CONTENTS
About the Book
About the Author
Also by Charles Duhigg
Title Page
Dedication
INTRODUCTION
1. MOTIVATION
Reimagining Boot Camp, Nursing Home Rebellions, and the Locus of Control
2. TEAMS
Psychological Safety at Google and Saturday Night Live
3. FOCUS
Cognitive Tunneling, Air France Flight 447, and the Power of Mental Models
4. GOAL SETTING
Smart Goals, Stretch Goals, and the Yom Kippur War
5. MANAGING OTHERS
Solving a Kidnapping with Lean and Agile Thinking and a Culture of Trust
6. DECISION MAKING
Forecasting the Future (and Winning at Poker) with Bayesian Psychology
7. INNOVATION
How Idea Brokers and Creative Desperation Saved Disney’s Frozen
8. ABSORBING DATA
Turning Information into Knowledge in Cincinnati’s Public Schools
APPENDIX:
A Reader’s Guide to Using These Ideas
Acknowledgments
A Note on Sources
Notes
Index
Copyright
The Power of Habit
This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorized distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.
Epub ISBN: 9781473517653
Version 1.0
Published by William Heinemann 2016
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Copyright © Charles Duhigg, 2016
Charles Duhigg has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work.
Smarter Faster Better is a work of nonfiction. Nonetheless, some names and personal characteristics of individuals or events have been changed in order to disguise identities. Any resulting resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental and unintentional.
First published in Great Britain in 2016 by William Heinemann
William Heinemann
The Random House Group Limited
20 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London, SW1V 2SA
www.penguin.co.uk
William Heinemann is part of the Penguin Random House group of companies whose addresses can be found at global.penguinrandomhouse.com.
The Random House Group Limited Reg. No. 954009
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 9780434023455 (Hardback)
ISBN 9780434023462 (Trade paperback)
My introduction to the science of productivity began in the summer of 2011, when I asked a friend of a friend for a favor.
At the time, I was finishing a book about the neurology and psychology of habit formation. I was in the final, frantic stages of the writing process—a flurry of phone calls, panicked rewrites, last-minute edits—and felt like I was falling farther and farther behind. My wife, who worked full-time, had just given birth to our second child. I was an investigative reporter at The New York Times and spent my days chasing stories and my nights rewriting book pages. My life felt like a treadmill of to-do lists, emails requiring immediate replies, rushed meetings, and subsequent apologies for being late.
Amid all this hustle and scurry—and under the guise of asking for a little publishing advice—I sent a note to an author I admired, a friend of one of my colleagues at the Times. The author’s name was Atul Gawande, and he appeared to be a paragon of success. He was a forty-six-year-old staff writer at a prestigious magazine, as well as a renowned surgeon at one of the nation’s top hospitals. He was an associate professor at Harvard, an adviser to the World Health Organization, and the founder of a nonprofit that sent surgical supplies to medically underserved parts of the world. He had written three books—all bestsellers—and was married with three children. In 2006, he had been awarded a MacArthur “genius” grant—and had promptly given a substantial portion of the $500,000 prize to charity.
There are some people who pretend at productivity, whose résumés appear impressive until you realize their greatest talent is self marketing. Then there are others, like Gawande, who seem to exist on a different plane of getting things done. His articles were smart and engaging, and, by all accounts, he was gifted in the operating room, committed to his patients, and a devoted father. Whenever he was interviewed on television, he appeared relaxed and thoughtful. His accomplishments in medicine, writing, and public health were important and real.
I emailed him to ask if he had some time to talk. I wanted to know how he managed to be so productive. Mainly, what was his secret? And, if I learned it, could I change my own life?
“Productivity,” of course, means different things in different settings. One person might spend an hour exercising in the morning before dropping the kids at school and consider the day a success. Another might opt to use that time locked in her office, returning emails and calling a few clients, and feel equally accomplished. A research scientist or artist may see productivity in failed experiments or discarded canvases since each mistake, they hope, gets them closer to discovery, while an engineer’s measure of productivity might focus on making an assembly line ever faster. A productive weekend might involve walking through the park with your kids, while a productive workday involves rushing them to daycare and getting to the office as early as you can.
Productivity, put simply, is the name we give our attempts to figure out the best uses of our energy, intellect, and time as we try to seize the most meaningful rewards with the least wasted effort. It’s a process of learning how to succeed with less stress and struggle. It’s about getting things done without sacrificing everything we care about along the way.
By this definition, Atul Gawande seemed to have things pretty well figured out.
