Motivation is an essential part of everyday life. It is the driving force that gets us out of bed in the morning and pushes us forward throughout the day. Our motivation has become more intrinsic, and society has started to recognize our need to connect on a deeper level beyond that of a simple reward system. Daniel H. Pink illustrates motivation by comparing it to an operating system. As we grow as a society, our operating system must be updated to accommodate the changes around us. By exploring the evolution of motivation, we can learn what inspires us.

Basic survival was the first source of motivation. As humans began to form more complex societies, the need for an efficient operating system became obvious. Humans were growing more industrious, and a new form of motivation began to take shape: Motivation 2.0. Under this system, “if-then” motivating factors are prevalent. After someone performs a task, he or she receives a reward. If the task is not completed, there is the possibility of punishment. In the Motivation 2.0 system, good deeds are rewarded, and bad deeds are punished. 

The Industrial Revolution maximized Motivation 2.0. The advancement of technology such as railroads and electricity required workers to complete the same task repeatedly, whether it was tightening screws or nailing boards. These jobs did not allow room for intrinsic motivators. Workers would complete tasks required by their employers and be rewarded in the form of payment. If they did not complete the tasks required, they would either not get paid, or no longer be employed. Extrinsic forces, such as rewards, were the motivating factors that increased productivity. 

Over time, humans have found the need for work to be rewarding on an intrinsic level. We have a deeper desire to improve creatively on society and our environment. A “third drive” began to come into play in the 1990s, with a budding emphasis on employee well-being and autonomous work environments starting at companies such as Google and Zappos.

The third drive recognizes that while extrinsic rewards are a necessary part of society, they are not the elements that most drive us. A study performed by MIT management professor Karim Lakhani and Boston Consulting Group surveyed 684 software developers. The majority of programmers reported a feeling of “flow” when working on certain projects that enabled them to explore their creativity. Working on problems with their fellow programmers also contributed to this sense of “flow.”

Inherently, businesses must be concerned with profit to be successful. However, employee satisfaction’s direct relationship to productivity is becoming more of a focal point. Many modern businesses are turning their attention to creating an environment that encourages creativity and enables their employees to feel fulfilled, not like they are just another cog in the machine.

Behavioral scientists categorize what we do at work or school as being algorithmic or heuristic. In algorithmic tasks, there is a set of instructions to follow. Most jobs in the 20th century were algorithmic. A person followed a set of instructions repeatedly to get the same result. Heuristic tasks are the exact opposite: There is no set of instructions. Heuristic tasks rely on creativity to yield a result. We are seeing the disappearance of algorithmic workers in America and other advanced countries as these tasks are being shipped offshore where they can be done at a much lower cost. 

The “carrot and stick” analogy works well for algorithmic tasks but can be stifling for heuristic tasks. The rewards-based system works in the sense that everyone must earn a living. However, mechanisms created to enhance worker productivity often have the opposite effect. By diminishing intrinsic motivation, performing the same task repeatedly soon takes any enjoyment from the activity. 

Behavioral scientists have for decades referred to the downsides of relying on extrinsic rewards. A study involving a group of preschoolers asked to complete drawings during their free time in class demonstrates the “hidden cost of rewards.” The researchers divided the children into three groups: the expected-reward group, the unexpected-reward group, and the no-reward group. The first group was shown a “good player” certificate to be awarded upon completion of the drawing. Each child in the second group would unknowingly receive a “good player” certificate after completing the drawing. And the third group was asked to draw, but did not receive any type of reward. Two weeks later, the researchers observed the same preschool class during free time. Both the unexpected-reward group and the no-reward group drew with the same enjoyment as before the research began. However, the expected-reward group showed much less interest. This finding seems to contradict the reward-based system society relies on.

The carrot and stick, or “if-then” motivators, require a certain loss of autonomy. Being told to do something in order to receive payment or reward eventually takes any enjoyment away from completing the assignment. This stifles an individual’s intrinsic motivation, and potentially their productivity.

Psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan worked together to create what they called “self-determination theory,” or SDT. This theory focused on the three innate psychological needs of humans: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. If these needs are met, we feel satisfaction in our lives. We are more likely to be motivated and productive. When these needs aren’t met, our work and productivity suffer. The managers of most businesses resort to punishment if workers do not perform  to expectations. What these businesses and managers fail to see is the innate human desire to be autonomous. SDT is part of a broadening psychological movement that focuses on positive psychology. Rather than being concerned with dysfunction, positive psychology focuses on well-being and functionality. 

