Aubrey Daniels (@AubreyDaniels) versus Dan Pink (@danielpink) - Bam! #management

There is a wonderful wee battle going on between the viewpoints of Dan Pink (author of Drive) and Aubrey Daniels (Author of Oops!). You can check out the post where Aubrey Daniels says what Dan Pink is writing about motivation "drives him crazy" here.

I think this is a great debate to be having because it might help change how people think. Pink challenges us with the notion that rewards and extrinsic reinforcement often does not improve performance and often (for tasks that require thinking/creativity) hurts performance. Daniels refutes this by saying that his experience proves that reinforcement and rewards work to impove performance. Daniels also takes aim at Pink's assertion that the "carrot and stick" approach no longer works and says that it never worked (and distiguishes reinforcement as something that is not a carrot and stick approach).

I have been reading the works of both Pink and Daniels for many years. I can remember the Daniels book, Bringing out the Best in People, which is now many years old (and which I gave out to people until I figured out this was not the right approach, then I stopped recommending the book).

So what's my take on this? I gotta go with Pink on this one. Why?

Yes, I have seen and experienced that reinforcement focuses performance and makes it more consistent - improving compliance of the fundamentals. And I think we all need to make sure that employees know what we appreciate their work and in what ways we think they add the greatest contributions. Showing care and being interested in employees - genuinely - is powerful and I advocate for that in a BIG way.

And I think we need to be clear about our expectations and give employees the respect they deserve by being candid about how their performance is, or is not, meeting expectations. Neither approach precludes us from doing this.

But here is the bottom line for me. When I think about the greatest managers I have worked with, seen, and been (I have had a few great days, too :-), what makes great managers stand out is NOT that they use reinforcement and rewards more fully and well.

AND I have seen many managers try to use reinforcement because they have been told they should and they come off as mechanistic and fake. Employees know when you are praising them because you think you should.

The word "praise," in fact, makes my skin crawl because imbedded in the meaning of this word is an assumption of a power structure. Bosses praise employees. Parents praise kids. The same goes for the word "empowerment," by the way (and yes, even "management" to some degree).

Most work environments are not ready for a radical makeover where structure, rules, and control are wiped out - and Pink knows this and says this in his book.

Here's what I know at the core of my being because I have seen it for 25 years, done it, trained it, and wrote about it. Tapping into that inner fire - the amazing contributor - that is inside people is the most important work of management and it cannot be a mechanized practice. This is what great managers do. It is not that they learned how to give reinforcement more effectively, it is that they spend theri time with their employees in a totally different conversation and with different purposes.

Daniels will argue that reinforcement must be genuine, and I agree with this, and I know his intent is NOT that managers hand out praise that feels fake. But here is the thing - what are we teaching managers? Are we teaching them that there is a system to performance and to make the system work, do these things and then are we giving them simple little ideas for ways to remember to give postiive reinforcement? Often this IS what is being taught and this is well-intended mechanism. It is not too far from a human form of the Pavlovian response.

If we, on the other hand, build our orgnaizations around idea of how can we work so that everyone can and will be driven to do their best work, we would train our managers differently. Not giving them templates, check sheets and routines, but teaching them how to build talent, be a catalytic coach, create opportunites for challenge and contribution, and actively partner to remove obstables. This manager will tapp into what makes people amazing and will show admiration, gratitude, and care.

Don't ignore the information from either Pink or Daniels or this debate - it is important. Give both sides your attention, give their ideas a try. Notive how you feel and how your employees feel and behave under each approach. Think about which approach would best help you do your best work. Then assess how you want to manage and which beliefs and approaches can help you be a driver - a catalyst - for greater results and engagement.

Check out Dan Pink's TED talk here. And the links to Pink and Daniels are above. Weigh in here and tell me what you think! 

Comments

[Bret Simmons]

Lisa, this is great! I must first admit that I have not read either of these books, but I teach motivation concepts to MBA students every semester. Like it or not, reinforcement DOES work, it can shape behavior, but it always has unintended consequences. Because it works, it should not be ignored. But the BEST route is the intrinsic route. The problem is knowing that is works is one thing, understanding HOW to make it work with each individual employee is a much bigger elephant. Ultimately, I still believe motivation is an attribution, and explanation for why you think someone behaves or does not behave in certain ways. Behavior is MY responsibility, not my manager's, so only I can really motivate myself.

[lisa haneberg]

Bret - great points, thanks for chiming in. And I think it would be a great "debate" to share with your students and might make for a very lively and helpful discussion.

[davidburkus]

I'm with you (and Pink). I read his book January 3-5 and it may be the best book I read in 2010. Although Linchpin may give him a run for his money.

[lisa haneberg]

David: I think it is always a good time to nudge the conversation forward, and I think Drive does that well. Seth's work often does that very well, too. I guess the best books do that, but many don't!

I wish all senior leaders would read Drive and then discuss what it means with their team (and HR leader).

[ron price]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Is it possible that Pink and Daniels are both right? Maybe their are writing about different facets of motivation and inspiration. I think of motivation as coming from within and Pink is helping us understand that this is individual, unique and "sacred". Inspiration could be viewed as coming from others and could be seen as our response to being "connected" to our leaders through their affirmation and reinforcement.

A great leader would be someone who recognizes and utilizes both authentically and skillfully. So maybe they both have a facet of the truth and we need to learn to value and practice both approaches to serving others,

[lisa haneberg]

Ron - I agree that inspiration is a wonderful thing and great managers and leaders ought to inspire. Inspiration and reinforcement are not really the same things, though, right?

The only downside to the "do both" approach - but it could be a big one - is that a focus on extrinsic motivation can wreck or reduce intrinsic motivation.

[David Koontz]

Studies have shown the progress is a very powerful motivator.

Scrum does this very well with the recommended burn down tracking chart. Shows progress every day - make it visible to all. Stimulates the intrinsic reward system in humans - ah the power of dopamine.

See my blog post for a link the the Harvard Business Review article on 'What really motivates workers'.

[Aubrey Daniels]

A post to my post.
Lisa,
You said in response to my blog that you think that "the specifics we each recommend would be quite different, however (as related to motivation)." I don't know about that but the effectiveness of what we each might do is an empirical question. Science would seek to know which was better at producing the desired outcomes. As a behavior analyst, I am always interested in subjecting my opinions and ideas to that kind of validation.

[lisa haneberg]

Aubrey - thanks for the comment. I would agree that measuring effectiveness is of value as long as what we measure is what matter's most. Are we measuring compliance? Results? Engagement? Innovation? Task completion? I think this is an important question. All measures are not the same. If you tell me that positive reinforcement will improve the liklihood that tasks X, Y, and Z will be done with a high level of complaince (maybe not as quickly or well or with greatest amount of innovation or process improvement, I doubt your measures tell me this), that is information. But what is it really telling us? I think testing effectiveness is a good practice but one that needs to take into account what's most important (in terms of how excellence if defined).