A few days later, he responded to my email with his regrets. “I wish I could help,” he wrote, “but I’m running flat out with my various commitments.” Even he, it seemed, had limits. “I hope you’ll understand.”
Later that week, I mentioned this exchange to our mutual friend. I made it clear I wasn’t offended—that, in fact, I admired Gawande’s focus. I imagined his days were consumed with healing patients, teaching medical students, writing articles, and advising the world’s largest health organization.
No, my friend told me, I had it wrong. That wasn’t it. Gawande was particularly busy that week because he had bought tickets to a rock concert with his kids. And then he was heading on a mini-vacation with his wife.
In fact, Gawande had suggested to our mutual friend that I should email him again, later that month, when he would have more time in his schedule for chatting.
At that moment, I realized two things:
First, I was clearly doing something wrong because I hadn’t taken a day off in nine months; in fact, I was growing worried that, given a choice between their father and the babysitter, my kids would pick the sitter.
Second, and more important, there were people out there who knew how to be more productive. I just had to convince them to share their secrets with me.
This book is the result of my investigations into how productivity works, and my effort to understand why some people and companies are so much more productive than everyone else.
Since I contacted Gawande four years ago, I’ve sought out neurologists, businesspeople, government leaders, psychologists, and other productivity experts. I’ve spoken to the filmmakers behind Disney’s Frozen, and learned how they made one of the most successful movies in history under crushing time pressures—and narrowly averted disaster—by fostering a certain kind of creative tension within their ranks. I talked to data scientists at Google and writers from the early seasons of Saturday Night Live who said both organizations were successful, in part, because they abided by a similar set of unwritten rules regarding mutual support and risk taking. I interviewed FBI agents who solved a kidnapping through agile management and a culture influenced by an old auto plant in Fremont, California. I roamed the halls of Cincinnati’s public schools and saw how an initiative to improve education transformed students’ lives by, paradoxically, making information more difficult to absorb.
As I spoke to people—poker players, airline pilots, military generals, executives, cognitive scientists—a handful of key insights began to emerge. I noticed that people kept mentioning the same concepts over and over. I came to believe a small number of ideas were at the core of why some people and companies get so much done.
This book, then, explores the eight ideas that seem most important in expanding productivity. One chapter, for example, examines how a feeling of control can generate motivation, and how the military turns directionless teenagers into marines by teaching them choices that are “biased toward action.” Another chapter looks at why we can maintain focus by constructing mental models—and how one group of pilots told themselves stories that prevented 440 passengers from falling out of the sky.
This book’s chapters describe the correct way to set goals—by embracing both big ambitions and small-bore objectives—and why Israel’s leaders became so obsessed with the wrong aspirations in the run-up to the Yom Kippur War. They explore the importance of making decisions by envisioning the future as multiple possibilities rather than fixating on what you hope will happen, and how a woman used that technique to win a national poker championship. They describe how some Silicon Valley companies became giants by building “commitment cultures” that supported employees even when such commitment gets hard.
Connecting these eight ideas is a powerful underlying principle: Productivity isn’t about working more or sweating harder. It’s not simply a product of spending longer hours at your desk or making bigger sacrifices.
Rather, productivity is about making certain choices in certain ways. The way we choose to see ourselves and frame daily decisions; the stories we tell ourselves, and the easy goals we ignore; the sense of community we build among teammates; the creative cultures we establish as leaders: These are the things that separate the merely busy from the genuinely productive.
We now exist in a world where we can communicate with coworkers at any hour, access vital documents over smartphones, learn any fact within seconds, and have almost any product delivered to our doorstep within twenty-four hours. Companies can design gadgets in California, collect orders from customers in Barcelona, email blueprints to Shenzhen, and track deliveries from anywhere on earth. Parents can auto-sync the family’s schedules, pay bills online while lying in bed, and locate the kids’ phones one minute after curfew. We are living through an economic and social revolution that is as profound, in many ways, as the agrarian and industrial revolutions of previous eras.
These advances in communications and technology are supposed to make our lives easier. Instead, they often seem to fill our days with more work and stress.
In part, that’s because we’ve been paying attention to the wrong innovations. We’ve been staring at the tools of productivity—the gadgets and apps and complicated filing systems for keeping track of various to-do lists—rather than the lessons those technologies are trying to teach us.
There are some people, however, who have figured out how to master this changing world. There are some companies that have discovered how to find advantages amid these rapid shifts.
We now know how productivity really functions. We know which choices matter most and bring success within closer reach. We know how to set goals that make the audacious achievable; how to reframe situations so that instead of seeing problems, we notice hidden opportunities; how to open our minds to new, creative connections; and how to learn faster by slowing down the data that is speeding past us.
