I stumbled across this article from a 2001 psychological journal and as I began reading it I was amazed by the first three paragraphs. It felt like they had jarred something in to focus that had been creeping around in the back of my mind for a long time.
Those paragraphs were:
Some years ago, I talked with an industrial psychologist. “When you cut through all the motivational crap,” he said, “people have only two primary motivations: pursuit of possibilities and avoidance of negative consequences.”
“Around 3 percent of our population,” he continued, “is primarily motivated to pursue possibilities. About 92 percent completely concerns itself with avoiding negatives. There’s a 5 percent swing group that’s sometimes motivated by one, sometimes the other.”
“As organizations age,” he concluded, “they first throw out employees who pursue possibilities. Next, they get rid of those who might pursue possibilities. Who’s left? Only people devoutly committed to avoiding negatives. They won’t deviate from the status quo or introduce diversity, and they’ll move to kill off anyone who even thinks about it.”
Two things immediately came to mind when I first read that:
- Innovative organizations - I think that the last paragraph is becoming less and less true. Organizations (businesses) like Google have worked to cultivate diversity and creativity and try to attract people who pursue possibilities, and it has paid off for them in a big way. I think stagnation and avoidance of negatives thinking is, in the business world at least, becoming a thing of the past.
- How do we grow that 3 percent - We know who the 3 percent are. They’re the Einsteins and the Edisons, the people who aren’t afraid to make mistakes and who push forward and innovate relentlessly. They’re our heroes, they’re the people we want to be.
I think that point one is, in part, an answer to point two. A business (like Google) is an organization. Government is also an organization, but bigger. Culture is also an organization, but again, bigger.
The problem though is that while business has begun to catch on and is trying to make everyone like that 3 percent, the political and cultural organizations of our lives are still stuck catering to the mindset of the 92 percent who are trying to avoid negatives.
I mean, can you imagine what the US government would be capable of if it fostered creativity and pushed innovation? Can you imagine what our culture would look like if we were all encouraged by our peers in our daily lives to be more creative and to pursue possibility more?
What I’m saying, I suppose, is that we need to apply the lessons of organizations like Google to the other, bigger, more important organizations that we all belong to, like government and culture.
I haven’t really gotten beyond that point yet in my mind, but I think it’s a theory that holds a lot of merit.
What do you think?
Further Reading:
- Fear and Anxiety: They’re in the System by Cliff Havener
Popularity: 10% [?]
Have you subscribed yet?
Google is no old organisation. Google started as a startup where innovation was welcome.
It isn’t really a model for a organisation that changed itself to become more innovative.
It’s very hard to change the culture of an organisation for the better.
That’s a really interesting point Brutha. It is certainly harder to change an old organization than it is to invent a new one with the qualities you want, but it’s certainly not impossible.
Take GM for example. A very old car manufacturer that is having to reinvent itself to remain competitive. In fact, maybe that’s what governments need, a little competition