13 ms·

I've been to management seminars where they downplay the importance of money, saying that employees are mostly motivated by other factors. Then I talk to my co-

• std_throwaway 10y ago
  Did they quit because they had a better offer elsewhere? Or did they quit because they increasingly felt they've become stuck, left behind and not valued highly by their employer?
  • Swizec 10y ago
    Money is a good way to tell me I'm valued.
    • PeterisP 10y ago
      And lack of money is a good way to definitely prove that you're not valued.
  • meheleventyone 10y ago
    I quit when I had a better offer elsewhere because I felt undervalued by my employer. I went from a local company with overseas offices paying poorly for my niche into an international company paying nearly double without even flinching at negotiation. That was eye opening to me as a signed up 'what matters is autonomy, mastery and purpose' guy. Not only that but the company matched salary raises to a local unions pay negotiations which meant that my until then roughly cost of living raises suddenly doubled. I also ended up getting an annual bonus bigger than I was contractually entitled too as well. All in I more than doubled my salary which let me do things like rebuild our family home. I realised that not only did I feel my work wasn't recognised at the previous company but they were actively taking the piss. I also realised that whilst I didn't do anything I did for the money reward (I genuinely felt this bonus scheme would have been as worthless as others) the actual monetary demonstration of value in raises and other rewards really makes your value apparent in a manner very meaningful to the rest of your life. I still think the competition for bonuses and raises can lead to all sorts of degenerate behaviour from the POV of the business and stress on an employee but I really see the absolute value of monetary rewards now when they appear out of your expectations.
• shados 10y ago
  raise doesn't always mean money. It's counterintuitive, but from my experience, it's more the act of being passed up or not cared about than the actual $$ count that matters. Like, you might still make less money than you would elsewhere, but if your employer at least makes an effort, people are much happier.
  • II2II 10y ago
    I suspect that the key thing is making an employee feel valued or valuable (based upon the employee's motivations) rather than making them happier. An employee that feels as though they are not valued by the company or feel as though they company does not feel that their contributions are valuable will probably see their job as insecure and will look for better opportunities.
• _yosefk 10y ago
  I'm guessing few would book a management consultant simply telling to pay people more money - consultants who want a job instead have to explain how to motivate for free. But the people who share a lot of the blame for this idiocy and who have no good excuse are "heterodox economists" and TED talk presenters telling us how money doesn't motivate people past a certain point, or how it actually makes people less creative, all supposedly to criticize "capitalism" but in fact to make the market work worse for employees who now actually have to argue with management that yes, money does motivate them, with the manager replying "I know it doesn't so tell me what's really bothering you" or what-not. I mean it's not like companies seek less profit having seen the TED talk, instead they learn that they can cut expenses by avoiding "needless" raises. Quite the heterodoxy, that.
  • beat 10y ago
    Money doesn't motivate people past, oh, a half million or so a year, maybe.
    • _yosefk 10y ago
      What also amazes me is that the same heterodox crowd critiquing capitalism goes on to say "money doesn't make you happy", citing surveys of millionaires and billionaires who all say they'd be happy with 2x-3x their current net worth! I mean, not necessarily the same people say it, but the same press outlets for sure. But if it doesn't make you happy and you always want more, that desire must motivate you, right? Make up your mind!
      • beat 10y ago
        Talk to some serial entrepreneurs. Many of them are already rich, and don't need to work, but they do it anyway. They're motivated by the challenge, not the money.
        • st3v3r 10y ago
          I'm sure, but the money definitely helps. If only because it enables them to do what they do.
• bbcbasic 10y ago
  Money is a factor - weighted differently for different people. E.g. person A generally wants to be happy in their job, but needs $100k to maintain their lifestyle, pay the mortgage, not worry about bills etc. If paid $100k they wouldn't jump ship. Later, person A has a baby. Well guess what happens next. Person B also wants to be happy in their job, but they also want to invest in stocks for an early retirement. They get an offer at a stressful trading job paying 3 times their current salary. They think it is worth it in the short term so they go for it.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• jcadam 10y ago
  My last job gave me a ~2% raise the first year and a ~1% the next. I left shortly thereafter. Should have left after the first lousy raise. The previous job gave me back-to-back 1% raises. Left that job after two years as well. Should have left at the one year mark. I've been in my current job a few months. I'll stick around till the first annual raise cycle to see how they treat me. I don't think I'll give this employer a second chance if they screw up the first one (Hint: if your raise doesn't at least cover inflation + offset the costs associated with your annual medical benefits cuts -- I consider it a pay cut, and I'm not going to be happy. In fact, getting a "Congratulations on your (1%) annual raise" email from corporate HR is probably not going to get the reaction you were anticipating). I actually had one employer that gave me an 8% raise at the two-year mark. So they got another year out of me (until the mass layoffs came).
  • battlebot 10y ago
    Don't hold your breath. Even superstars are fungible these days.