This is a book about how to recognize the choices that fuel true productivity. It is a guide to the science, techniques, and opportunities that have changed lives. There are people who have learned how to succeed with less effort. There are companies that create amazing things with less waste. There are leaders who transform the people around them.
This is a book about how to become smarter, faster, and better at everything you do.
The trip was intended as a celebration, a twenty-nine-day tour of South America that would take Robert, who had just turned sixty, and his wife, Viola, first to Brazil, then over the Andes into Bolivia and Peru. Their itinerary included tours of Incan ruins, a boat trip on Lake Titicaca, the occasional craft market, and a bit of birding.
That much relaxation, Robert had joked with friends before leaving, seemed unsafe. He was already anticipating the fortune he would spend on calls to his secretary. Over the previous half century Robert Philippe had built a small gas station into an auto parts empire in rural Louisiana and had made himself into a Bayou mogul through hard work, charisma, and hustle. In addition to the auto-parts business, he also owned a chemical company, a paper supplier, various swaths of land, and a real estate firm. And now here he was, entering his seventh decade, and his wife had convinced him to spend a month in a bunch of countries where, he suspected, it would be awfully difficult to find a TV showing the LSU–Ole Miss game.
Robert liked to say there wasn’t a dirt road or back alley along the Gulf Coast he hadn’t driven at least once to drum up business. As Philippe Incorporated had grown, Robert had become famous for dragging big-city businessmen from New Orleans and Atlanta out to ramshackle bars and forbidding them from leaving until the ribs were picked clean and bottles sucked dry. Then, while everyone nursed painful hangovers the next morning, Robert would convince them to sign deals worth millions. Bartenders always knew to fill his glass with club soda while serving the bigwigs cocktails. Robert hadn’t touched booze in years.
He was a member of the Knights of Columbus and the chamber of commerce, past president of the Louisiana Association of Wholesalers and the Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission, the chairman of his local bank, and a loyal donor to whichever political party was more inclined to endorse his business permits that day. “You never met a man who loved working so much,” his daughter, Roxann, told me.
Robert and Viola had been looking forward to this South American trip. But when they stepped off the plane in La Paz, midway through the monthlong tour, Robert started acting oddly. He staggered through the airport and had to sit down to catch his breath at the baggage claim. When a group of children approached him to ask for coins, Robert threw change at their feet and laughed. In the bus to the hotel, Robert started a loud, rambling monologue about various countries he had visited and the relative attractiveness of the women who lived there. Maybe it was the altitude. At twelve thousand feet, La Paz is one of the highest cities in the world.
Once they were unpacked, Viola urged Robert to nap. He wasn’t interested, he said. He wanted to go out. For the next hour, he marched through town buying trinkets and exploding in a rage whenever locals didn’t understand English. He eventually agreed to return to the hotel and fell asleep, but woke repeatedly during the night to vomit. The next morning, he said he felt faint but became angry when Viola suggested he rest. He spent the third day in bed. On day four, Viola decided enough was enough and cut the vacation short.
Back home in Louisiana, Robert seemed to improve. His disorientation faded and he stopped saying strange things. His wife and children, however, were still worried. Robert was lethargic and refused to leave the house unless prodded. Viola had expected him to rush into the office upon their return, but after four days he hadn’t so much as checked in with his secretary. When Viola reminded him that deer hunting season was approaching and he’d need to get a license, Robert said he thought he’d skip it this year. She phoned a doctor. Soon, they were driving to the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans.1
The chief of neurology, Dr. Richard Strub, put Robert through a battery of tests. Vital signs were normal. Blood work showed nothing unusual. No indication of infection, diabetes, heart attack, or stroke. Robert demonstrated understanding of that day’s newspaper and could clearly recall his childhood. He could interpret a short story. The Revised Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale showed a normal IQ.
“Can you describe your business to me?” Dr. Strub asked.
Robert explained how his company was organized and the details of a few contracts they had recently won.
“Your wife says you’re behaving differently,” Dr. Strub said.
“Yeah,” Robert replied. “I don’t seem to have as much get-up-and-go as I used to.”
“It didn’t seem to bother him,” Dr. Strub later told me. “He told me about the personality changes very matter of fact, like he was describing the weather.”
Except for the sudden apathy, Dr. Strub couldn’t find evidence of illness or injury. He suggested to Viola they wait a few weeks to see if Robert’s disposition improved. When they returned a month later, however, there had been no change. Robert wasn’t interested in seeing old friends, his wife said. He didn’t read anymore. Previously, it had been infuriating to watch television with him because he would flip from channel to channel, looking for a more exciting show. Now, he just stared at the screen, indifferent to what was on. She had finally convinced him to go into the office, but his secretary said he spent hours at his desk gazing into space.
