Motivational Speakers

On several occasions, after being in one of my audiences, someone has said to me, "I've always hated motivational speakers." That's an interesting remark for me to hear, since I'm often described as a motivational speaker.

Fortunately, the next sentence, on each occasion, has been something like: "But this, I really, truly enjoyed." And then, some version of an explanation has followed: "This was the real thing, today - the real stuff, not just fluff."

One Harvard educated PBS producer, after telling me how much he dreaded being dragged to see a motivational talk, said to me, with great enthusiasm, "But this, I couldn't believe, it was so good. You dug deep into human nature. You nailed all the real stuff. This was genuine philosophy, not just empty cheerleading. I mean, it was inspirational and uplifting because it wasn't just a lot of hype. It was deep truth, presented simply, logically, and with a lot of fun." He didn't hold it against me that I was a Yale guy. 

I was relieved, and grateful for the positive words. But, hey, we all need a little cheerleading now and then. "Come on. You can do it. Head high. Just believe. Aim for the stars. Etc." But at other times, we do need much more. We need to understand the leverage points in human nature for making things happen. And ever since there have been written documents, wise people have put into writing what they discerned about those deep wells and resources we all have. Or, sometimes, their students have recorded their remarks, when they were not writers themselves, like Socrates, and Epictetus, the Buddha, and Jesus of Nazareth.

We benefit when we hear or read "the real stuff, not just fluff." The truth is exciting enough to give us hope and inspire us to move forward productively in our lives and our work. We don't need revved up hype to pump us up.

Some motivational speakers are indeed like parrots of fluff - human tape recorders of clever phrases ending with exclamation points. A few, sadly, are charlatans concerned only about their own success, not yours or mine. Some, unfortunately - and I say this as charitably as possible, and without feeling at all judgmental, but you likely know what I mean - are deluded careless thinkers. Sorry, but it's true. And some are wise, loving, and helpful guides to the heights of what we're capable of accomplishing and experiencing in this world, because they're grounded deeply in truth, and are motivated by love.

Brian Johnson, founder and proprietor of Entheos has a nice concept for the concerns of the wisest throughout history: Optimal Living. Anyone who can help us to that deserves our attention. And I include in that crowd such eminences as Aristotle, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tsu, Rumi, Hadrat Ali, Emerson, and even some much less celebrated people alive in our day.

In motivational matters, as in life, the adage holds true: Let the buyer/listener/reader beware. But if we're discerning, and follow the genuine breadcrumbs of wisdom left for us throughout the ages, we can indeed prosper and succeed, finding fulfillment and happiness along the way. Then, we become wisely motivated achievers of optimal living.

What Motivates You?

The more forms of motivation you have for your work, or anything, the better - right? Well, not necessarily. A new study by Amy Wrzesniewsky, professor of organizational behavior at Yale, and Barry Schwartz, professor of psychology at Swarthmore, announced in today's New York Times, has found the opposite.

There are basically two forms of motivation for any behavior, or activity: intrinsic and extrinsic, or instrumental. With intrinsic motivation, you do what you do because you love it, or find it meaningful, or you value its natural innate rewards. With extrinsic, or instrumental, motivation, you engage in an activity because of external rewards you think it will bring, desirable things that are not inherently tied to the activity, but are promised to you for some form of excellence in that activity. As an example, when you're learning something new, you may be motivated intrinsically by the fascinating nature of the subject, or your own personal curiosity. You may value learning and growing and enriching yourself by the study you do. That's all intrinsic motivation.

In principle, you could work just as hard, even if you weren't that interested in the subject, or in the growth it would bring you, but just to get an A grade in a course, a 4.0 grade point average, Dean's List, and admission into your favorite next school along the way. That would be extrinsic, or instrumental, motivation, where the activity is being used as an instrument or tool for the attaining of something that's not inherently tied to it by its very nature. Someone not in school at all could be reading the same books, and doing the same analysis and memory work, where there were no grades, or lists, or future admissions at stake. That shows those rewards to be extrinsic, or not inherently tied to the activities in question.

Wrzesniewsky and Swartz claim that their research shows something interesting. Intrinsically motivated people do better over the long run than extrinsically motivated people. That in itself, or intrinsically, is interesting, and is a truth explored at length in Dan Pink's very nice book, Drive. But what's perhaps more surprising is the new body of evidence that adding extrinsic, or instrumental, motivation to an intrinsic interest, can actually be problematic over the long run, and degrade results.

