A couple of interesting videos from the RSA on education and motivation. They are on separate topics, but I think if watched together they raise intriguing insights into what is needed to bring about a culture of innovation and creativity.
I would suggest watching the Sir Ken Robinson video on ‘Changing Education Paradigms’ first.
•
•
Robinson puts his argument across with some creativity and which just happens to be the focus of his talk. His presentation is entertaining, witty, laced with irony and all the more thought-provoking for it. Basically, he points out that the education systems most of us are familiar with is the product of the nineteenth century. As such, it is outmoded and not wholly relevant to the times in which we live. Further, he argues it is a system based on a command and control approach, convergent thinking and means-end ideology that was a feature of the factory system associated with mass industrialisation.
In many respects, the critique of the education system Sir Ken Robinson puts forward is one that has been around for some time. But it is a message that bears repeating. Because, the simple fact is that the system he critiques continues to maintain a strong hold on the way education is viewed, particularly within governmental circles. Not least, because it provides an illusion of control and that governmental policies are achieving measurable outcomes. Now it might be that the education system is achieving a measure of success, but the question is whether its terms of reference have any lasting relevance to the needs of today’s societies. And this is where Robinson’s argument challenges received wisdom. For Robinson the question of creating an education system relevant to the times is closely bound up with the question of aesthetics.
If you thought aesthetics had very little to do with the hard-headed business of doing business, then think again. The way in which Robinson makes the point about the value of aesthetics, by contrasting it with its opposite ‘anaesthetic’, is a real lesson in how to use language creatively to fire up new patterns of thinking. Many will view the term ‘aesthetic’ as something to do with the woolly business of artistic appreciation and having little to do with the business of getting things done. But by contrasting it with the term ‘anaesthetic’ Robinson raises profound issues with regard to the ongoing questioning of the value of ‘what gets done’. Basically, he argues that behaviours and way of thinking that challenges received ways of thinking is effectively ‘anaesthetised’. The effect of this is that we carry on doing things the way we always have, even though they may bear no relation to the changing needs of the times through which we live. For Robinson, education should encourage a creative, aesthetic mindset characterised by divergent thinking. Ultimately, it is the promotion of a challenging, aesthetic ethos that will lead to innovative and creative thinking across all walks of life. Watch the video and judge for yourself.
Watching Dan Pink’s video on ‘Motivation’ after Robinson, it is noticeable that he picks up on similar themes. And it achieves this by following through on Robinson’s advice. It challenges accepted modes of thinking with regard to basic motivation theory and thinking. Again a similar conclusion is reached, i.e. basic ‘carrot and stick’ theory does not match the times, how people are behaving and the new thought paradigms being generated. ‘Carrot and stick’ motivation theory is again a function of nineteenth century, means-end, mechanistic forms of thinking. Quite simply, this is no longer the main driver for determining people’s forms of behaviour in post-industrial economies.
•
•
We live in an age characterised and driven by cultures of consumption heavily focused on convincing individuals they have the means within themselves to achieve individual self-fulfilment and mastery. Whether this is actually the case or not is another question, but the simple fact is it is a mode of thinking that directly contradicts the basic means-end calculation and manipulation that lies at the heart of much motivation theory. It is this striving for mastery and self-direction that is at the heart of Dan Pink’s theory of motivation and which, he argues rather too insistently, is confirmed by scientific studies.
Pink certainly offers a compelling argument for a theory of motivation that is more consistent with the times in which we live, but I’m not sure it follows through fully on where the ideas of mastery and self-direction come from and whether these in their own way simply constitute another form of ideological manipulation.
At this point, I think it would pay to ‘review’ Robinson’s video and consider how his ‘aesthetic’ might help us challenge, question and nuance the conclusions Pink infers from his reading of the ‘science’.
