5 ms·

What a weird setup for a false dichotomy. > My latest data shows that 76% of HPEs are not primarily motivated by money. But why? When you come across a peculi

What a weird setup for a false dichotomy. > My latest data shows that 76% of HPEs are not primarily motivated by money. But why? When you come across a peculiar result, "But why?" shouldn't be the first question you ask. Maybe more like "What have I missed? What am I not accounting for? What am I conflating or grouping together? What assumptions did I make, and did I allow my respondents to make any implicit assumptions?" Did the author ask what the cutoff is for money? Is it non-zero? Is he suggesting that his data shows that 76% of HPEs would rather be starving artists with great recognition? Or is there an implied "gobs of money" that's already on the table? I'm guessing the latter. There is no acknowledgement that "not motivated by money" and "not motivated by more money" are two very different things. The way he phrased the question, there's no way to parse out what's implied. He simply asked: > Are you motivated more by mastery of skill/craft, or motivated more by earning money? Lots of people may answer one or the other for very disparate reasons. > The mysteries are hard to explain. Or maybe the author crafted the same poor questions that usually fill these surveys. The data he gathered is probably useless. There are no profound mysteries here. Just the average tea leaves reading. > an HPE’s connection to their trade resembles more a mysterious spiritual illumination and growing devotion than it does an evolution of practical decisions aimed in a concise direction. Tea leaves.

