutely.  They motivate people to get rewards."

I've been thinking about whether to given a small token at every practice for the hardest working player on the soccer team I'm coaching -- basically, a gold star.  Yes, very Management 2.0, but I figure these are 8 year-olds.  Maybe I should read this book first.  Kohn has been writing about this stuff from all sorts of angles; lots to explore.

Maverick: The Success Story Behind the World's Most Unusual Workplace by Ricardo Semler.  Pink calls Semler "the first autonomy freak."  He has 3000 workers in a manufacturing company, Semco -- the kind of company where you'd think stricter management would produce the best results -- and he lets them set their own hours, vote on major decisions.  Some set their own salaries.  Semler hesitates to call his company "organized" -- 3000 people! 

The company has done fantastically well for 20 years.

*Drive*, part 1

Drive tells us about Motivation 3.0.  Version 1.0 involved kings: do it my way or die.  Motivation 2.0 introduced management: supervision and evolved forms of control.

Management still revolves largely around supervision, "if-then" rewards, and other forms of control.  That's true even of the kinder, gentler Motivation 2.1 approach that whispers sweetly about things like "empowerment" and "flexibility."

Indeed, just consider the very notion of "empowerment."  It presumes that the organization has the power and benevolently ladles some of it into the waiting bowls of grateful employees.  But that's not autonomy.  That's just a slightly more civilized form of control.  Or take management's embrace of "flex time."  Ressler and Thompson call it a "con game," and they're right.  Flexibility simply widens the fences and occasionally opens the gates.  It, too, is little more than control in sheep's clothing.  The words themselves reflect presumptions that run against both the texture of the times and the nature of the human condition.  In short, management isn't the solution; it's the problem.

If you don't have management, what's left? 

Motivation 3.0, which comes from the self.  Drive is about how organizations can foster that -- indeed, that organizations must foster that, because those that don't will themselves die in the future.

Middle management is where it's at!

My experience is that the people at the bottom and the top of a typical company are those that feel most restricted in their work.  When the president and the assembly line worker sit down to talk about what they have in common, the demands that others are making on them is likely to come up early.  In a way, the president is the assembly line worker of the larger community the company serves.  However, those of us in the middle have many choices and a great deal of room to test and exercise our powers.

-- Getting Things Done When You Are Not in Charge

Would you be happy to skip your review?

At my friend's company, no one had mentioned anything about having a review this year.  Finally, my friend asked his boss, "Are we having reviews?"  The response: "Well, last year, we did all the reviews, and HR was supposed to signoff on them all so we could pass them out, but they never even returned them.  So I figure, why bother?"

See anything wrong here?

If the manager values the review only for the HR documentation, then the manager's response was perfectly rational.  But, the only value of an HR signoff on a review is for disciplinary purposes.  99% of your reviews, therefore, won't really need an HR signoff.

The real value of a review is feedback, thereby helping people grow their skills.  One of the most productive review comments follows the lines of "you are good at X, and are ready for the next step, X+1 or Y".  A good review enlightens and energizes the recipient at best, and focuses them at the least.

Of course, we don't always have managers who are good at giving reviews.

Learning to do that is a critical skill that a manager should develop, and that takes practice.  (Hopefully, the manager gets that feedback in their review!) 

You could also argue that you don't need an official review, that you could and should provide feedback everyday.  Which is true.  But 1) what are the odds that someone who doesn't give a productive annual review is going to be good at giving regular, on-the-spot feedback?  And 2) just as people go to church / mosque / etc to pray (they could be equally spiritual in their own home anytime), blocking out time away from the daily fire-fighting and distractions helps you focus on the subject at hand.


I thought about telling my friend that he should say to his boss, "Even though we're not having reviews, could you give me some feedback on how I'm doing, what I did well, and what I could do better?"  Better still, he could write up his own thoughts, give them to his boss, and ask for comments.  But given his boss's view of what a review is, why bother?

A place where everyone works for free

Getting maximum productivity out of everyone -- always a goal of management. But too much pressure, and people might start leaving.

One way to deal with this problem is to work everyone like crazy and then pay them dollars they can't get anywhere else. That's most investment banks.

Another way is embodied by comments made by Zappos's CEO Tony Hsieh:

What kind of company can we create where we all want to be there, including me? How can we create such a great environment, where employees get so much out of it that they would do it for free?

Zappos backs it up by offering employees $2,000 to quit, which works out to a month's salary at some of their starting wage levels. So in a sense, many of them do work for one month free.

Your company may not be as progressive as Zappos, and you may not have big profits to distribute.

But, if you're the leader of a team, or even a senior member, you have a lot of influence in the work lives of those around you. What small things are you doing that can contribute to people being happy to work there?

Another way to know you have a great boss

You have a great boss if, when she tells you she's leaving the company to take another job, you suddenly get the same stressed-out, gut-punched sense of despair and pain that you would if your best coder were to say the same thing to you.

Change that to: had a great boss.