I recently watched a very interesting, much-linked-to-and-discussed TED talk with Dan Pink entitled “on the surprising science of motivation.” Pink presents a case for why extrinsic motivation—rewards and punishments—worked great for manufacturing and compliance, but is counterproductive for knowledge work and creativity. He cites many interesting psychological studies as to why intrinsic motivation—a desire for autonomy, mastery, and purpose—works much better for engagement and self-direction, critical factors for contemporary knowledge work.
Pink presents two kinds of radical changes to workplaces that increase intrinsic motivation: 20% time and the Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE). 20% time is famously employed at Google, where employees get to work on whatever projects they want for 20% of their designated hours. This unusual work structure has been said to have given birth to many of the cool Google features many people love, such as Gmail. ROWE is an even more radical idea, which is that employees are given full autonomy to work whenever they want, from wherever they want, and meetings are optional. The only things that matter are getting results defined by the company.
Many blogs in the personal development/marketing sphere have covered ROWE and 20% time, usually very positively, and rarely covering any socio-cultural, economic, or political aspects of these ideas besides that of increased productivity. What would be the likely implications for society if such measures were much more widely implemented? How might they benefit society, and what potential risks or drawbacks would there be?