Behavior can be categorized into two types: Type X (for extrinsic) and Type I (for intrinsic). Type X behavior fits perfectly into the Motivation 2.0 operating system. It is the second drive. Type X is fueled by the external rewards received upon successful completion of an assignment or task. Type I is the third drive. It is much more concerned with the activity itself than with the reward received upon completion. For example, a concert pianist is most likely more concerned with perfecting a musical piece than with the monetary compensation received for the performance. While no one is entirely Type X or Type I, most people lean heavily on one of these types of behavior. 

Humans learn Type I behavior over time. We are not born favoring Type I. People who favor Type X can grow to be intrinsically motivated given the right amount of support and willingness to learn new behaviors. If someone is focused merely on extrinsic rewards, they will complete the task at hand, however, the desire to complete the activity is difficult to sustain. People more motivated toward Type I tend to be more successful in the long run. SDT studies have shown that intrinsically motivated individuals have better self-esteem and maintain healthier relationships and lifestyles. Extrinsically motivated individuals’ psychological health tends to suffer over time.

When old-school management styles began to give way to modern approaches, something called ROWE was born. The idea was created by Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, two former human resources executives at Best Buy. ROWE, or results-only work environment, is a concept that gives employees autonomy. The workers do not have set schedules, instead they work on their own time. If their work is completed, they are successful. How and when they complete the work is up to the employee.

Software company Meddius is one company that has implemented ROWE management. At first, employees were timid. They would still show up for their regular 9-to-5 hours. However, over time, the employees adapted to their new freedoms and productivity rose. Employee stress waned, and morale was at an all-time high. The autonomy allowed them to focus on the work itself. The freedom to work in an autonomous environment proved beneficial not only to the employees and management, but also to the employees’ families.

With increased autonomy, employees at one well-known company created a best-selling new product. William McKnight was the president of 3M in the 1940s. He allowed employees free time to work on projects and encouraged what he called “experimental doodling.” This free time gave way to ideas such as the Post-it note that 3M is known for today. McKnight’s approach was “hire good people, and leave them alone.” 

The role management plays in allowing workers to be self-directed is changing as well. The concept of management was created out of necessity to guide and direct workers. It is not innate to humans. By nature, we are self-directed. As children, we are curious and seek out answers to all of life’s curiosities. Somewhere along the way, the ethos of society, and management in general, stifle our individual interests. Humans prefer to be self-directed, but also part of a community with a mutual focus. Autonomy is not the same as being completely independent. Instead, we choose our actions with others in mind. 

Type I behavior is most beneficial when people have control over the four Ts: task, time, technique, and team. Modern-day companies such as Google and Zappos have followed in the footsteps of 3M and  implemented similar systems. 

In trying to become better at something we care about, we are attempting to master it. Whether it is a baseball player trying to perfect his swing, or a realtor trying to perfect a sales technique, mastery is an important part of motivation. Striving to be better is what keeps us moving. Once that drive is lost, it can affect our psychology, causing our work and personal life to suffer. 

Mastery can be compared to an asymptote. In algebra, an asymptote is a curve that approaches a straight line, but never quite reaches it. Similarly, we may spend our entire lives working toward mastery, but only come close to achieving it. If we accept that setbacks are a natural part of the journey, it eases the frustrations we may have. By acknowledging that setbacks can be guideposts and helpful in the quest for mastery, our asymptote moves that much closer to being a straight line.

To pursue and perfect our passions and interests, we need free time. To master a skill set at work, an individual needs the freedom to explore techniques and systems that work best. Motivation 2.0 leaves little room for this freedom. It is based solely on compliance. If we upgrade to Motivation 3.0, we encourage engagement and the ability to master what we are focused on.

While Motivation 2.0 functions only on a rewards system, Motivation 3.0 recognizes that purpose is what drives us. Our need to feel like a part of something bigger than ourselves is an instrumental aspect of motivation. Volunteerism has grown in the United States, and this phenomenon can be related to the lack of satisfaction people feel at their workplace. Pink asserts that in general, people today are feeling less motivated by profit and more motivated by purpose.

As millennials enter the workforce, they are causing a shift. Their goals are entirely different from those of previous generations. Many feel a need to give back to society and be part of an important movement, rather than just clock in and complete mundane tasks. If this generation cannot find fulfillment in the workplace, they may create their own ventures to satisfy their need for it. 

An interesting way to gauge employee satisfaction in the workplace is by looking at the words the employees use. Former US Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich uses the “pronoun test” to determine the health of an organization. Do employees use the pronoun “we” to refer to their company? Or “they?” There is a palpable difference between “we” companies and “they” companies. Motivation 3.0 and Type I focus on the “we.” Science has shown that the “if-then” concepts behind Motivation 2.0 are in fact stifling and ineffective. If we nurture our “third drive” and allow room to connect with our desires and purpose, we will be more productive and satisfied.