> 76% of HPEs are not primarily motivated by money. "Primarily" is a pretty slippery word here. So they are motivated by money, but motivated more by mastery?

> 76% of HPEs are not primarily motivated by money. "Primarily" is a pretty slippery word here. So they are motivated by money, but motivated more by mastery? In that case, how much more? Is it close? Also, money has diminishing marginal utility. The first $50k of your salary is worth more than the next $50k, and so on. So how much are these people already compensated? If they are the top performers, chances are they are already the top earners too. How much do you have to earn before marginal mastery is worth more than marginal money? Finally, how do you make this actionable when hiring? If you offer me more salary, I fully trust I will receive it. If you promise me greater mastery (or autonomy, challenge, better peers, making-the-world-a-better-place, etc), I will tell myself that everyone says that. Anyway, I've learned that good work is correlated with good salary, so seeking high compensation is a trustworthy proxy for seeking better mastery. As an employer, how would you answer that? Of course there is also the question, To make his comparison, how is motivation even quantified and measured? The truth is his whole survey is suspect, but it's interesting nonetheless to see what a willing suspension of disbelief leads to.