  • jventura 10y ago
    On my last job I had made a verbal deal with the previous CTO in which I would be raised in 6 months time after being hired. So after 6/7 months, I went to negotiate a raise with one of the owners and the product manager. I said explicitely that I was quite below market rate and would consider only a raise of at least 20%. The result? I was offered 2%-3%, to be discussed on the next annual review (still some months to go), and the PM said strictly that it would depend on my performance. That happened on a Friday, and I quit the job next Monday. My conclusion: never accept verbal agreements again..
    • paulddraper 10y ago
      > I had made a verbal deal with the previous CTO in which I would be raised in 6 months time after being hired > My conclusion: never accept verbal agreements again. Was the verbal agreement not honored? 2-3% after 6 months is not nothing.
• bubblesocks 10y ago
  The money myth is just something managers tell themselves to justify low wages. Money IS why we work. Yes, other factors are important, but I can't pay my mortgage or feed my family on company foosball tables and all-you-can-drink coffee.
  • patrickmay 10y ago
    As a head of sales I once worked with said "We're all coin operated."
  • taneq 10y ago
    Love of the job, professional pride, curiosity, ambition, etc. are why I work in this field. Money, perks and career progression are why I work at this company.
• sametmax 10y ago
  It's 100% true that people are motivated by other factors. But they are bound to money. Time passes and the life style change... A spouse, children, hobbies, a bigger house ? Money is not a good motivator for one's involvement in work. But it's a decisive factor to choose a work place because it's a limited and required resource.
• Spooky23 10y ago
  Money isn't important if you pay enough. If you treat people well on multiple dimensions, you can underpay them relative to their value.
• civility 10y ago
  Being motivated and not quitting are very different things. I like the work I do, and I work hard at it. However, other places have interesting problems too, and if I could find a place that pays me more than I make now, I'd jump.
• calchris42 10y ago
  It seems to me that the money question confounds two factors. As I recall (possibly incorrectly), studies find that increased pay doesn't correlate with increased work / productivity. That's probably true. If I'm working on a problem that I want to be working on, it would take relatively large swings in pay to motivate me to work more or less hard than I otherwise would. And yet I'd bet that money does have a significant correlation with retention and satisfaction. Perception of insufficient raises will certainly lead to dissatisfaction. Offer of meaningfully more money at a different job --> who wouldn't want that if the work is otherwise as good? So in other words, productivity != retention.
• dba7dba 10y ago
  > I've been to management seminars where they downplay the importance of money, saying that employees are mostly motivated by other factors Classic example of telling stories that the audience wants to hear? WHAT management consultant will tell CEOs that they need to pay their employees high enough salary to the point that they won't leave for another company? Don't mean to be a cynic, but it's all about money.
• stubish 10y ago
  The management seminar only told half the story. Money isn't a motivator for doing better work. Once people are being paid 'enough', the studies showed increasing pay lowered performance. The part they didn't mention is that money is a major factor in choosing who you do the work for. Of course you are going to haemorrhage employees if they get a much better deal to do the same job for someone else. Companies that pay more will get to pick the best people from the talent pool, who may perform worse due to being overpaid, but the company still comes out on top because underperforming top tier employees still perform better than the remainders working for a 'standard' salary. And thus wages are driven up in industries where talent is at a premium.
• analog31 10y ago
  I heard this story too, when I became a manager and received some training from the HR director, at a F500 company. The idea that people are not motivated by money was drilled into us. Yet I became a manager so I could make more money. I formed a number of impressions: 0. A caveat about the "studies" is that they typically start with workers who are already receiving market compensation. That little bit is always left out during the seminars. At the factory where I once worked, unskilled workers quit over a $0.25 per hour raise offered by a nearby factory. 1. Most HR personnel have psychology degrees, so they are trained to believe that people are motivated by psychology. Imagine if HR people all had economics degrees. For me, treating my fellow workers as homo economicus is a sign of respect, because as engineers we are paid to make rational economic decisions. 2. It's a bargaining strategy, intended to attach a social stigma to people who demand more money, and to make the money game more stressful for people by making you feel like an oddball. This is also why people are discouraged from discussing salary from one another -- divide and conquer. 3. They are also bargaining with their managers, i.e., telling me as a manager that I shouldn't ask to pay my people more -- divide and conquer. 4. Yet... I looked around and the managers who had the highest regard and most power in the department, were coincidentally also taking care of their people with promotions within the ranks (e.g., from junior to middle to senior), meaning that they played the salary game differently than what HR told us. In addition, because salary budgets for the work site are relatively inflexible, it's kind of a zero sum game, and more money for their employees meant less money for mine. I was competing with the other managers for salary budget. 5. I decided to compete hard. I somehow convinced my higher-up that my people were "special" and thus immune from stack ranking. This eliminated the zero percent raise in my group. I got one engineer a nice raise. I promoted two others, making them equal to me in rank. In practical terms, a promotion in between annual review cycles was a way to give someone a raise, since the money came out of a different pot. This kind of thing worked for a few years, then I started to run out of luck, and stopped being a manager. The people who I took care of are now some of the most valued and loyal employees.