Select Page

Dan Pink’s Drive: A Scholarly Book Review

Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Penguin.

In Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Pink (2011) draws upon almost 50 years of scientific research to suggest that there is a gap between what science shows and the practices of businesses in terms of motivation. He proposes that external ‘carrots-and-sticks’ motivation no longer work as individuals seek intrinsic rewards that are not easily quantifiable. The book is divided into three parts with part one setting up the premise for the book and part two unpacking the what Pink believes to be the three key elements of motivation autonomy, mastery and purpose, a remix of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1988). The crux of the book is over at this point and part three, almost half of the book, is filled with to-do lists, exercises, a large index and condensed versions and recaps of parts one and two.

Nevertheless, with 159 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list,Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us has been an extremely popular book and has been praised by  numerous educators (“About Daniel Pink”, n.d.). For example, both Lent (2010) and Parker (2012) present anecdotal evidence as examples and suggestions of how the ideas offered by Pink could be applied in an educational setting; however, what lacks is a deep pedagogical analysis to support these ideas. Furthermore, in part three, Pink offers a section for parents and teachers which also lacks pedagogical foundations. This critical review will therefore examine Pink’s proposition and model of motivation through the lens of pedagogical theories and emerging educational practices to determine the relevance of the book for educators.

Pink (2011) contends that business models are now incompatible with the traditional Motivation 2.0 model of “extrinsically motivated profit maximizers” (p. 31) and need to upgrade to Motivation 3.0 “intrinsically motivated purpose maximizers” (p. 31). He argues that as markets are being disrupted by technology, tasks are becoming autonomous or outsourced resulting in traditional, hierarchical organizations changing into flatter and leaner businesses. He notes that in 2005, only 30 percent of job growth came from routine, algorithmic work while 70 percent came from more enjoyable non-routine heuristic work performed by creative, self-directed, critical thinkers (Pink, 2011, p. 28). If what Pink suggests is a reality, we have a responsibility to ensure that our students develop skills to perform heuristic tasks in order to compete in the job market.

Our students already have access to tools such as mobile phones and devices through which they interact with and make sense of the world thereby developing essential twenty-first century skills. Furthermore, many of our learners are already disengaged as traditional learning cannot keep pace with the rapidly changing world (Thomas & Brown, 2011). Prensky (2001) suggested if educators really want to reach students, which he calls digital natives,  then they will have to change and teach current and future content in a language that students understand. However, despite students being highly skilled, creative and active in online social interactions, educators are unsure how to capitalize on this and the adoption and transformation of learning is slow (Haste, 2009). As with industry, the impact of technology on school systems is inevitable and if students are to be prepared for the future, the educational systems must change. Perhaps Pink’s model may be a solution worth considering.

While Pink does not explicitly make the link between industry and education, his Motivation 3.0 is based on Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a model that received, and continues to receive, a good deal of attention in education since its inception in 1988 . According to SDT the three basic psychological needs for motivation are competence, where one feels effective and efficacious; relatedness, where one feels close and connected to others; and autonomy, where one feels causation and ownership of one’s behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1988). Pink’s model is based on two of these three key elements, autonomy which he defines as “our desire to be self-directed” (2011, p. 10) and competence, which he renames as mastery and defines as “our urge to get better and better at what we do” (2011, p. 10). Yet, with no justification, he replaces the relatedness from SDT with purpose which he defines as “our yearning to be part of something larger than ourselves” (2011, p.10). Interestingly, relatedness is considered an important motivational factor in the emerging trend of digital games based learning (DGBL) (Lieberoth, 2015). With that said, to what extent is Pink’s remix model applicable in what Thomas and Brown (2011) describe as the “new culture of learning” that centers on socially engaged, collaborative, adaptive, demand-driven forms of learning?

