Want to learn the ideas in Drive better than ever? Read the world’s #1 book summary of Drive by Daniel H. Pink here.

Read a brief 1-Page Summary or watch video summaries curated by our expert team. Note: this book guide is not affiliated with or endorsed by the publisher or author, and we always encourage you to purchase and read the full book.

Video Summaries of Drive

We’ve scoured the Internet for the very best videos on Drive, from high-quality videos summaries to interviews or commentary by Daniel H. Pink.

1-Page Summary of Drive

Overview

Humans have been driven by two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic is the desire to learn, grow, and be creative. Extrinsic is when you are motivated by things such as rewards or punishments from others. The Industrial Revolution brought about a new form of extrinsic motivation called reward-and-punishment incentive 2.0 (the carrot and stick).

Businesses use two major types of motivation: rewards and punishments. Rewards are given to people who do something that’s beneficial for the company, while punishments are used to prevent employees from doing things that aren’t helpful for the company. For example, a higher salary is a reward for good performance at work, while getting fired is an example of punishment. Businesses believe that extrinsic motivation can keep employees from slacking off because workers will be scared about losing their jobs if they don’t perform well enough.

Although some companies might have relaxed their dress code and working hours to make workers happier, the majority of firms still uses Motivation 2.0 (which is based on rewards and sanctions) to motivate employees.

Motivation 1.0 and 2.0: basic needs (food, sleep, etc.) and the stick (punishment) and the carrot (reward).

Big Idea #1: There is another way: Motivation 3.0 – intrinsic motivation in place of exterior incentives.

Until the 1940s, it was believed that humans and animals had inner drives and motivations. Then a psychologist named Harry Harlowe discovered that this belief was wrong.

A scientist gave eight monkeys a puzzle. The monkeys would only receive food and praise if they solved the puzzle, but that didn’t motivate them to solve it. Instead, they enjoyed solving the puzzle without any external rewards. Humans are also like this; we enjoy doing things for ourselves rather than receiving rewards from others.

For example, Wikipedia is a great online encyclopedia that was created and edited by tens of thousands of people who are passionate about it. It’s free to use because the people who work on it enjoy doing so. The rival product, Microsoft Encarta, which had paid writers and editors creating content for it, has been shut down since its creation in 1993.

Rhesus monkeys and Wikipedia users are driven by intrinsic motivation. It’s not that they’re trying to fulfill basic needs, get rewards or avoid punishment. Instead, there is a third force at work: intrinsic motivation. This inner drive makes people feel fulfilled when they do something worthwhile for its own sake; it doesn’t need any further reward besides the joy of doing what you love.

People who are intrinsically motivated want to be able to work on their own terms. They don’t need to be directed or rewarded, because they enjoy what they do and will do it for free. Another way is Motivation 3.0: replacing exterior incentives with intrinsic motivation.

Big Idea #2: Missing the target: the stick and the carrot can have harmful consequences.

In most garages, mechanics are given a bonus if they fix enough cars within a certain time frame. This should motivate them to do the best work possible for their customers.

Instead of focusing on the customer’s needs, a strategy that targets a certain number of repairs will result in unnecessary repairs and damage to the company.

It turns out that offering people incentives to do well can actually inhibit them from performing better. This is because the pressure of having a lot of money on the line makes it harder for them to focus and perform at their best.

In another experiment, participants were asked to find a way to fasten a candle to the wall. The solution required creative thinking. Some of those participants who were promised money completed their tasks slower than the other group that wasn’t promised money. Instead of inspiring them to think creatively, being offered money seemed to cloud their thinking and impeded on the wider vision needed for solving this task.