5 ms·

"Incentives hurt productivity in creative activities." Unadulterated nonsense. On the one hand, I recall a cartoon-drawing presentation about school contests a

"Incentives hurt productivity in creative activities." Unadulterated nonsense. On the one hand, I recall a cartoon-drawing presentation about school contests and the like. On the other hand, there are these centuries and centuries of evidence that PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES, PERIOD. If you think that a company couldn't assemble a team of OUTSTANDING programmers by offering each $200k a year, you're crazy or stupid or both.

jshen 16y ago
"If you think that a company couldn't assemble a team of OUTSTANDING programmers by offering each $200k a year, you're crazy or stupid or both" This is simplistic and naive. Money isn't what motivates most programmers. I know this may be hard to understand for many people on HN, but it's true. Many of the best programmers I know are passionate about a specific area or two. Imagine going up to one of the jruby developers and saying "Hey, I think you should stop working on jruby and make an asp.net site with me and I'll pay you $200k". They're polite so they probably wouldn't laugh on the outside. The second major problem is the assumption that offering a lot of money will some how magically make it easy to identify good talent. It won't. The third problem is that most good programmers aren't looking for work. Offering more money won't make a difference because they'll never know anyway.
ErrantX 16y ago
As a meta point the guidelines here request we use italics for emphasis rather than caps (you can do italics by putting a * either side of a section). (I just noticed you were a new commentor so I hope that comes across ok :))
- wake_up_sticky 16y ago
  Thank you. Sorry about that.
arethuza 16y ago
Anyone clever enough to be worth $200K a year in salary will also know that anyone paying £200K a year probably has some very particular expectations - i.e. they have a ROI in mind. People who are really good tend to have their own ideas of what platforms they want to work on and what kind of problems they find interesting. Anyone paying $200K a year probably doesn't expect to give much leeway. Note: I know people who get paid that much, I wouldn't want their jobs. I've been approached for positions paying roughly that amount and said "no" purely on the description of the working conditions.
RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
Centuries and centuries of evidence that people respond to incentives is based on prescriptive work. The studies that Dan Pink is referring to concern the more recent advent of creative and cognitive work does not have centuries and centuries of evidence for money as a motivator. That's why it's being studied, and that's partly why the results of the studies are so intriguing. It's interesting that your gut reaction is that this is all nonsense, and that you dismiss a single presentation as being nonsense purely on your own feelings and reactions. The book that Dan Pink wrote, and the work being done in the field is at odds with your reaction. I know I won't convince you, and I know that you'll simply dismiss me as crazy, or stupid, or both, but the programmers who work for me often took a pay cut to do so. And they've stayed. My recent complaints haven't been about being able to find good programmers, they've been about incompetent programmers who claim they're great, and in all probability honestly believe it. If you're solving any problem at all, it's the wrong one. I don't want more job applicants, I just want applications from better candidates. My experience, and the studies I've read, say that offering more money won't help. I hope you understand that I'll put more stock in them than in your naked and unsupported assertions.

jshen 16y ago

"If you think that a company couldn't assemble a team of OUTSTANDING programmers by offering each $200k a year, you're crazy or stupid or both" This is simplistic and naive. Money isn't what motivates most programmers. I know this may be hard to understand for many people on HN, but it's true. Many of the best programmers I know are passionate about a specific area or two. Imagine going up to one of the jruby developers and saying "Hey, I think you should stop working on jruby and make an asp.net site with me and I'll pay you $200k". They're polite so they probably wouldn't laugh on the outside. The second major problem is the assumption that offering a lot of money will some how magically make it easy to identify good talent. It won't. The third problem is that most good programmers aren't looking for work. Offering more money won't make a difference because they'll never know anyway.

ErrantX 16y ago

As a meta point the guidelines here request we use italics for emphasis rather than caps (you can do italics by putting a * either side of a section). (I just noticed you were a new commentor so I hope that comes across ok :))

wake_up_sticky 16y ago
Thank you. Sorry about that.

arethuza 16y ago

Anyone clever enough to be worth $200K a year in salary will also know that anyone paying £200K a year probably has some very particular expectations - i.e. they have a ROI in mind. People who are really good tend to have their own ideas of what platforms they want to work on and what kind of problems they find interesting. Anyone paying $200K a year probably doesn't expect to give much leeway. Note: I know people who get paid that much, I wouldn't want their jobs. I've been approached for positions paying roughly that amount and said "no" purely on the description of the working conditions.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago

Centuries and centuries of evidence that people respond to incentives is based on prescriptive work. The studies that Dan Pink is referring to concern the more recent advent of creative and cognitive work does not have centuries and centuries of evidence for money as a motivator. That's why it's being studied, and that's partly why the results of the studies are so intriguing. It's interesting that your gut reaction is that this is all nonsense, and that you dismiss a single presentation as being nonsense purely on your own feelings and reactions. The book that Dan Pink wrote, and the work being done in the field is at odds with your reaction. I know I won't convince you, and I know that you'll simply dismiss me as crazy, or stupid, or both, but the programmers who work for me often took a pay cut to do so. And they've stayed. My recent complaints haven't been about being able to find good programmers, they've been about incompetent programmers who claim they're great, and in all probability honestly believe it. If you're solving any problem at all, it's the wrong one. I don't want more job applicants, I just want applications from better candidates. My experience, and the studies I've read, say that offering more money won't help. I hope you understand that I'll put more stock in them than in your naked and unsupported assertions.