kough 10y ago
> There is no acknowledgement that "not motivated by money" and "not motivated by more money" are two very different things. Exactly what I came here to comment. Once you're guaranteed to make no less than $X00,000/year, of course you'd start thinking about the work itself.
walshemj 10y ago
And when you ask this sort of question people will lie about how important the say money is.
- beefield 10y ago
  My understanding is there is actual behavioral research on some of these kind of claims. An entertaining video (which does note that money is not completely irrelevant. After certain point it is just not that important motivating factor) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Yes. Whenever you're collecting feedback from a person (or group of people), their own self-image and ego is by far the most important factor in their responses. It would not even be considered a lie by most. There's just not necessarily any relationship between their self-conception and reality. People are terrible at assessing their own motives (and from this arises marketing, whose goal is to program the target to believe they desire a specific product/brand). Most people do not see themselves as greedy, and I would guess the respondents to this survey are not in dire financial straits, so they wouldn't make an exceptional circumstance override for themselves (assuming they're the type who'd take such a survey seriously enough to consider that in the first place). The question, essentially, can be interpreted as "Do you consider yourself noble or non-noble?" Of course, most people consider themselves noble. This same ego-driven self-narrative is the reason that someone can take a lot of hollabaloo, dress it up in gaudy language, throw in some charts and equations to support the pre-conception, and get people to believe it's insightful and credible.
- js8 10y ago
  Can you not lie (in the sense of not being honest, not in the Smullyan's sense) to the question "are you motivated by money"? If I answer no, regardless of the truth, I open myself to be treated unfairly compared to people who answer yes.
JamesBarney 10y ago
Also people lie. I imagine that lots of people who say they aren't motivated by money would also leave their company for more money.(some for a little more money, and some for a lot more money)
- Nadya 10y ago
  Leaving for more money is not the same as not being motivated by money. If they can make more money for doing the same/similar work it's a matter of weighing any tradeoffs (relocating, potential job stability, etc.) In fact, those variables will be the ones affecting whether that's "a little more money" or "a lot more money". Assuming there aren't other issues - "make more money for doing something you're already doing" is a no-brainer option to take without having any ties to the motivation of their work. I enjoy what I do and spend time improving myself not out of motivations for a raise (though that'd still be nice) but because I want to improve myself and enjoy it. But if I was offered double my current salary it'd be tough to refuse. If offered triple my current salary - my bags would already be packed.
Falling3 10y ago
Alternative headline: "76% of HPEs are paid well enough to not be motivated by money" I think what this idea really misses is that there's a difference between being intrinsically motivated by money and being motivated by as a result of one's current financial situation.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > Alternative headline: "76% of HPEs are paid well enough to not be motivated by money" At least in my case, it's more that I'm willing to accept investment in human capital (my skill set growing) in lieu of cash. I do expect that investment to pay off in future returns of some sort (job security, future salary). It's not that I don't care about salary anymore.
- simonsarris 10y ago
  I guess. But if we're taking stabs at conclusions, you could also say something like: "Only 76% of high performance employees feel they are compensated adequately [enough to no longer be motivated by money]." Suddenly we're writing an article about how a quarter of high performers feeling like they're getting a raw deal, instead of writing about transcendental work.
antisthenes 10y ago
> The mysteries are hard to explain. Ah, yes. The mysteries. They are indeed hard to explain if the author is illiterate in Economics, like most people are (which isn't something to be ashamed of) Fortunately for us, the mysteries are easily explained by taking a sophomore course in intermediate microeconomics and reading over just 1 lecture: http://mirceatrandafir.com/teaching/econ306/Chapter_05_6spp.pdf http://mirceatrandafir.com/teaching/econ306/Chapter_05_6spp.... The important part: > More realistic case: labor supply curve bends back (substitution effect dominates at low wage rates and income effect dominates at high wage rates) It turns out that most people start valuing things other than money, ONCE a certain level of wage has been reached. Other studies suggest that the level is somewhere around $70,000, with corrections for the cost of living. No mysteries here at all, and probably one of the more solved and trivial problems in Economics in general.
- iamacynic 10y ago
  a very important point is that 70k point is probably very variable, but exists somewhere in everyone except for the truly exceptional billionaire types. personally i always need a sports car because i'm a gearhead, so maybe mine is a bit higher, but it surely is there.
js8 10y ago
> There is no acknowledgement that "not motivated by money" and "not motivated by more money" are two very different things. Not only that, but also, I think, personally, I am more motivated by fairness rather than by specific amount of money. I could imagine myself working for 30% less with no complains, but if you're going to give that slacker over there a 10% more than what I get, I will be unhappy. Curiously, this never appeared in any questionnaire that I had to fill in asking about my motivation. And note to the author: Please, don't "optimize corporate environments for the High-Performance Employee", in fact don't optimize at all, just let the people who know what they are doing to work. I am sure there is a more useful way you can contribute to the society.
elevensies 10y ago
Another thing, if you believe you can get paid for high performance, then money is the effect and not the cause. Work that doesn't allow you to maintain your skill level will cut off your future earnings, regardless of whether it is high or low pay in the present.

kough 10y ago

> There is no acknowledgement that "not motivated by money" and "not motivated by more money" are two very different things. Exactly what I came here to comment. Once you're guaranteed to make no less than $X00,000/year, of course you'd start thinking about the work itself.

walshemj 10y ago

And when you ask this sort of question people will lie about how important the say money is.

beefield 10y ago
My understanding is there is actual behavioral research on some of these kind of claims. An entertaining video (which does note that money is not completely irrelevant. After certain point it is just not that important motivating factor) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
cookiecaper 10y ago
Yes. Whenever you're collecting feedback from a person (or group of people), their own self-image and ego is by far the most important factor in their responses. It would not even be considered a lie by most. There's just not necessarily any relationship between their self-conception and reality. People are terrible at assessing their own motives (and from this arises marketing, whose goal is to program the target to believe they desire a specific product/brand). Most people do not see themselves as greedy, and I would guess the respondents to this survey are not in dire financial straits, so they wouldn't make an exceptional circumstance override for themselves (assuming they're the type who'd take such a survey seriously enough to consider that in the first place). The question, essentially, can be interpreted as "Do you consider yourself noble or non-noble?" Of course, most people consider themselves noble. This same ego-driven self-narrative is the reason that someone can take a lot of hollabaloo, dress it up in gaudy language, throw in some charts and equations to support the pre-conception, and get people to believe it's insightful and credible.
js8 10y ago
Can you not lie (in the sense of not being honest, not in the Smullyan's sense) to the question "are you motivated by money"? If I answer no, regardless of the truth, I open myself to be treated unfairly compared to people who answer yes.

