4 ms·

> In a company, employees needs an incentive to work together and be constructive. Isn't the incentive getting paid?

kqr 5y ago
No. If it is, management has failed. You should be paid enough just for showing up to take money off the table as a concern. If you worry about money, you will not perform at your capacity. You need to be motivated by better things, like sense of accomplishment, the joy of figuring stuff out and solving problems, teamwork, etc. As a motivator, money is a notch above the whip, of course, but not very good in the grand scheme of things. The book Drive is very good and discusses the latest evidence around motivation at depth. Obligatory reading for anyone in a leadership like role, in my opinion.
- echelon 5y ago
  I rarely want to do something someone else tells me to do. I have my own dreams and ambitions. The only reason I work for others is money. Money is a path to freedom. It doesn't help that half of the forces in our industry are concerned with accruing power at the expense of individuals. I want nothing to do with that sort of thing.
  - kqr 5y ago
    I'm not sure what your comment means. Yes, there's a whole philosophical debate of what is value and does it make sense to sell your labour at all. That's not what I meant. All I said is that if you instruct people to do a job and tell them "Every time your work is of excellent quality, you will get a temporary increase in payment, and every time it is of bad quality, you will get a temporary decrease in payment", on average, one of three things will happen: 1. The quality of their work stays the same. (For example because the environment is not set up such that it's in their power to do a better job, or you're measuring quality on a different dimension than is relevant to this person.) 2. The quality of their work declines. (For example because they don't agree with the exchange rate you're offering on money-for-quality.) 3. They find a way to cheat the system to make it look like the quality of their work improves even though it does not. (Because you have made money rather than quality the goal to chase after.) You'll note that the desired outcome just isn't there. This is for many diverse reasons in different circumstances and the book I mentioned goes into each. If instead you instruct people to do a job and create an environment in which they can feel proud over good work, in which they can fulfill themselves, and be a valued and active part of something bigger, you'll on average see one outcome: 1. The quality of their work improves. (Because that's the only way for them to trigger their internal reward circuits.) Well, not quite. It takes one more thing: in order for the quality of their work to improve, they must feel secure, both physically, and fiscally. If you threaten them with the whip, or there's not enough money to make their ends comfortably meet, the quality of their work won't improve.
- odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
  And that book has been a blotch into peoples well being since forever. Money, no-one shows for work (well almost no-one) if they don't get paid. Everyone I know doesn't give a fuck about a sense of accomplishment. If the choice is 'work for X and get a sense of accomplishment or get 3X without it'. (If I remember correctly) The book's research while valid, leaves out a lot of counter research and selective selects some data over other. Unless you are curing cancer, give me more money. Want to motivate me? put a 100k bonus at the end of the year. I don't give a fuck about teamwork or to feel accomplished. Money makes the world go around, and that is why I show up for work.
  - ganzuul 5y ago
    I like to imagine that if I felt I had my needs taken care of, I would not care about the money. But because money is linked to things which feel like existential threats like not finding a mate or losing the roof over my head, pursuing it is 'a notch above the whip'.
    - odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