“Are you unhappy or depressed?” Dr. Strub asked.
“No,” Robert said. “I feel good.”
“Can you tell me how you spent yesterday?”
Robert described a day of watching television.
“You know, your wife tells me your employees are concerned because they don’t see you around the office much,” said Dr. Strub.
“I guess I’m more interested in other things now,” Robert replied.
“Like what?”
“Oh, I don’t know,” Robert said, and then went silent and stared at the wall.
Dr. Strub prescribed various medications—drugs to combat hormonal imbalances and attention disorders—but none seemed to make a difference. People suffering from depression will say they are unhappy and describe hopeless thoughts. Robert, however, said he was satisfied with life. He admitted his personality change was odd, but it didn’t upset him.
Dr. Strub administered an MRI, which allowed him to collect images from inside Robert’s cranium. Deep inside his skull, near the center of Robert’s head, he saw a small shadow, evidence that burst vessels had caused a tiny amount of blood to pool temporarily inside a part of Robert’s brain known as the striatum. Such injuries, in rare cases, can cause brain damage or mood swings. But except for the listlessness, there was little in Robert’s behavior to suggest that he was suffering any neurological disability.
A year later, Dr. Strub submitted an article to the Archives of Neurology.2 Robert’s “behavior change was characterized by apathy and lack of motivation,” he wrote. “He has given up his hobbies and fails to make timely decisions in his work. He knows what actions are required in his business, yet he procrastinates and leaves details unattended. Depression is not present.” The cause of this passivity, Dr. Strub suggested, was the slight damage in his brain, which had possibly been triggered by Bolivia’s altitude. Even that, however, was uncertain. “It is possible that the hemorrhages are coincidental and that the high altitude played no physiologic role.”
It was an interesting but ultimately inconclusive case, Dr. Strub wrote.
Over the next two decades, a handful of other studies appeared in medical journals. There was the sixty-year-old professor who experienced a rapid “decrease in interest.” He had been an expert in his field with a fierce work ethic. Then, one day, he simply stopped. “I just lack spirit, energy,” he told his physician. “I have no go. I must force myself to get up in the morning.”3
There was a nineteen-year-old woman who had fallen briefly unconscious after a carbon monoxide leak and then seemed to lose motivation for the most basic tasks. She would sit in one position all day unless forced to move. Her father learned he couldn’t leave her alone, as a neurologist wrote, when she “was found by her parents with heavy sunburns on the beach at the very same place where she laid down several hours before, under an umbrella: intense inertia had prevented her from changing her position with that of the shadow while the sun had turned around.”
There was a retired police officer who began waking up “late in the morning, would not wash unless urged to do so, but meekly complied as soon as his wife asked him to. Then he would sit in his armchair, from which he would not move.” There was a middle-aged man who was stung by a wasp and, not long after, lost the desire to interact with his wife, children, and business associates.
In the late 1980s, a French neurologist in Marseille named Michel Habib heard about a few of these cases, became intrigued, and started searching archives and journals for similar stories. The studies he found were rare but consistent: A relative would bring a patient in for an examination, complaining of a sudden change in behavior and passivity. Doctors would find nothing medically wrong. The patients scored normally when tested for mental illness. They had moderate to high IQs and appeared physically healthy. None of them said they felt depressed or complained about their apathy.
Habib began contacting the physicians treating these patients and asked them to collect MRIs. He then discovered another commonality: All the apathetic individuals had tiny pinpricks of burst vessels in their striatum, the same place where Robert had a small shadow inside his skull.
The striatum serves as a kind of central dispatch for the brain, relaying commands from areas like the prefrontal cortex, where decisions are made, to an older part of our neurology, the basal ganglia, where movement and emotions emerge.4 Neurologists believe the striatum helps translate decisions into action and plays an important role in regulating our moods.5 The damage from the burst vessels inside the apathetic patients’ striata was small—too small, some of Habib’s colleagues said, to explain their behavior changes. Beyond those pinpricks, however, Habib could find nothing else to explain why their motivation had disappeared.6
Neurologists have long been interested in striatal injuries because the striatum is involved in Parkinson’s disease.7 But whereas Parkinson’s often causes tremors, a loss of physical control, and depression, the patients Habib studied only seemed to lose their drive. “Parkinsonians have trouble initiating movement,” Habib told me. “But the apathetic patients had no problems with motion. It’s just that they had no desire to move.” The nineteen-year-old woman who couldn’t be left alone at the beach, for example, was able to clean her room, wash the dishes, fold the laundry, and follow recipes when instructed to do so by her mother. However, if she wasn’t asked to help, she wouldn’t move all day. When her mother inquired what she wanted for dinner, the woman said she had no preferences.