How can that be? Isn't it always more motivating to add on an extra promise of reward? "Do the job well, and we'll give you extra credit, extra pay, a promotion, a cruise!" Well, it turns out that, no. The research being reported indicates that those who have both motivations for a longterm activity actually do less well than those whose motivations are simply intrinsic. Why? The researchers don't really say.

Let's suppose their study is right. How could it be that adding on an extra level of motivation for excellence in a longterm activity might actually be counter-productive? Well, one simple hypothesis is orientation conflict. People can't serve two masters, as the old biblical phrase has it. Whenever you have two distinct motivations, they can in principle come into conflict. There can be situations where there's a way to get the A, the Dean's List, the raise, or the bonus, that is actually out of step with what the intrinsically motivated person would do, and even more, where it's detrimentally contrary to a path of overall, longterm excellence. And because extrinsic motivators like prizes and grades and bonuses are available in the relatively immediate future, are commonly coveted, and appear, when they do, suddenly and dramatically, as well as often in a public way, they can easily begin to edge out the intrinsic motivator as what primarily forms your behavior. And this means that when there is a conflict, the wrong motivator wins.

People who love their work and find meaning in it tend to do better work than those who work only for the money. We know that. But wait. Does this new research show that we shouldn't pay people at all, lest we tempt them to serve two masters and do lesser work?

Not at all. There's a big difference between a consequence and a motivator. If a paycheck, or a royalty, or a financial return on investment of effort or expertise were not a part of the picture, most people could not afford to do the work at all. But the best people are often those who enjoy the consequence without being motivated by it. They do the work because they love it. They do it because it's meaningful to them. And, because of that, they do it best.

Secondly, this new research, at least, as it's reported in the Times, doesn't show that adding extrinsic rewards to intrinsic rewards can't in the short term enhance performance for a wide range of people. It's just problematic over longer time horizons where excellence is an issue.

Therefore, what?

Work for love. If you haven't already, then go find something to do that you love to do and would want to be involved in even if you weren't being paid for it. And then, when you can, make sure to hire people to do it with you who feel the same way. Create a keen sense of the excitement and meaning of the work - its nobility - both in its impact for good on others and in the fulfillment that comes to those who do it with world-class excellence. 

Ironically, then your extrinsic rewards will tend to be greatest. Which just shows again that we live in a wonderfully crazy world.

The Wonder of It All

I was taking a walk in the neighborhood this afternoon, and suddenly noticed the strip of grass next to my feet, glowing a nearly luminous green, almost fluorescent in the bright, late day sun. At the same moment, the thought occurred to me: "It's just so weird to be alive, and conscious, and walking like this on the earth." The sheer unexpected strangeness of existence washed over me. Then I had to dodge a Hyundai sharing that existence.

You shouldn't for a second think that, because I'm a philosopher, I have thoughts like this all the time. I don't. Most of the day I spend awash in the vital trivia of everyday life, like most people - catching up on the news, mulling over whatever is the most recent sports or entertainment scandal that's on everyone's minds, letting the dogs out and back in, feeding the cats, or throwing them a ball, which, like dogs, they love, as long as its made of crumpled up paper. I read. I write. I exercise. I ponder what would be good for lunch, then later shift my concerns to dinner.

One morning, my wife and I had both woken up, but neither of us knew the other was conscious until, maybe, I moved, and she said "Are you awake?"

"Yeah, for a while now."

"Me, too. I was just lying here thinking about the problem of evil."

"Oh," I said. "I was thinking about what would happen if you microwaved dog food. I mean, would they like it?"

I'm not on the cosmic wavelength all the time. But occasionally, the sheer wonder of the world taps me on the shoulder. And then I marvel for a few minutes. Before I go back to doing whatever it was that I was doing before.

And yet, today, the wonder lingered. And another wonder formed. I said to myself, "I wonder if we'd all treat each other better if we did more to keep in mind the amazing, incredible, wonderful strangeness of being here in this world, on a tiny planet, hurtling through space together. Could metaphysics assist our sometimes limping manners and morals?

Socrates said, in his time, that the least important things, we think about and talk about the most, and the most important things, we think about and talk about the least. We should turn that around.

Ponder the awesome, bizarre, beautiful gift of life for a bit today. Or, the next time the universe taps you on the shoulder, give it a few minutes to reawaken your soul.

And, if you have a second, tell me about your latest cosmic experience.