JamesBarney 10y ago

Also people lie. I imagine that lots of people who say they aren't motivated by money would also leave their company for more money.(some for a little more money, and some for a lot more money)

Nadya 10y ago
Leaving for more money is not the same as not being motivated by money. If they can make more money for doing the same/similar work it's a matter of weighing any tradeoffs (relocating, potential job stability, etc.) In fact, those variables will be the ones affecting whether that's "a little more money" or "a lot more money". Assuming there aren't other issues - "make more money for doing something you're already doing" is a no-brainer option to take without having any ties to the motivation of their work. I enjoy what I do and spend time improving myself not out of motivations for a raise (though that'd still be nice) but because I want to improve myself and enjoy it. But if I was offered double my current salary it'd be tough to refuse. If offered triple my current salary - my bags would already be packed.

Falling3 10y ago

Alternative headline: "76% of HPEs are paid well enough to not be motivated by money" I think what this idea really misses is that there's a difference between being intrinsically motivated by money and being motivated by as a result of one's current financial situation.

humanrebar 10y ago
> Alternative headline: "76% of HPEs are paid well enough to not be motivated by money" At least in my case, it's more that I'm willing to accept investment in human capital (my skill set growing) in lieu of cash. I do expect that investment to pay off in future returns of some sort (job security, future salary). It's not that I don't care about salary anymore.
simonsarris 10y ago
I guess. But if we're taking stabs at conclusions, you could also say something like: "Only 76% of high performance employees feel they are compensated adequately [enough to no longer be motivated by money]." Suddenly we're writing an article about how a quarter of high performers feeling like they're getting a raw deal, instead of writing about transcendental work.

antisthenes 10y ago

> The mysteries are hard to explain. Ah, yes. The mysteries. They are indeed hard to explain if the author is illiterate in Economics, like most people are (which isn't something to be ashamed of) Fortunately for us, the mysteries are easily explained by taking a sophomore course in intermediate microeconomics and reading over just 1 lecture: http://mirceatrandafir.com/teaching/econ306/Chapter_05_6spp.pdf http://mirceatrandafir.com/teaching/econ306/Chapter_05_6spp.... The important part: > More realistic case: labor supply curve bends back (substitution effect dominates at low wage rates and income effect dominates at high wage rates) It turns out that most people start valuing things other than money, ONCE a certain level of wage has been reached. Other studies suggest that the level is somewhere around $70,000, with corrections for the cost of living. No mysteries here at all, and probably one of the more solved and trivial problems in Economics in general.

iamacynic 10y ago
a very important point is that 70k point is probably very variable, but exists somewhere in everyone except for the truly exceptional billionaire types. personally i always need a sports car because i'm a gearhead, so maybe mine is a bit higher, but it surely is there.

js8 10y ago

> There is no acknowledgement that "not motivated by money" and "not motivated by more money" are two very different things. Not only that, but also, I think, personally, I am more motivated by fairness rather than by specific amount of money. I could imagine myself working for 30% less with no complains, but if you're going to give that slacker over there a 10% more than what I get, I will be unhappy. Curiously, this never appeared in any questionnaire that I had to fill in asking about my motivation. And note to the author: Please, don't "optimize corporate environments for the High-Performance Employee", in fact don't optimize at all, just let the people who know what they are doing to work. I am sure there is a more useful way you can contribute to the society.

elevensies 10y ago

Another thing, if you believe you can get paid for high performance, then money is the effect and not the cause. Work that doesn't allow you to maintain your skill level will cut off your future earnings, regardless of whether it is high or low pay in the present.