When examined by doctors, Habib wrote, the apathetic sixty-year-old professor would “stay motionless and speechless during endless periods, sitting in front of the examiner, waiting for the first question.” When asked to describe his work, he could discuss complicated ideas and quote papers from memory. Then he would lapse back into silence until another question was posed.
None of the patients Habib studied responded to medications, and none seemed to improve with counseling. “Patients demonstrate a more or less total indifference to life events that would normally provoke an emotional response, positive or negative,” Habib wrote.
“It was as if the part of their brain where motivation lives, where élan vital is stored, had completely disappeared,” he told me. “There were no negative thoughts, there were no positive thoughts. There were no thoughts at all. They hadn’t become less intelligent or less aware of the world. Their old personalities were still inside, but there was a total absence of drive or momentum. Their motivation was completely gone.”
The room where the experiment was conducted at the University of Pittsburgh was painted a cheery yellow and contained an fMRI machine, a computer monitor, and a smiling researcher who looked too young to have a PhD. All participants in the study were welcomed into the room, asked to remove their jewelry and any metal from their pockets, and then told to lie on a plastic table that slid into the fMRI.
Once lying down, they could see a computer screen.8 The researcher explained that a number between one and nine was going to appear on the monitor. Before that number appeared, participants had to guess if it was going to be higher or lower than five by pressing various buttons. There would be multiple rounds of guessing, the researcher said. There was no skill involved in this game, he explained. No abilities were being tested. And though he didn’t mention this to the participants, the researcher thought this was one of the most boring games in existence. In fact, he had explicitly designed it that way.
The truth was, the researcher, Mauricio Delgado, didn’t care if participants guessed right or wrong. Rather, he was interested in understanding which parts of their brains became active as they played an intensely dull game. As they made their guesses, the fMRI was recording the activity inside their skulls. Delgado wanted to identify where the neurological sensations of excitement and anticipation—where motivation—originated. Delgado told participants they could quit whenever they wanted. Yet he knew, from prior experience, that people would make guess after guess, sometimes for hours, as they waited to see if they had guessed wrong or right.
Each participant lay inside the machine and watched the screen intently. They hit buttons and made predictions. Some cheered when they won or moaned when they lost. Delgado, monitoring the activity inside of their heads, saw that people’s striata—that central dispatch—lit up with activity whenever participants played, regardless of the outcome. This kind of striatal activity, Delgado knew, was associated with emotional reactions—in particular, with feelings of expectation and excitement.9
As Delgado was finishing one session, a participant asked if he could continue playing on his own, at home.
“I don’t think that’s possible,” Delgado told him, explaining that the game only existed on his computer. Besides, he said, letting the man in on a secret, the experiment was rigged. To make sure the game was consistent from person to person, Delgado had programmed the computer so that everyone won the first round, lost the second, won the third, lost the fourth, and so on, in a predetermined pattern. The outcome had been determined ahead of time. It was like betting on a two-headed quarter.
“That’s okay,” the man replied. “I don’t mind. I just like to play.”
“It was odd,” Delgado told me later. “There’s no reason he should have wanted to continue playing once he knew it was rigged. I mean, where’s the fun in a rigged game? Your choices have no impact. But it took me five minutes to convince him he didn’t want to take the game home.”
For days afterward, Delgado kept thinking about that man. Why had this game interested him so much? For that matter, why had it entertained so many other participants? The experiment’s data had helped Delgado identify which parts of people’s brains became active as they played a guessing game, but the data didn’t explain why they were motivated to play in the first place.
So a few years later, Delgado set up another experiment. A new set of participants was recruited. Like before, there was a guessing game. This time, however, there was a key difference: Half the time, participants were allowed to make their own guesses; the rest of the time, the computer guessed for them.10
As people began playing, Delgado watched the activity in their striata. This time, when people were allowed to make their own choices, their brains lit up just like in the previous experiment. They showed the neurological equivalents of anticipation and excitement. But during those rounds when participants didn’t have any control over their guesses, when the computer made a choice for them, people’s striata went essentially silent. It was as if their brains became uninterested in the exercise. There was “robust activity in the caudate nucleus only when subjects” were permitted to guess, Delgado and his colleagues later wrote. “The anticipation of choice itself was associated with increased activity in corticostriatal regions, particularly the ventral striatum, involved in affective and motivational processes.”