      But what is 'my needs taken care of'? You never have to work a day in your life and will have enough money to maintain your desired style of living? That is why 'my needs taken care of' issue comes up to me. Yes, 100% of the jobs I worked paid me enough to have a decent life, but if I got fired and couldn't find a job, I would be on the street after a few months. That is why the 75K USD or whatever it was in the book saying it didn't improve happiness is bollocks. You might not starve in SF with 75K, but I assure you an extra 20k would make you much happier, even if not for the peace of mind that you could save it for a rainy day. If we talk about UBI or millionaires, sure, money stops being a concern, but I also don't see a lot of millionaires going over job boards trying to find a job that gives them a sense of accomplishment. They are doing their own things to achieve that happiness, and I doubt is working for someone else (some exceptions of course)
      - ganzuul 5y ago
        Not to be facetious, but I referred to the feeling of having my needs taken care of because I know that I often am not a rational actor. If all we did was forage for nuts and shared them because we felt that everybody did their part, I would probably be very happy sharing those communal meals. When someone drives by in a huge yacht spewing diesel fumes and soot, the enjoyment I got from our humble communal meals is easily vanquished. The meal did not change in any appreciable way, but understanding that a huge amount of the resources we need to survive is wasted on an outsider's frivolous amusement leads to discontentment. In practice, the worst extreme of this dynamic seems to be the use of pale-skinned models for advertising in areas where people have dark skin. The reasoning might be as simple as pale skin showing up brighter in print, but the outcome is otherwise perfectly healthy people getting body dysphoria.
Ntrails 5y ago
The modern engineer treats their salary as a birthright, worried only that it is not large enough to justify their true best efforts. But seriously, the psychology of worker incentives has been studied. Things like employee of the month and yearly bonuses exist because salary alone did less. You compete internally to be promoted, recognised as a top mind, paid more. These things are to your direct advantage. Obviously at a small startup you want it to not go bust. Your incentive for getting paid next month is real. Once you are at facebook, well it is going to keep paying you. You don't have tangible real impact on company outcome. So you start optimising yours
- toomanybeersies 5y ago
  > Things like employee of the month and yearly bonuses exist I thought they existed because it's cheaper to hand out worthless certificates and occasional one-off payments than actually increase employees' wages. Which is why "employee of the month" and other non-monetary rewards are popular minimum/low wage workplaces.
  - taeric 5y ago
    Agreed from me. I would be surprised if these things didn't exist before research into them happened. And then I would be further surprised if the research want just a post hoc justification of the idea. I wouldn't be shocked to find out I am wrong. Just surprised.
ElViajero 5y ago
> Isn't the incentive getting paid? Yes, that is my point. If I get paid more if your project fails because there is more budged for my project. My motivation is against collaboration. I do it for the money. And the company, thru forcing me to compete with my colleagues for budged, and bonuses, gives me an incentive to not help, or in the worse case scenario, to sabotage their work. And managers cannot do much about it if there is a strong economic incentive to be hostile to your colleagues.
MattGaiser 5y ago
Only if more pay follows teamwork and constructive work. In many places it does not. For example, say that there is one team lead position available. It probably pays more. My incentive as an employee is do what it takes to get that position even if it damages my company.
goodpoint 5y ago
> Isn't the incentive getting paid? No, humans are not coin-operated robots. There is an entire field of psychology dedicated to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_organizational_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_organizational_... Also it's very well known that most people are willing to accept salaries below market rates to work on topics/goal/environments they really care about. Equally, many work in ethically controversial organizations because of higher salaries.

