

In his recent post, Jon wisely introduces specific types of people—artists, the devoutly religious—who have never fit into a conventional motivation structure, and who would never be particularly useful in a business environment. Those types, his obstinate scriveners, complicate the idea that intrinsic motivation and a rigorous exercise of autonomy necessarily lead to larger social improvement. Some people just want to exist off the map.

While we are discussing types, Pink often uses opposing groups when presenting his arguments. This is a natural choice, since he’s confident that there are right and wrong ways to motivate people, and right and wrong ways to live. Such certitude hardens his types. One dichotomy is the idea that there are two groups in the world, “scientists” and everybody else. For instance, he often uses some form of this sentence: “Here, again, what business does hasn’t caught up with what science knows.” I find this formulation especially frustrating. It lumps all fields of study under a vague heading, suggesting that there is even consensus about how human beings function. Further, the term suggests that his arguments (which are quite persuasive) have been approved by some bland coöperative that’s smarter than everyone else. The social sciences are complex fields, full of disagreement, and as Pink demonstrates through his debunking of outmoded economic theories on human motivation, often do more harm than good.

Then there are Type Xs and Type Is, people motivated either by extrinsic (money, fame) or intrinsic (purpose, mastery) rewards. Just as “scientists” have all the answers, so do Type Is have the answers on how to live. Pink writes:

“If we want to strengthen our organizations, get beyond our decade of underachievement, and address the inchoate sense that something’s gone wrong in our businesses, our lives, and out world, we need to move from Type X to Type I.”

These are big goals, just as the types are big and broad. Again, Pink persuades me that people who fit into the Type I category are more likely to enjoy fulfilling lives. Owning our goals, having greater control of our time, and trying always to learn rather than to impress others with our current knowledge—these objectives are worthy and seem to be generally undervalued. (More to come on these strengths, and on his inspired ideas regarding fair compensation.) But is “Drive” a self-help book for workers (and people) or a manual for managers? Pink writes that “any Type X can become a Type I,” and offers “Nine Strategies for Awakening Your Motivation” near the end of the book, based on Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s ideas about “flow.” Yet the book gives much greater attention to how managers and businesses can better harness the hoards of Type I people already out there, ready to be put to be put to optimal work. Where is the crisis, in our workforce or in our businesses?

Mostly, these types create an us-versus-them rivalry throughout the book. Pink gives examples of famous Type Xers and Type Iers. Do we want to be like Enron C.E.O. Jeffrey Skilling, Antonio Salieri, and Simon Cowell? (Crooks, creeps, and cads!) Or do we want to be like their Type I superman counterparts: Warren Buffett, Mozart, and Bruce Springsteen? The choice seems obvious, as does the fact that Pink thinks he’s already on the right team.