What’s more, when Delgado asked participants about their perceptions of the game afterward, they said they enjoyed themselves much more when they were in control of their choices. They cared whether they won or lost. When the computer was in charge, they said, the experiment felt like an assignment. They got bored and wanted it to end.
That didn’t make sense to Delgado. The odds of winning or losing were exactly the same regardless of whether the participant or the computer was in control. Allowing someone to make a guess, rather than waiting for a computer to make a guess for them, shouldn’t have made any real difference in the experience of the game. People’s neurological reactions should have been the same either way. But, somehow, allowing people to make choices transformed the game. Instead of being a chore, the experiment became a challenge. Participants were more motivated to play simply because they believed they were in control.11
In recent decades, as the economy has shifted and large companies promising lifelong employment have given way to freelance jobs and migratory careers, understanding motivation has become increasingly important. In 1980, more than 90 percent of the American workforce reported to a boss.12 Today more than a third of working Americans are freelancers, contractors, or in otherwise transitory positions.13 The workers who have succeeded in this new economy are those who know how to decide for themselves how to spend their time and allocate their energy.14 They understand how to set goals, prioritize tasks, and make choices about which projects to pursue. People who know how to self-motivate, according to studies, earn more money than their peers, report higher levels of happiness, and say they are more satisfied with their families, jobs, and lives.
Self-help books and leadership manuals often portray self-motivation as a static feature of our personality or the outcome of a neurological calculus in which we subconsciously compare efforts versus rewards. But scientists say motivation is more complicated than that. Motivation is more like a skill, akin to reading or writing, that can be learned and honed. Scientists have found that people can get better at self-motivation if they practice the right way. The trick, researchers say, is realizing that a prerequisite to motivation is believing we have authority over our actions and surroundings. To motivate ourselves, we must feel like we are in control.
“The need for control is a biological imperative,” a group of Columbia University psychologists wrote in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences in 2010.15 When people believe they are in control, they tend to work harder and push themselves more. They are, on average, more confident and overcome setbacks faster.16 People who believe they have authority over themselves often live longer than their peers.17 This instinct for control is so central to how our brains develop that infants, once they learn to feed themselves, will resist adults’ attempts at control even if submission is more likely to get food into their mouths.18
One way to prove to ourselves that we are in control is by making decisions. “Each choice—no matter how small—reinforces the perception of control and self-efficacy,” the Columbia researchers wrote. Even if making a decision delivers no benefit, people still want the freedom to choose.19 “Animals and humans demonstrate a preference for choice over non-choice, even when that choice confers no additional reward,” Delgado noted in a paper published in the journal Psychological Science in 2011.20
From these insights, a theory of motivation has emerged: The first step in creating drive is giving people opportunities to make choices that provide them with a sense of autonomy and self-determination.21 In experiments, people are more motivated to complete difficult tasks when those chores are presented as decisions rather than commands. That’s one of the reasons why your cable company asks all those questions when you sign up for service. If they ask if you prefer a paperless bill to an itemized statement, or the ultra package versus the platinum lineup, or HBO to Showtime, you’re more likely to be motivated to pay the bill each month. As long as we feel a sense of control, we’re more willing to play along.
“You know when you’re stuck in traffic on the freeway and you see an exit approaching, and you want to take it even though you know it’ll probably take longer to get home?” said Delgado. “That’s our brains getting excited by the possibility of taking control. You won’t get home any faster, but it feels better because you feel like you’re in charge.”
This is a useful lesson for anyone hoping to motivate themselves or others, because it suggests an easy method for triggering the will to act: Find a choice, almost any choice, that allows you to exert control. If you are struggling to answer a tedious stream of emails, decide to reply to one from the middle of your in-box. If you’re trying to start an assignment, write the conclusion first, or start by making the graphics, or do whatever’s most interesting to you. To find the motivation to confront an unpleasant employee, choose where the meeting is going to occur. To start the next sales call, decide what question you’ll ask first.
Motivation is triggered by making choices that demonstrate to ourselves that we are in control. The specific choice we make matters less than the assertion of control. It’s this feeling of self-determination that gets us going. That’s why Delgado’s participants were willing to play again and again when they felt like they were in charge.
Which is not to say that motivation is, therefore, always easy. In fact, sometimes simply making a choice isn’t enough. Occasionally, to really self-motivate, we need something more.
