My mate Ryan sent this my way. Great talk:
I'd seen some of this science before, I might've read the original paper. It's good and interesting stuff, I love this topic. And the animation on this particular video was really cool and beautiful.
I like building organizations along those lines - a great purpose on an individual and organizational level, autonomy and great amounts of freedom to get to agreed upon objectives however people want, and lots of opportunities to learn, grow, and excel. It's the kind of place I like to work, and I like managing at the kind of place I like to work.
But then I had another thought - how much is this is universally applicable, and how much of it is good because it goes largely against the grain? See, the studies he cited are interesting, but I imagine there's a certain type of person who is incredibly motivated by financial concerns, perhaps that sort of person sees more money as unlocking autonomy, mastery, and purpose - if someone already has a distinct, driving, enduring meaning for their life, then more money could well translate directly into more of their purpose, more mastery, and more autonomy.
So I thought - if I enter a traditional industry, I'm going to be focusing on building a great organization, culture, and so on. However, if I enter into an industry where it's all about fulfillment that pays undermarket rates, I'm going to gun to have the highest pay and recruit everyone who that appeals to. Either way, I think the organization is going to kick ass. I'm thinking there's lots of moderate-sized wins by looking at how people are doing things and doing the normal path well, but the biggest wins almost always come from finding a way to make the opposite work.