Imagine that you’re a 6-year-old elementary school student – this should be relatively easy for you. But, what is coming next might be a bit hard, especially if you were born and raised in a traditional American family. Imagine your mom sitting beside you while you’re playing the piano, and all of a sudden she squawks, “Oh my God, you’re getting worse and worse.” Or even more harshly, “If the next time’s not PERFECT, I’m going to TAKE ALL YOUR STUFFED ANIMALS AND BURN THEM!” Scary? Unimaginable? Surprisingly, those words came from the mouth of Amy Chua, a Professor of Law of Chinese-descent at Yale University, in her memoir, Battle Hymn of The Tiger Mother. Many Western parents are repulsed by Chua’s strategy for motivating her children. But, whether you choose to believe it or not, it gets her daughter into Harvard. In contrast, similar to many Western parents, citing the opinions of many experts in the field of motivation, in his book, Drive, Daniel Pink argues that motivation should come from individual internal locus of control, which means giving the person “autonomy” in order to gain “mastery,” and to provide a sense of “purpose” in every action they do. Pink’s theories of motivation seem to be overly simplified and lack practical application. Disagreeing Pink’s theories, I believe that pressure, the presence of authority and painful experiences are also essential aspects of motivation.
According to Daniel Pink, threats are a form of Motivation 2.0, or also known as carrot-and-stick, and he clearly opposes it. However, he does not realize that the pressure created from an external motivator such as a threat can be an extraordinarily effective energizer. He would argue it uses the concept of “if-then,” it turns play into work, and even, he would say it is a de-motivator. But is it true? Amy Chua’s experience proves otherwise. Thanks to her mother’s rough method of motivating her children, by the age of 9, Chua’s eldest daughter, Sophie, had won a local piano award after hours of grueling and tenacious practice-and-practice to master the piece, perfectly. Surprisingly, the threat, which Pink argues as a concept of “if-then” that could hamper one’s motivation, had turned into a “now-that” reward. In Chua’s eldest daughter’s scenario: Now that I have endured the pain and worked hard to master the piece, I got the recognition. In addition to getting accepted into Harvard University, Sophie, turned out to be an accomplished pianist.
But many people, specifically Western educated people, might agree more with Pink’s theories. Supporting Daniel Pink’s arguments, Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, two psychology professors of University of Chicago, rephrase external motivation and internal motivation, into what they called “autonomous” and “controlled motivation,” where they claim, “… controlled motivation involves behaving with the experience of pressure and demand toward specific outcomes that come from forces perceived to be external to the self.” And by citing the evidence from an experiment involving investment bankers, Deci and Ryan say that autonomous motivation results in “enhancement in job satisfaction, in turn, led to higher performance to the job,” additionally, they state that controlled motivation will only destroy one’s creativity. However, in my opinion, one thing they fail to see: pressure drives people more effectively and efficiently than Deci and Ryan expected. How? For instance, let’s just say like writing this essay.
At this point, some readers would probably feel skeptical about Chua’s method of motivation and concerned about the validity of my argument against Deci and Ryan’s theory. “Are Pink, Deci, and Ryan’s theories all wrong?” No! Nor would I say that we must use “controlled motivators” instead of internal motivators in order to motivate other people. But rather, pointing out that the internal motivators, such as autonomy, might only show their best results in certain settings, and might not work in other environments. The same condition is also noteworthy in applying Chua’s method.
For the majority of Asian students, getting an A means average, B stands for bad, C makes your parents cry, D stands for death, and F is not even considered as a grade – because Asian kids know that they must never get an F – and honestly, there is nothing worst than death, hence, triggering the rage of their parents. Generally speaking, it is Asian parents who are responsible for planting this mindset on their children, and creating the stereotype among Asian students themselves. That being said – in Eastern culture, parents dictate almost every aspect of their children’s lives.