In essence, autonomy is about giving students choices in order to direct their own learning and there are many systems available that differ from traditional classroom practices, for example Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs), such as Khan Academy and Udacity, and the flipped classroom, through online resources such as YouTube (Ito et al., 2013). In schools where many students are non-native speakers, the worldwide web provides access to of knowledge environments in the students’ native language including online newspapers, Wikipedia and country specific search engines like Rather than use the traditional text books and handouts, students can construct their own knowledge environments using tools such as blogs, wikis and online forums to reflect and share their learning and, most importantly solicit feedback. Motivating students through choice can be as simple as allowing students to customize their blogs, such as the use of font (Yang & Chang, 2012). With that said, students need to have critical evaluation skills to assess the value of information they access and the networks they explore, particularly those in languages other than the language of instruction (Starkey, 2011). Giving autonomy to students requires a big shift in the role of the teacher from knowledge giver to facilitator guide; nevertheless, providing opportunities for choice is certainly achievable.

Throughout his book, Pink discusses the Csíkszentmihályi’s optimal human experience and flow, which describes how a person can be rewarded by the work itself (1990). “Flow activities” have clear goals and challenges that are just within reach that allow learning to occur (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990). While flow is essential for mastery, it happens in the moment, whereas mastery can take decades of practice and effort (Pink, 2011). Pink cites businesses that create flow-friendly environments to support workers to gain mastery and hence satisfaction and higher productivity and offers strategies to promote flow experiences, for example turning work into play which he describes as the “Sawyer Effect” (2011, p. 37). The idea that play can promote flow is supported by several studies that advocate for digital games based learning (DGBL) due to the intensive experiences and extended time spent in the game by students . Nam & Fry (2012) tell us that flow is a characteristic of engaging social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and with their potential for infinite connection, opportunities for self-expression, these tools could be leveraged to support learning. Furthermore, by facilitating the zone of proximal development, flow states can be extended for longer periods and more frequently when a teacher helps a student solve a problem through scaffolding (Hung et al., 2015; Vygotskiĭ & Cole, 1978). Overall, promoting mastery through flow-friendly classrooms is certainly a reality and adds weight to the Motivation 3.0 model.

Pink describes mastery as asymptote, in that learners get close to but never actually attain mastery, suggesting that this is a source of allure that people reach for. So what does this look like in education? Starkey (2011) suggests that creativity is the penultimate learning experience and that sharing the knowledge is the ultimate goal (p. 25), a concept supported by Siemen’s (2004) connectivism learning theory, where learning and knowledge rests on a number of opinions that when connected allows us to know more (2004). The knowledge that students create and share, for example, through blog posts and most importantly the comments, can be challenged, debated and critiqued allowing the learner to revisit their ideas, revise and create new knowledge in a move towards mastery (Yang & Chang, 2012). The  concept of knowledge as a continuous state of evolvement suggests that there is always more to learn where perhaps “the joy is in the pursuit more than the realization” (Pink, 2011, p. 125). The application of connectivism as a learning theory to motivate students could well be compatible with Pink’s assertion that “mastery attracts precisely because mastery eludes” .

And, finally, what of purpose? Pink argues that purpose not profit goals bring success in both individuals and organizations for example the TOMS Shoes company that describes itself as “not-only-for-profit” (2011, p. 143). So how does this relate to schools? Similar to Pink’s examples, engaging students in service learning was suggested by Lent (2010).  Service learning is a strategy that integrates community service in the learning process in a way that enriches experiences, teaches civic responsibility, and strengthens communities. So one idea that may resonate is the marriage of service learning with entrepreneurial spirit (Apel, 2016). A number of emerging trends in the digital age to promote creativity include the design thinking approach, makerspaces and coding (Adams Becker, Cummins, Davis, Estrada, and Hall, 2016). By providing the opportunities to create products, students can then leverage online publishing and sales platforms to share and perhaps sell their wares and use the financial gains to support the needs of others, for example, to provide loans on microfinance sites such as (Apel, 2016). So as Lent (2010) suggests, providing opportunities for students to be part of something larger than themselves is clearly a viable proposition where students pursue “purpose” goals that serve others as opposed to “profit” goals, such as good grades, that only serve themselves (Pink, 2011, p. 142).

