What Drives You?

I have been thinking quite a bit about Daniel Pink's "Drive" (http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html), where he outlined the three fundamental ways that drive a person. In fact, if you'd ask me, it is not new. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs might be familiar to most people. But perhaps, Tony Robbins - Six Human Needs is something a little lesser known.

Incidentally, Tony Robbins also did a TED session some years back.

I like Tony Robbins explanation as I am familiar with his work.

Tony mentioned that there are essentially six human needs; Certainty, Variety, Significance, Connection/Love, Growth, and Contribution. If we align this to Pink's thesis on motivation, we can see how it all fit.

Pink started by saying that there are some basic human needs. Tony suggests that we all want comfort, and much of this comfort comes from certainty. However, once we are too comfortable and knowing about everything with certainty, that's when we crave for variety. This is where we want excitement. We want surprises.

Pink that stated that there needs to be some form of extrinsic rewards, like monetary for instance. Of course this is aligned to Tony's significance, where take it literally, the more significance can be equated to monetary rewards. For instance, when we know we got the promotion, we had the pay rise, we had the recognition and reward, we get a sense of 'significance'. We feel important, when we get a title change, from executive to manager. And that's is because deep down, we all want to be important.

Granted, I have not read Pink's Drive, hence I will not comment. But this is where I see the application to the kind of knowledge work our schools are doing, and we should probably watch this like a hawk, as there are a few tell-tale signs that we need to address at this outset.

For example, where Tony talks about "Connection/Love". We all want to be a part of a community. We want to be cared for and cared about. As such, in Schools where we are encouraging the idea of teachers working in team, we are also in a way building up their relational competencies to help them work in team, collaborate to improve, as well as to guide each other. Truly in the spirit of leading the learning, leading the learner, and leading other teachers.

So, when we group teachers into Professional Learning Communities, we are in fact, creating a greater sense of together-ness at the social level, so that, for one, they do not feel like facing a particular challenge alone. They have support. They have others in the "community" that can lend them a hand. However, for this to occur, there are several fundamental prerequisites.

For one, each member of the team must have, what I call, "Personal Mastery". That is they are self-aware and are also able to manage self. Next, I would say that "Engaged Mastery" is required. This is where we expect each other to respect others' point of view. In order to work in a team collaboratively, the ability to see others' viewpoint, critically examine it, and then decide what to do with it is important. Then, it will be the "Professional Mastery", where they must have the necessary competencies to carry out a task or design a solution that is not only effective, but is done in such a way that it serves a greater good/purpose. The "Personal Mastery" deals with a personal trustworthiness, whereas "Engaged Mastery" deals with trust. Just as its described in Stephen M.R. Covey's The Speed of Trust. Finally, the "Professional Mastery" goes into the knowledge, skills, and competencies that each team member must have.

Finally, Pink stated that, in some areas of work, especially where creative work is concerned, throwing money at the task sometimes impede the performance of the individuals. And that is so true, especially so in the current state of affairs. Individuals do not work for a company just because it pays well. Many companies pay well. But how many company has a purpose and mission that will engage their people.

Let us think for a moment, why do people want to work for Apple, Google, IBM, (LINE Consulting - I am working towards that), or to become a teacher? Why do they not want to settle for just any other company? I believe its because these companies or jobs have a meaningful purpose that they can identify with, that they want to be a part of (linking back to "connection/love"). Everyone wants to leave behind a legacy. In fact, what struck me most, whenever I ask people what would they want to do if money is no object. They'll usually say they would continue what they're doing, or they would want to do missionary work, or they would want to help others. And the common theme I gathered from these responses was "contribution" - which is Tony's sixth human needs.

Of course, if you think about being part of an organization, one would want to be able to "grow", whether it is to become better, to enlarge their portfolio of skills, to stretch their thinking and abilities. And that is important, nay, critical. Because, try being optimistic while at a job where you see no further growth.

Hence, if contribution is ranked at the highest level of all human needs, then we need to pay attention to what we are doing.

If innovation, for instance, is to be seen as a growth and contribution; I mean why do we want our teachers to innovate? Not because so that we appear on schoolbag.sg but because we really want to be able to make a difference and provide the education that the child deserves, despite of his/her background. Hence, we have to ask ourselves some serious questions.

We have been "rewarding" eSSS contributions. If its about contribution, is that why we are getting people to drag their feet in submission of eSSS?

If PLC is for about 21st Century work, where its putting (data + information + knowledge + expertise + delivery) * innovation = 21st Century Work (read products or services), and if its creative work, meaningful work, work that contributes to the current pool of knowledge on education, pedagogy, assessment; then what might be the best way to motivate people? Definitely not throwing money at their projects. Then, what else can we do?

If "staff engagement" is about "say+stay+strive", then we seriously have to look at "talent management". And no, "talent management" is not about giving that someone "more tasks" to try him/her out. We need to look at strategies and structures that allow us to help the officers find purpose and meaning in what they do. Guide them towards Personal and Engaged Mastery. Equip them with the skills. Recognize them appropriately. And map out their career path.

This is not an easy task and it requires a paradigm shift for some of us. So, what I am going to do differently tomorrow is to re-examine my motivations and intentions behind what I do, each day.