To the extreme, these are the things that Chua’s daughters were not allowed to do: (1) attend a sleepover, (2) have a playdate, (3) be in a school play, (4) complain about not being in a school play, (5) watch TV or play computer games, (6) choose their own extracurricular activities, (7) get any grade less than an A, (8) not being #1 student in every subject except gym and drama, (9) play any instrument other than the piano or violin, (10) not play the piano or violin. As mentioned earlier, this list might be a little extreme even to a majority of Asian parents who are much more lenient in what their children can or cannot do. But basically, in a setting like parenting, having an authoritative figure works.
Although it may not be considered as a motivator, the presence of authority holds a secret that Pink’s theory of autonomy fails to solve: the human tendency to slack off.The four essentials: task, time, team, and technique do not always work. Daniel Pink understates the human capacity of evil when they are given too much autonomy. The question is: How much autonomy should be given? It depends. The best part of Motivation 2.0 is the presence of a manager, a structurally powerful position that supervises and subordinates other employees. A manager itself is the raison d’être for preventing what Pink has underestimated.
How do companies like Best Buy, 3M, Zappos.com work? Answering to the question, the author of Tribes, and Purple Cow, Seth Godin states,
“… If I maintain [that] autonomy, I fail. I fail to ship. I fail to excel. I fail to focus. I inevitably end up either with no product or a product the market rejects. The art of the art is picking your limits. That’s the autonomy I most cherish. The freedom to pick my boundaries.”
The essence of Gordin’s argument is that, authority figures in a company should act like parents in a nuclear family. They need to set boundaries on how much autonomy over tasks, time, teams and techniques should be given to their employees, just like parents dictate to children what to do, and what not to do. That way, autonomy works.
Both Chua and Pink are stubborn. Trying to convince them to meet their arguments halfway is like trying to convince Republicans and Democrats to agree on, basically, anything; it just wouldn’t work. But surprisingly, there is one thing they are both in agreement; gaining mastery and obtaining a sense of purpose is painful – but again, with a difference. Daniel Pink is in agreement with Carol Dweck that Mastery is a mindset. In her book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, she andk Pink believe that in order to gain mastery, a learning goal is needed, instead of a performance goal. “Getting an A in French class is performance goal,” they say, “Being able to speak French is a learning goal. More importantly, mastery is a pain. In order to gain mastery, researchers have found, “perseverance and passion for long-term goals,” is the best predictor of success. As psychologist Anders Ericsson suggests, mastery requires effort (difficult, painful, excruciating, all-consuming effort) over a long time. Endorsing Ericsson’s suggestion, Dweck says, “ It would be an impoverished existence if you were not willing to value things and commit yourself to working toward them.”
Meanwhile, Amy Chua has a different opinion on mastery is a pain. She believes that “painful” must also include insults and screams. Words like “garbage,” “humiliation,” and other cold-demeaning words are the sources of the pain, in which she insists that,
“[I] was just motivating [my daughter].” As written in her book, she maintains that, “… nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, …which is why it is crucial to override [their] preferences. Once [they] starts to excel something – whether it’s math, piano, pitching, or ballet – he or she gets praise, admiration, and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not-fun activity fun.”
In other words, Chua’s belief partially contradicts both Pink and Dweck’s theories. In Chua’s view, the goal will be reached only after a after a reward is obtained, and the effort must be driven from external factors before we acquire the reward, and turns it to internal factor.
Looking at these two perspectives, Daniel Pink believes that rewards will only be obtained if we could maintain our internal motivation, while Chua opposes it by saying that we need external motivators to help build up our internal motivations. Ergo, I would say, Chua’s standpoint is more realistic than Pink’s.
Yet, based on my own skepticism of what Pink says and what Chua believes, I believe both concepts go hand-in-hand, and do not exist arbitrarily.
Summing up, Amy Chua does not solely represent all of “Asian parents” with their demanding Eastern parenting style, nor does the word “Western” represent all permissive Western parenting styles (e.g the non-spanking group). But rather, the reason why I’m comparing two cultures and disapproving Pink’s theories is because I feel that Pink is too Utopian. However, I’m also not truly in favor of Chua’s method either. Human beings are too complex. Accordingly, both Pink and Chua’s theories must go hand-in-hand depending on the circumstances.