After Eric Quintanilla signed his name to the form that officially made him a U.S. Marine, the recruiter shook his hand, looked him in the eye, and said he had made the right choice.
“It’s the only one I see for myself, sir,” Quintanilla replied. He had meant the words to sound bold and confident, but his voice quavered when he spoke and his hand was so sweaty that both of them wiped their palms on their pants afterward.
Quintanilla was twenty-three years old. Five years earlier, he had graduated from high school in a small town an hour south of Chicago. He had thought about going away to college, but he wasn’t certain what to study, wasn’t positive what he wanted to do afterward—wasn’t sure about much, to be honest. So he enrolled at a local community college and got an associate’s degree in general studies. He had hoped it would help him get a job at a cellphone store in the mall. “I filled out, I don’t know, like ten applications,” Quintanilla said. “But I never heard back from anyone.”
He found part-time work at a hobby supply shop and occasionally drove an ice truck when the regular guy was sick or on vacation. At night, he played World of Warcraft. This wasn’t how Quintanilla had envisioned his life. He was ready for something better. He decided to propose to the girl he had been dating since high school. The wedding was fantastic. Afterward, though, he was still in the same place. And then his wife got pregnant. He tried the cellphone stores once more and scored an interview. He rehearsed with his wife the night before his appointment.
“Honey,” she told him, “you have to give them a reason to hire you. Just tell them what you’re excited about.”
The next day, when the store manager asked him why he wanted to sell T-Mobile phones, Quintanilla froze. “I don’t know,” he said. It was the truth. He had no idea.
A few weeks later, Quintanilla went to a party and saw one of his former classmates, freshly home from basic training and twenty pounds lighter, with bulging muscles and a newfound sense of confidence. He was telling jokes and hitting on girls. Maybe, Quintanilla said to his wife the next morning, he should consider the Marines. She didn’t like the idea, and neither did his mom, but Quintanilla couldn’t think of anything else to do. He sat down one night at the kitchen table, drew a line down the center of a piece of paper, wrote “Marine Corps” on the left side and tried to fill the right with other options. The only thing he could come up with was “Get promoted at the hobby store.”
Five months later, he arrived at the San Diego Marine Corps Recruit Depot in the middle of the night, shuffled into a room alongside eighty other young men, had his head shaved, his blood type tested, his clothes replaced with fatigues, and embarked on a new life.22
The thirteen-week boot camp Quintanilla entered in 2010 was a relatively new experiment in the Corps’ 235-year-old quest to manufacture the perfect marine. For most of its history, the service’s training program had focused on molding rowdy teenagers into disciplined troops. But fifteen years before Quintanilla’s enlistment, a fifty-three-year-old general named Charles C. Krulak had been promoted to commandant, the Marines’ top position. Krulak believed basic training needed to change. “We were seeing much weaker applicants,” he told me. “A lot of these kids didn’t just need discipline, they needed a mental makeover. They’d never belonged to a sports team, they’d never had a real job, they’d never done anything. They didn’t even have the vocabulary for ambition. They’d followed instructions their whole life.”23
This was a problem, because the Corps increasingly needed troops who could make independent decisions. Marines—as they will happily tell you—are different from soldiers and sailors. “We’re the first to arrive and the last to leave,” Krulak said. “We need extreme self-starters.” In today’s world, that means the Corps requires men and women capable of fighting in places such as Somalia and Baghdad, where rules and tactics change unpredictably and marines often have to decide—on their own and in real time—the best course of action.24
“I began spending time with psychologists and psychiatrists, trying to figure out, how do we do a better job teaching these recruits to think for themselves?” Krulak said. “We had great recruits coming in, but they didn’t have any sense of direction or drive. All they knew was doing the bare minimum. It was like working with a bunch of wet socks. Marines can’t be wet socks.”
Krulak began reviewing studies on how to teach self-motivation, and became particularly intrigued by research, conducted by the Corps years earlier, showing that the most successful marines were those with a strong “internal locus of control”—a belief they could influence their destiny through the choices they made.25
Locus of control has been a major topic of study within psychology since the 1950s.26 Researchers have found that people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves for success or failure, rather than assigning responsibility to things outside their influence. A student with a strong internal locus of control, for instance, will attribute good grades to hard work, rather than natural smarts. A salesman with an internal locus of control will blame a lost sale on his own lack of hustle, rather than bad fortune.
“Internal locus of control has been linked with academic success, higher self-motivation and social maturity, lower incidences of stress and depression, and longer life span,” a team of psychologists wrote in the journal Problems and Perspectives in Management in 2012. People with an internal locus of control tend to earn more money, have more friends, stay married longer, and report greater professional success and satisfaction.
