I agree with the post on the fact that autonomy is not always an applicable motivator for the employees, but it is not solely due to variations among people. I would like to add that the speaker’s statements about autonomy and mastery being better motivators for positions with some cognitive input are false (TED, 2009). While I was watching Dan Pink’s TED talk, several ideas came to me about a particular set of jobs. For example, a call center operator cannot be considered a mechanical work because it involves cognitive input and some form of creativity to communicate with a wide range of different customers. They might have specific templates or script formats, but communication is not a mechanical endeavor. However, one cannot provide autonomy to such positions since they need to be available to receive calls, which makes autonomy a poor motivator. Another example includes nurses and doctors who work in healthcare. They cannot be motivated by autonomy because of a number of reasons, such as patient safety, regulations, adherence to medical protocols, and the basic need to be available for patients at all times. However, no person can state that their work is purely mechanical with no need for cognitive skill.
Moreover, you properly pointed out that some motivational factors cannot be transferred from one position to another. However, your personal example is rather inapplicable to most jobs since you are COO, which is a high-end and prestigious position to hold. Therefore, being in such a top manager position is in itself a motivation, which does not need an organizational setup to invoke specific intrinsic motivators. It is important to consider that many workers are either working with no prospects for real growth or slowly progressing, and most of them are in low-end positions.
Reference
TED. (2009). The puzzle of motivation | Dan Pink [Video]. YouTube. Web.