4 ms·

"The sum of money just appeared in my bank account, but was so insulting low that I felt devalued. If a manager had just talked to me about how much my work was

"The sum of money just appeared in my bank account, but was so insulting low that I felt devalued. If a manager had just talked to me about how much my work was appreciated, it would have been better than money." This is true at a certain threshold. Appreciation is immeasurably better than an demoralizing, insultingly-sized bonus. However on the other end, if you go above and beyond normal expectations and save or earn the company millions of dollars, a "thank you" from your boss on the company newsletter is not going to cut it.

gruseom 16y ago
I would challenge this. Let's replace your trivializing phrase "a 'thank you' from your boss on the company newsletter" with just recognition, which obviously can take many forms. We have evidence, cited in this thread, that recognition is generally more satisfying and motivating than financial rewards are (at least those produced by formal incentive plans). What evidence do you have that this effect only holds "at a certain threshold"? Or that it weakens as one's work becomes more important? It's important to resist one's intuitions when faced with a counterintuitive finding, which this is. Most of us have been conditioned to think of "never mind the touchy-feely, show me the money" as hard-nosed realism. That it turns out not to be is immensely interesting.
- oconnor0 16y ago
  I think part of it is that if you've just saved your company a million dollars getting a bonus of a few thousand seems unfair & like your company's being greedy. Yes, I absolutely want to be recognized for the good work I do, but it would also be nice to get monetary incentives commensurate with the work I've done.
- LiveTheDream 16y ago
  I left "a certain threshold" undefined on purpose, because it varies from person to person. The point is that the reward must be meaningful to the person being rewarded, otherwise it is much worse than no reward; the person will become cynical, demoralized, and unmotivated. The main problem is conflicting valuations of the work in question, which holds true whether the the payment is money or recognition. Who is to define how much recognition is satisfactory? Take the Microsoft "ship it" award[1] as an example of a formal recognition plan, which failed. My evidence, like the evidence in this thread and the presentation, is just personal experience. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000070.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000070.html
  - gruseom 16y ago
    My evidence, like the evidence in this thread and the presentation, is just personal experience. On the contrary, I was referring to the work of Dan Pink and others on the science of motivation, which was mentioned elsewhere in the thread. I don't usually discount personal experience but this is one area where the empirical findings are surprising. A pretty important one, too, considering the implications for good organizations and happy lives.
mturmon 16y ago
What type of award is valued is very person-dependent. Some people thrive on non-cash awards (like medals and award ceremonies), some like recognition from above, others care more for money. It's very easy (even expected) for a large organization to guess wrong in a particular case. So that anecdote is not really data.
nostrademons 16y ago
I have, along with the relatively small teams I've worked with, saved/earned Google at least several hundred million dollars. Possibly over a billion. Certainly more than I can expect to earn over my lifetime. What size bonus is appropriate for that? I don't view it in those terms. I get paid reasonably well, but certainly not millions of dollars. And that's because the employment agreement I signed when I was hired is essentially an apportionment of risk. It basically says "I will give my best efforts for the company in exchange for $X/year, and in exchange, the company takes on the risk that those efforts will have zero or negative effect." After all, I don't have to give back my salary when the I cost Google millions of dollars, which has happened on more than a few occasions. Hell, I've done virtually nothing useful since last May (I've done a whole lot, it's just that none of it has turned out to be useful). I've played the startup game, and for the roughly 16 months that I was working on my own startup, I earned precisely $0. I worked harder then than I do now. But basically none of the risks I took paid off. That's the nature of risk: you win some, you lose some. It's not really fair when you collect huge paydays when you win and small paydays when you lose (though this seems to be the compensation scheme upon which the financial industry is founded).

gruseom 16y ago

I would challenge this. Let's replace your trivializing phrase "a 'thank you' from your boss on the company newsletter" with just recognition, which obviously can take many forms. We have evidence, cited in this thread, that recognition is generally more satisfying and motivating than financial rewards are (at least those produced by formal incentive plans). What evidence do you have that this effect only holds "at a certain threshold"? Or that it weakens as one's work becomes more important? It's important to resist one's intuitions when faced with a counterintuitive finding, which this is. Most of us have been conditioned to think of "never mind the touchy-feely, show me the money" as hard-nosed realism. That it turns out not to be is immensely interesting.

oconnor0 16y ago
I think part of it is that if you've just saved your company a million dollars getting a bonus of a few thousand seems unfair & like your company's being greedy. Yes, I absolutely want to be recognized for the good work I do, but it would also be nice to get monetary incentives commensurate with the work I've done.
LiveTheDream 16y ago
I left "a certain threshold" undefined on purpose, because it varies from person to person. The point is that the reward must be meaningful to the person being rewarded, otherwise it is much worse than no reward; the person will become cynical, demoralized, and unmotivated. The main problem is conflicting valuations of the work in question, which holds true whether the the payment is money or recognition. Who is to define how much recognition is satisfactory? Take the Microsoft "ship it" award[1] as an example of a formal recognition plan, which failed. My evidence, like the evidence in this thread and the presentation, is just personal experience. [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000070.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000070.html
- gruseom 16y ago
  My evidence, like the evidence in this thread and the presentation, is just personal experience. On the contrary, I was referring to the work of Dan Pink and others on the science of motivation, which was mentioned elsewhere in the thread. I don't usually discount personal experience but this is one area where the empirical findings are surprising. A pretty important one, too, considering the implications for good organizations and happy lives.

mturmon 16y ago

What type of award is valued is very person-dependent. Some people thrive on non-cash awards (like medals and award ceremonies), some like recognition from above, others care more for money. It's very easy (even expected) for a large organization to guess wrong in a particular case. So that anecdote is not really data.

nostrademons 16y ago

I have, along with the relatively small teams I've worked with, saved/earned Google at least several hundred million dollars. Possibly over a billion. Certainly more than I can expect to earn over my lifetime. What size bonus is appropriate for that? I don't view it in those terms. I get paid reasonably well, but certainly not millions of dollars. And that's because the employment agreement I signed when I was hired is essentially an apportionment of risk. It basically says "I will give my best efforts for the company in exchange for $X/year, and in exchange, the company takes on the risk that those efforts will have zero or negative effect." After all, I don't have to give back my salary when the I cost Google millions of dollars, which has happened on more than a few occasions. Hell, I've done virtually nothing useful since last May (I've done a whole lot, it's just that none of it has turned out to be useful). I've played the startup game, and for the roughly 16 months that I was working on my own startup, I earned precisely $0. I worked harder then than I do now. But basically none of the risks I took paid off. That's the nature of risk: you win some, you lose some. It's not really fair when you collect huge paydays when you win and small paydays when you lose (though this seems to be the compensation scheme upon which the financial industry is founded).