Dan Pink-Drive

After listening to Dan Pink, I don't understand why people who are getting paid to figure out a problem, do it with more errors and take more time than those who aren't getting a reward. For most people, that extra pay should be motivation to do a better job. Will curiosity get humans farther than rewards? If rewards narrow our focus instead of broadening it, then why do we even have rewards at all? Is it because humans are selfish and want something good to come out of all their hard work? Or is it because humans are just plain lazy? Most people would say that completing a challenge is pointless unless they get something out of it. Probably half of the time, I would be one of those people. If I put in the effort, I expect to get a positive outcome in return. This can be shown in school. Some people spend an entire week studying for a test, however, when the test is returned to them, they get a bad grade. When that happens, people get discouraged and don't want to do all that work just to get another bad outcome. Some of the time, when I am interested in a certain topic, I go in depth with it, making me learn more about the subject. When I'm not thinking about the test, but just wanting to learn about something, I tend to get a better grade on that test, than I would if I had studied for a week. The theory of the higher the reward, the poorer the performance can also be shown through exercise. If someone is working out just to eat that chocolate cake sitting in front of them, they make no progress. After eating that chocolate cake, your workout becomes worthless. But when people workout just because they want to, with no reward with the exception of self satisfaction, they make progress. Without the chocolate cake after a workout, that person takes a step to becoming a healthier person. Dan Pink's philosophy that the higher the reward, the poorer the performance can be reflected in every aspect of someone's life.