In contrast, having an external locus of control—believing that your life is primarily influenced by events outside your control—“is correlated with higher levels of stress, [often] because an individual perceives the situation as beyond his or her coping abilities,” the team of psychologists wrote.
Studies show that someone’s locus of control can be influenced through training and feedback. One experiment conducted in 1998, for example, presented 128 fifth graders with a series of difficult puzzles.27 Afterward, each student was told they had scored very well. Half of them were also told, “You must have worked hard at these problems.” Telling fifth graders they have worked hard has been shown to activate their internal locus of control, because hard work is something we decide to do. Complimenting students for hard work reinforces their belief that they have control over themselves and their surroundings.
The other half of the students were also informed they had scored well, and then told, “You must be really smart at these problems.” Complimenting students on their intelligence activates an external locus of control. Most fifth graders don’t believe they can choose how smart they are. In general, young kids think that intelligence is an innate capacity, so telling young people they are smart reinforces their belief that success or failure is based on factors outside of their control.
Then all the students were invited to work on three more puzzles of varying difficulty.
The students who had been praised for their intelligence—who had been primed to think in terms of things they could not influence—were much more likely to focus on the easier puzzles during the second round of play, even though they had been complimented for being smart. They were less motivated to push themselves. They later said the experiment wasn’t much fun.
In contrast, students who had been praised for their hard work—who were encouraged to frame the experience in terms of self-determination—went to the hard puzzles. They worked longer and scored better. They later said they had a great time.
“Internal locus of control is a learned skill,” Carol Dweck, the Stanford psychologist who helped conduct that study, told me.28 “Most of us learn it early in life. But some people’s sense of self-determination gets suppressed by how they grow up, or experiences they’ve had, and they forget how much influence they can have on their own lives.
“That’s when training is helpful, because if you put people in situations where they can practice feeling in control, where that internal locus of control is reawakened, then people can start building habits that make them feel like they’re in charge of their own lives—and the more they feel that way, the more they really are in control of themselves.”29
For Krulak, studies like this seemed to hold the key to teaching recruits self-motivation. If he could redesign basic training to force trainees to take control of their own choices, that impulse might become more automatic, he hoped. “Today we call it teaching ‘a bias toward action,’” Krulak told me. “The idea is that once recruits have taken control of a few situations, they start to learn how good it feels.
“We never tell anyone they’re a natural-born leader. ‘Natural born’ means it’s outside your control,” Krulak said. “Instead, we teach them that leadership is learned, it’s the product of effort. We push recruits to experience that thrill of taking control, of feeling the rush of being in charge. Once we get them addicted to that, they’re hooked.”
For Quintanilla, this tutorial started as soon as he arrived. Initially, there were long days of forced marches, endless sit-ups and push-ups, and tedious rifle drills. Instructors screamed at him constantly. (“We’ve got an image to uphold,” Krulak told me.) But alongside those exercises, Quintanilla also confronted a steady stream of situations that forced him to make decisions and take control.
In his fourth week of training, for instance, Quintanilla’s platoon was told to clean the mess hall. The recruits had no idea how. They didn’t know where the cleaning supplies were located or how the industrial dishwasher worked. Lunch had just ended and they weren’t sure if they were supposed to wrap the leftovers or throw them away. Whenever someone approached a drill instructor for advice, all he received was a scowl. So the platoon began making choices. The potato salad got tossed, the leftover hamburgers went into the fridge, and the dishwasher was loaded with so much detergent that suds soon covered the floor. It took three and a half hours, including the time spent mopping up the bubbles, for the platoon to finish cleaning the mess hall. They mistakenly threw away edible food, accidentally turned off the ice cream freezer, and somehow managed to misplace two dozen forks. When they were done, however, their drill instructor approached the smallest, shyest member of the platoon and said he had noticed how the recruit had asserted himself when a decision was needed on where to put the ketchup. In truth, it was pretty obvious where the ketchup should have gone. There was a huge set of shelves containing nothing but ketchup bottles.30 But the shy recruit beamed as he was praised.
“I hand out a number of compliments, and all of them are designed to be unexpected,” said Sergeant Dennis Joy, a thoroughly intimidating drill instructor who showed me around the Recruit Depot one day. “You’ll never get rewarded for doing what’s easy for you. If you’re an athlete, I’ll never compliment you on a good run. Only the small guy gets congratulated for running fast. Only the shy guy gets recognized for stepping into a leadership role. We praise people for doing things that are hard. That’s how they learn to believe they can do them.”
A.M.31