kqr 5y ago

No. If it is, management has failed. You should be paid enough just for showing up to take money off the table as a concern. If you worry about money, you will not perform at your capacity. You need to be motivated by better things, like sense of accomplishment, the joy of figuring stuff out and solving problems, teamwork, etc. As a motivator, money is a notch above the whip, of course, but not very good in the grand scheme of things. The book Drive is very good and discusses the latest evidence around motivation at depth. Obligatory reading for anyone in a leadership like role, in my opinion.

echelon 5y ago
I rarely want to do something someone else tells me to do. I have my own dreams and ambitions. The only reason I work for others is money. Money is a path to freedom. It doesn't help that half of the forces in our industry are concerned with accruing power at the expense of individuals. I want nothing to do with that sort of thing.
- kqr 5y ago
  I'm not sure what your comment means. Yes, there's a whole philosophical debate of what is value and does it make sense to sell your labour at all. That's not what I meant. All I said is that if you instruct people to do a job and tell them "Every time your work is of excellent quality, you will get a temporary increase in payment, and every time it is of bad quality, you will get a temporary decrease in payment", on average, one of three things will happen: 1. The quality of their work stays the same. (For example because the environment is not set up such that it's in their power to do a better job, or you're measuring quality on a different dimension than is relevant to this person.) 2. The quality of their work declines. (For example because they don't agree with the exchange rate you're offering on money-for-quality.) 3. They find a way to cheat the system to make it look like the quality of their work improves even though it does not. (Because you have made money rather than quality the goal to chase after.) You'll note that the desired outcome just isn't there. This is for many diverse reasons in different circumstances and the book I mentioned goes into each. If instead you instruct people to do a job and create an environment in which they can feel proud over good work, in which they can fulfill themselves, and be a valued and active part of something bigger, you'll on average see one outcome: 1. The quality of their work improves. (Because that's the only way for them to trigger their internal reward circuits.) Well, not quite. It takes one more thing: in order for the quality of their work to improve, they must feel secure, both physically, and fiscally. If you threaten them with the whip, or there's not enough money to make their ends comfortably meet, the quality of their work won't improve.
odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
And that book has been a blotch into peoples well being since forever. Money, no-one shows for work (well almost no-one) if they don't get paid. Everyone I know doesn't give a fuck about a sense of accomplishment. If the choice is 'work for X and get a sense of accomplishment or get 3X without it'. (If I remember correctly) The book's research while valid, leaves out a lot of counter research and selective selects some data over other. Unless you are curing cancer, give me more money. Want to motivate me? put a 100k bonus at the end of the year. I don't give a fuck about teamwork or to feel accomplished. Money makes the world go around, and that is why I show up for work.
- ganzuul 5y ago
  I like to imagine that if I felt I had my needs taken care of, I would not care about the money. But because money is linked to things which feel like existential threats like not finding a mate or losing the roof over my head, pursuing it is 'a notch above the whip'.
  - odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
    But what is 'my needs taken care of'? You never have to work a day in your life and will have enough money to maintain your desired style of living? That is why 'my needs taken care of' issue comes up to me. Yes, 100% of the jobs I worked paid me enough to have a decent life, but if I got fired and couldn't find a job, I would be on the street after a few months. That is why the 75K USD or whatever it was in the book saying it didn't improve happiness is bollocks. You might not starve in SF with 75K, but I assure you an extra 20k would make you much happier, even if not for the peace of mind that you could save it for a rainy day. If we talk about UBI or millionaires, sure, money stops being a concern, but I also don't see a lot of millionaires going over job boards trying to find a job that gives them a sense of accomplishment. They are doing their own things to achieve that happiness, and I doubt is working for someone else (some exceptions of course)
    - ganzuul 5y ago
      Not to be facetious, but I referred to the feeling of having my needs taken care of because I know that I often am not a rational actor. If all we did was forage for nuts and shared them because we felt that everybody did their part, I would probably be very happy sharing those communal meals. When someone drives by in a huge yacht spewing diesel fumes and soot, the enjoyment I got from our humble communal meals is easily vanquished. The meal did not change in any appreciable way, but understanding that a huge amount of the resources we need to survive is wasted on an outsider's frivolous amusement leads to discontentment. In practice, the worst extreme of this dynamic seems to be the use of pale-skinned models for advertising in areas where people have dark skin. The reasoning might be as simple as pale skin showing up brighter in print, but the outcome is otherwise perfectly healthy people getting body dysphoria.

Ntrails 5y ago

The modern engineer treats their salary as a birthright, worried only that it is not large enough to justify their true best efforts. But seriously, the psychology of worker incentives has been studied. Things like employee of the month and yearly bonuses exist because salary alone did less. You compete internally to be promoted, recognised as a top mind, paid more. These things are to your direct advantage. Obviously at a small startup you want it to not go bust. Your incentive for getting paid next month is real. Once you are at facebook, well it is going to keep paying you. You don't have tangible real impact on company outcome. So you start optimising yours

toomanybeersies 5y ago
> Things like employee of the month and yearly bonuses exist I thought they existed because it's cheaper to hand out worthless certificates and occasional one-off payments than actually increase employees' wages. Which is why "employee of the month" and other non-monetary rewards are popular minimum/low wage workplaces.
- taeric 5y ago
  Agreed from me. I would be surprised if these things didn't exist before research into them happened. And then I would be further surprised if the research want just a post hoc justification of the idea. I wouldn't be shocked to find out I am wrong. Just surprised.

ElViajero 5y ago

> Isn't the incentive getting paid? Yes, that is my point. If I get paid more if your project fails because there is more budged for my project. My motivation is against collaboration. I do it for the money. And the company, thru forcing me to compete with my colleagues for budged, and bonuses, gives me an incentive to not help, or in the worse case scenario, to sabotage their work. And managers cannot do much about it if there is a strong economic incentive to be hostile to your colleagues.

MattGaiser 5y ago

Only if more pay follows teamwork and constructive work. In many places it does not. For example, say that there is one team lead position available. It probably pays more. My incentive as an employee is do what it takes to get that position even if it damages my company.

goodpoint 5y ago

> Isn't the incentive getting paid? No, humans are not coin-operated robots. There is an entire field of psychology dedicated to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_organizational_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_organizational_... Also it's very well known that most people are willing to accept salaries below market rates to work on topics/goal/environments they really care about. Equally, many work in ethically controversial organizations because of higher salaries.