Saturday, February 04, 2012

Relatedness and Purpose

When talking about motivation, many people will reference Drive with its three key factors:
  • Autonomy
  • Mastery
  • Purpose
One of the main sources that Dan Pink used for Drive is self-determination theory, which also points to three key factors for human motivation:
  • Autonomy
  • Competence (which is perhaps not as trendy sounding as Mastery)
  • Relatedness
Note the difference with the last factor.  Dan Pink used "Purpose" while self-determination theory has "Relatedness".

Imagine you're in a job.  You have very broad autonomy.  You are very good at the job and are constantly getting better at it.  The job contributes to a grand purpose to do good in the world.  However, you don't identify with anyone at work, you end up mostly working on your own because every interaction with others reminds you how disconnected and uncaring your workplace is.

Imagine you're in another job.  Again, you have very broad autonomy and you are very competent and getting better at the job.  This time, you feel very connected with your work colleagues and generally feel a strong sense of mutual caring.  However, if you really think about it, the purpose of your work is really nothing special.

Which job feels more motivating? Which job do we think will be more motivating for most people?

4 comments:

  1. For me "purpose" has always been a placeholder or short-form for "shared purpose" or "common purpose" cf Senge, Whitmore. The "quality" of the purpose is secondary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @zx12bob: well, i suppose 'shared/common purpose' would lead to 'relatedness' anyway, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pink is basing his book on the research of Deci and Ryan, and in particular the section on Purpose. They clearly say the research supports relatedness, not purpose. I think Pink has put his own spin on relatedness without citing any research to back it up, even though he claims his statements are based on research.

    On the other hand, it's easy to see that there is no such thing as purpose without relatedness, because purpose has to do with people outside oneself. So it feels like Pink is just stretching things a bit.

    Mary P

    ReplyDelete
  4. Update:

    In a recent HBR article, Dan Pink directs readers to new research on motivation: Adam Grant at Wharton. See this TED talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imyAvTFRoaI. Here you are introduced to the research who caused him to extend relatedness to purpose.

    Mary

    ReplyDelete