Argument Analysis: Motivation 2.0

Daniel Pink’s argument points out that for years we have been using Motivation 2.0. extrinsic However, it has grown outdated and runs opposite to human nature the best and improved motivational application, Motivation 3.0 intrinsic should be used in the workplace environment. Daniel Pinks also suggest that type I personalities Is fueled by intrinsic desires than extrinsic ones My occupation as a substance abuse counselor where I work with clients intimately, it calls for autonomy, mastery, and purpose which helps me to understand what they’re experiencing with these issues. This engagement wouldn’t be the same if I were under Motivation 2.0 where I don’t have a lot of control. Being exposed to Motivation 2.0 is not all bad what I'm experiencing, is a situation where the carrot and stick are implemented in the company I work for. But I am fortunate to have a director that somewhat …show more content…
(Daniel pinks 2011) Pg. 17 I don’t really agree with motivation 2.0 has out living his usefulness because it has been effective in many of our household. For instance, if a child or teenage is repeatedly an acting out and you have asked serval time to stop doing something and you don’t get appropriate response. Then the next move is give a consequence for the action that was committed, detour the behavior you go to bed without dinner, you’re not allowed to spend the weekend over your friend’s house. So, the carrot and stick has its place in some households and I will continue to use this method for years to come. our society have been conditioned to expect punishment and reward model it has been ingrained in us as a society from conception (Daniel Pinks