DRIVEN: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices

Citation

MacDonald, M. (2002), "DRIVEN: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 538-540. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm.2002.15.5.538.1

What drives people as human beings? This is the basic question that Lawrence and Nohria seek to answer in their book Driven. The answer, according to these two Harvard business school professors, can only be found in combining the traditionally separate scientific disciplines of biology, sociology, psychology and anthropology with economics. Inspired by E.O. Wilson’s Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, which recommended a unification of knowledge, and intrigued by the failure of capitalism in post‐communist Russia, Lawrence and Nohria became convinced that humans are not rational maximizers of self‐interest as traditional economics has always taught. Humans are far more complex but, fortunately, their motivations can be distilled into four basic groups or drives: the drive to acquire, the drive to bond, the drive to learn and the drive to defend. These four drives are rooted in evolutionary biology.

The human mind, and more basically the biology of the brain, provides the initiation of the drive analysis. A quick overview of the division of brain function and some anecdotal and fascinating stories around the resulting personality impacts of brain injury establishes some data for the theory that personality is centred in certain biological areas of the brain and therefore has evolved along with the rest of the human being over time. Lawrence and Nohria hypothesize that the four drives have evolved to act as a set of decision guides. These guides partially steer human reasoning and decision making as well as perceiving and remembering. The theory is intriguing and creative and, although it is hard to imagine the complexity of humanity broken into four innate motivations, I admire the audacity of combining so many frames into a single view.

The drive to acquire is defined as the drive to seek, take, control and retain objects and personal experiences that humans value. This drive is rooted in the basic need to survive and to acquire goods such as food, fluid, shelter and sex. Humans always want more. Dismissing a Freudian basis for the drive to acquire, Lawrence and Nohria weave a link between the rational maximizer of Adam Smith’s economics and data that suggest that humans will sometimes act in other than their rational self‐interest. They suggest that these innate motivations are rooted in biological evolution. Stretching the credibility of the theory, they cite Robert Frank’s example of obese US citizens who eat in a fashion which is not in their self‐interest. Frank says this is genetically rooted in the starving tribes of our ancestors. However, the link between the drive to acquire and organizational short‐term thinking bears further thought. Despite the weakness of genetic arguments, this drive’s role in competition is a compelling and interesting read.

The drive to bond is defined as a drive to form social relationships and develop mutual caring commitments with other humans that, in fact, is fulfilled only when the attachment is mutual. This drive tempers rational self‐interest with such sentiments as fairness, generosity, compassion and caring. The genetic root of this drive is natural selection and mate selection. Quoting a number of evolutionary biologist theorists, the authors create a plausible argument for the genetic basis of bonding for survival. The drive to bond is a prerequisite for human development. The drive to bond operating with the drive to acquire creates the mix of competition and cooperation. The drives working together can fuel competition (i.e. growth and acquisition) and conflict. In addition morality is rooted in this drive, and a number of credible sources are quoted to support the theory of a universal morality across cultures which would seem to indicate a genetic basis. The discussion of the dark side of the drive to bond as genocide seems more of a leap of faith than a scientific discourse, but overall the drive to bond is well identified as genetically based and a basic motivator.

The last two drives discussed are the drive to learn, defined as an innate drive to satisfy curiosity, to know, to comprehend, to believe, to appreciate. The drive to defend, on the other hand, is a negative and very old, but overwhelming, need to defend accomplishments and territory. Following the pattern established with the first two drives, this book outlines a genetic basis for these drives; the drive to learn, for instance, is supported by the universality of religion. The theory continues to develop the source of the drives and the independence of the drives since the goals they seek are not interchangeable although they are interactive. Lawrence and Nohria conclude their outline of the four drives by stating that although the base of this view of humanity is genetic, the drives’ independence has served to increase the influence of culture in determining what drives people select as they make choices.

Once the drives are described, the book discusses the sources of diversity despite the universality of these four drives, which links a number of different sciences. The discussion is a fascinating, if somewhat confusing, one as the reader moves through various views of the world through history to modern times, weaving social sciences through biology to a basic discussion about what human beings see as beauty. At the conclusion of this section, I was left looking for more data and more stories and intrigued as to where this theory could take a student of humanity.

The last chapter attempts to describe an organization which is aware of the four drives and how it might operate to engage the drives at the most appropriate time. This discussion lacks the passion and conviction of the earlier chapters, and I was left wishing it had been left to another book since it was not as well documented or thought out.

Lawrence and Nohria have created a very intriguing theory, which is well documented and eminently readable. It opens the door for more thinking on what part of human nature is derived and what is created. It goes beyond the rational maximizer theories into tribal jungles, through historical settings into modern organizations. In addition, the weaving of a number of scientific frames tugs at the imagination with the potential to achieve great insights if only there was a little deeper discussion. I am left wanting more yet unsure whether I will be convinced. That is compelling.