Throughout the book Pink makes a number of claims that are somewhat unsupported. In Chapter Three, he claims that there are two types of people: Type I, who seek intrinsic rewards and Type X, who seek extrinsic rewards such as pay rises. In a latter section, he makes a sweeping statement that all children start out as Type I personalities but offers no evidence to support this idea (p. 185). Furthermore, Pink makes several references to Carol Dweck’s Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (2006) and one can’t help consider Ikheloa’s contention that this association with the Stanford Psychology Professor is a deliberate marketing strategy (2012). His personal interviews with popular academics Csíkszentmihályi, Deci and Ryan may also be a promotional ploy. Indeed, throughout the book he recalls conversations with his interviewees, and while this gives the impression of authority through his depth of primary research, the transcripts are not included to verify his claims.

Although Motivation 3.0 model appears to remain an unproven theory, as it is largely based on SDT, it could certainly serve as partial framework for developing twenty-first century skills and promoting intrinsic motivation in school. While it is clear that each of the three elements, autonomy, mastery and purpose, are interrelated, the model may be better served by restoring SDT’s relatedness to foster socially engaged learning. We should consider if students want to connect and collaborate with others in meaningful ways rather that work in isolation (McLeod, 2013).

Overall Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us is an easy and engaging read; after all, as a former speechwriter to Al Gore, Pink is certainly experienced with persuasive discourse (“About Daniel Pink”, n.d.). However, despite the immense popularity of the book with educational thought leaders, schools should be cautioned not to just jump on the Motivation 3.0 bandwagon and stop to consider if what Pink suggests is a good fit. With that said, if read together in professional reading groups, it will certainly provide an additional perspective on education reform in the digital age. 


Apel, W. [Learning 2.0]. (2016, April 6). Warren Apel – Make it Real [Video file]. Retrieved from

About Daniel Pink (n.d.) Retrieved April 15, 2016, from

Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Estrada, V., and Hall, C. (2016). 2016 NMC Technology Outlook for International Schools in Asia: A Horizon Project Regional Report. Austin, Texas: New Media Consortium.

Bernstein, D. J. (1990). Of Carrots And Sticks: A Review Of Deci And Ryan’s Intrinsic Motivation And Self-Determination In Human Behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54(3), 323–332. doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.54-323

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). The conditions of flow. In Flow : the psychology of optimal experience (pp. 71–93). New York: Harper & Row.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1988). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Contemporary Sociology (Vol. 17). doi:10.2307/2070638

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Head Neck. doi:10.5860/CHOICE.44-2397

Haste, H. (2009). What is “competence” and how should education incorporate new technology’s tools to generate “competent civic agents.” The Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 207–223. doi:10.1080/09585170903195845

Hung, C.-Y., Sun, J. C.-Y., & Yu, P.-T. (2015). The benefits of a challenge: student motivation and flow experience in tablet-PC-game-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 172–190. doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.997248

Ikheloa, I. R. (2012, February 28). Daniel Pink on Drive, The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Retrieved from

Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Schalen, K., … Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected Learning.

Lent, R. C. (2010). The Responsibility Breakthrough. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 68.

Lieberoth, A. (2015). Shallow Gamification Testing Psychological Effects of Framing an Activity as a Game. Games and Culture, 10(3), 229–248. doi:10.1177/1555412014559978

Nam, K. A., & Fry, G. W. (2012). Re-imagining internet scholarship: Academic uses and abuses of the influential internet social network, facebook. E-Learning and Digital Media, 9(2), 157–172. doi:10.2304/elea.2012.9.2.157

Parker, D. (2012). a better way to motivate achievement. Leadership,41(4), 32–34.

Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism. Retrieved from

Starkey, L. (2011). Evaluating learning in the 21st century: a digital age learning matrix. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 19–39. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2011.554021

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A New Culture of Learning : Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change. World Future Review, 137. doi:10.1080/00324728.1983.10408754

Vygotskiĭ, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Yang, C., & Chang, Y. S. (2012). Assessing the effects of interactive blogging on student attitudes towards peer interaction, learning motivation, and academic achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 126–135. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00423.x

Related Posts

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share This


Managing Devices at Home: Conversation Starters & Family Media Agreement

You have Successfully Subscribed!


The Complete Guide to Designing Technology-Rich Units

You have Successfully Subscribed!


The Administrator’s Guide to Classroom Walk-Throughs

You have Successfully Subscribed!