Buy "Drive" on Amazon. Click Picture.

By Dr. Reynolds

There are some new ideas about human motivation afoot on our planet that I believe all of us can benefit from.  These ideas involve how organizations and institutions understand and deal with human motivation–how we think about what motivates us, and how and why we actually motivate ourselves.

Human motivation is a highly complex topic. One way of thinking about this subject is to consider that the history of human motivation is now in its third stage of development.  All human motivation is based in the social operational systems each of us lives in day-to-day.  All societies have social operating systems just like your PC has an operating system that enables your computer to function smoothly and efficiently.  These social operating systems consist of laws, social norms, roles, customs and economic arrangements that sit atop a layer of social instructions, protocols and specific suppositions about how a particular society believes the world works.  Underneath all of this social design is a set of assumptions about how each society understands human behavior, in this case, human motivation.

The first recognized human motivational system was biological. Human beings were motivated first and foremost by their desire to survive.  This is what Daniel Pink, in his new book “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us” (2010), refers to as Motivation 1.0.  The satisfaction of our biological drives is certainly an important aspect of life for each of us.  As humanity developed, however, there was the recognition of a second motivational system, the drive to seek rewards and avoid punishment.  Daniel Pink refers to this as Motivation 2.0.  As he points out, this extrinsic motivational system is deeply embedded in our culture and in our lives.  He writes that almost all of what we remember about how organizations, and our lives, are constructed revolves around a certain “solid assumption.” That is “the way to improve performance, increase productivity, and encourage excellence is to reward the good and punish the bad (p. 19).”

Now, along comes a third explanation of human motivation—Motivation 3.0—that sees human behavior in a very different light.  Social Science researchers are now looking at enjoyment-based intrinsic motivation, which focuses on how creative a person feels when working and living their daily lives.  This huge change reflects a shift in focus from external rewards to internal rewards such as personal satisfaction and “flow” experiences (which I have written about in an earlier article).

As an example of this shift in understanding what motivates each of us, Pink sites the story of how Wikipedia beat out Microsoft’s online encyclopedia MSN Encarta.  Wikipedia was put together entirely by volunteer labor, and now includes more than 13 million articles in 260 languages.  While Microsoft, using paid contributors, closed down its online encyclopedia on October 31, 2009.  Free labor beats paid labor? How could this be happening?

The demise of Microsoft’s MSN Encarta is an example of how intrinsic motivation (internal motivation) is beginning to replace extrinsic motivation (external motivation) as a driving force in post-modern societies.

What does any of this have to do with music and musicians?  It is my observation that we are entering an entirely new era of how we see ourselves, and how we want “to be” in the world.  We are learning that when we center our lives on intrinsic motivation, as opposed to extrinsic, prescribed reward systems, our lives are far more interesting, satisfying and meaningful.  Rather than a prescribed system to be followed that then leads to rewards for the dutiful, creativity is at the heart of intrinsic motivation.  We are increasingly more motivated to satisfy our own needs to be creative and satisfied in work and love, as opposed to being rewarded by an external system that demands we do things a certain way (in order to get the reward).

Neither of these older motivation systems, Motivation 1.0 and 2.0 will disappear, but we are expanding our understanding of who we are to include the vast importance of intrinsic motivation.  With this shift, there will be new challenges and opportunities for individuals, societies and cultures.

How does this shift affect the musician?  I have two responses.  First, there is no substitute for good, solid training in music.  Many, many musicians have braved the path for how we can best learn to play music.  At the same time, intrinsic motivation opens up a whole new arena for all musicians to consider their own opportunities to be creative, to play music for intrinsic reasons rather than follow a prescribed path.  We all love the applause that follows a good or great performance.  I am suggesting here that intrinsic rewards can be just as powerful, and can lead to more creativity and even better performances.

Second, we often wonder what drives people who are disabled to continue playing music no matter what (the subject of this month’s LSM edition).  Against all odds, how do they find a way to play music?  I believe we can find an answer where intrinsic motivation and mastery intersect.

One of the important insights to come out of studying human motivation is our understanding that what people believe about themselves, shapes what they are able to achieve.  Dr. Carol Dweck at Stanford University has labeled this idea as “self-theory.”  The “self-theories” we all carry around with us determine in large measure how we interpret our experiences, and where we set the boundaries on what we can, and cannot, accomplish.  When we carry “self-theory” into the field of human intelligence and motivation, we find that people basically hold one of two different views about themselves.  “Entity theory” addresses those who see intelligence as an entity that exists within us in a finite supply that cannot be increased.  Intelligence is something we are born with, and not likely to change that much.  “Incremental theory” takes a very different view of human intelligence explaining intelligence as an entity of the mind that will vary from person to person, but with effort it is something we can all increase.

In “Drive,” Daniel Pink explains this difference very well when he writes that if we believe intelligence is a fixed quantity, then every educational and professional encounter we have becomes a measure of how much we do or do not have.  If we believe intelligence is something that can be increased, then we will see these same encounters as opportunities for growth and development. “In one view, intelligence is something you demonstrate; in the other, it’s something you develop (p. 121).”
When we apply this kind of thinking to overcoming adversity (the LSM subject for the month), we find two contrasting responses based on the person’s “self-theory.”  There are those who will respond in a helpless manner, and those who will respond in a manner that is more “mastery-oriented.”  Research shows that those who believe, through their “self-theory” that their brain power is limited will tend to give up more easily.  While those who believe their intelligence is constantly being developed will respond to adversity in a much more positive manner based on their “self-theory.”

It is quite an inspiration to read about the musicians featured in this addition of LSM.  Their courage in overcoming adversity is something we can all take strength from.  And I am willing to wager that their courage has a lot to do with their strong “self-theory.”

June 4, 2010in Dr. Reynolds by dr.-reynolds 1 Comment »