5 ms·

* If you want low performance, give me low money. * If you want high performance, give me high money. * If you want loyalty/passion, give me equity/profit sha

by chime 15y ago

* If you want low performance, give me low money. * If you want high performance, give me high money. * If you want loyalty/passion, give me equity/profit sharing. You can buy my performance i.e. time with money. You can buy my passion i.e. commitment with reciprocation. If you give me typical market wages without profit sharing, don't expect anything beyond typical performance without commitment.

cema 15y ago
On the surface, sounds logical. But somehow does not quite match my experience. Good professionals tend to perform better than the (ostensible) level of compensation they get.
- dunstup 15y ago
  I think you're correct, but with time if their level of compensation doesn't match their input, i would assume their commitment, performance goes down as well.
- div 15y ago
  A professional working at 50% of his capacity will often trump a junior working at 50% of his capacity. Edit: I Don't know why I can't reply to the replies of this post. What I meant to infer is that the parent to my post may have seen 'professionals' perform better than he would have expected them given their pay. What I tried to reply is that this level of performance may still be the professional working at only 50% of capacity. I was assuming that the amount the professional was being paid was relative to what that company would be paying everyone else. Which would lead me to conclude everyone was probably working at 50%. Maybe that was a bit of a stretch on my behalf though :)
  - citricsquid 15y ago
    I think you meant to say junior working at 100% of his capacity; 50% to 50% makes no sense.
mirkules 15y ago
There's a great quote: Money is not a motivator. But lack of money is a demotivator. (Unfortunately, I don't remember who said this. Anyone?)
- danellis 15y ago
  Sounds like something Spolsky would say.
- qntm 15y ago
  I'd be willing to say it right now, since I agree with it.
jpdoctor 15y ago
> If you want loyalty/passion, give me equity/profit sharing. This tactic works only until the employee knows a sufficient number of people that have been screwed out of their equity. Usually, that takes some time and experience. In a related note, ever notice that most passionate employees are younger?
rkalla 15y ago
There are some excellent studies out there that suggest this to be false. One source[1] showed that: - For highly creative jobs, respect and autonomy to function and just enough $ to cover comfortable living expenses produced the best results. - As you add more money, the performance for these jobs decreased. AND - For highly repetitive jobs, performance increased with pay almost linearly. - Offering more autonomy for lower pay in these types of jobs lowered performance. Programming is a highly creative job. While you are making very logical assumptions (more $ == more work) I would argue that after the first month or so, that would no longer be the case. You would then just be equating (more $ == more HOURS working) but not necessarily producing. The findings of the study did hinge on the person seeking autonomy to make enough to cover their living expenses such that the concern for money was off the table. Really interesting stuff. I think from my own experience, after the honeymoon period of the giant paycheck wears off, this tends to be absolutely true. As for passion, it has to come from the top down. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/1594484805/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312151498&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates... Thanks to yengz for the reminder where this study came from!
- geekfactor 15y ago
  Dan Pink's RSA talk came to mind for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc He mentions a couple of studies.
- yangez 15y ago
  Daniel Pink also has a book called Drive which goes into this in detail. Highly recommended read.
  - rkalla 15y ago
    Ahhh! Eric that is exactly where I got that info from, I couldn't place it, but I finished reading "Drive" a few months ago so that must be where it came from.
- subsection1h 15y ago
  There are some excellent studies out there that suggest this to be false. He used the words "me" and "my". Unless those studies involved him, I think the results are worth little compared to his own experience. If he had used the words "people" and "they", I think the results of those studies would be more relevant.

by chime 15y ago

cema 15y ago

On the surface, sounds logical. But somehow does not quite match my experience. Good professionals tend to perform better than the (ostensible) level of compensation they get.

dunstup 15y ago
I think you're correct, but with time if their level of compensation doesn't match their input, i would assume their commitment, performance goes down as well.
div 15y ago
A professional working at 50% of his capacity will often trump a junior working at 50% of his capacity. Edit: I Don't know why I can't reply to the replies of this post. What I meant to infer is that the parent to my post may have seen 'professionals' perform better than he would have expected them given their pay. What I tried to reply is that this level of performance may still be the professional working at only 50% of capacity. I was assuming that the amount the professional was being paid was relative to what that company would be paying everyone else. Which would lead me to conclude everyone was probably working at 50%. Maybe that was a bit of a stretch on my behalf though :)
- citricsquid 15y ago
  I think you meant to say junior working at 100% of his capacity; 50% to 50% makes no sense.

mirkules 15y ago

There's a great quote: Money is not a motivator. But lack of money is a demotivator. (Unfortunately, I don't remember who said this. Anyone?)

danellis 15y ago
Sounds like something Spolsky would say.
qntm 15y ago
I'd be willing to say it right now, since I agree with it.

jpdoctor 15y ago

> If you want loyalty/passion, give me equity/profit sharing. This tactic works only until the employee knows a sufficient number of people that have been screwed out of their equity. Usually, that takes some time and experience. In a related note, ever notice that most passionate employees are younger?

rkalla 15y ago

There are some excellent studies out there that suggest this to be false. One source[1] showed that: - For highly creative jobs, respect and autonomy to function and just enough $ to cover comfortable living expenses produced the best results. - As you add more money, the performance for these jobs decreased. AND - For highly repetitive jobs, performance increased with pay almost linearly. - Offering more autonomy for lower pay in these types of jobs lowered performance. Programming is a highly creative job. While you are making very logical assumptions (more $ == more work) I would argue that after the first month or so, that would no longer be the case. You would then just be equating (more $ == more HOURS working) but not necessarily producing. The findings of the study did hinge on the person seeking autonomy to make enough to cover their living expenses such that the concern for money was off the table. Really interesting stuff. I think from my own experience, after the honeymoon period of the giant paycheck wears off, this tends to be absolutely true. As for passion, it has to come from the top down. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/1594484805/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312151498&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates... Thanks to yengz for the reminder where this study came from!

geekfactor 15y ago
Dan Pink's RSA talk came to mind for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc He mentions a couple of studies.
yangez 15y ago
Daniel Pink also has a book called Drive which goes into this in detail. Highly recommended read.
- rkalla 15y ago
  Ahhh! Eric that is exactly where I got that info from, I couldn't place it, but I finished reading "Drive" a few months ago so that must be where it came from.
subsection1h 15y ago
There are some excellent studies out there that suggest this to be false. He used the words "me" and "my". Unless those studies involved him, I think the results are worth little compared to his own experience. If he had used the words "people" and "they", I think the results of those studies would be more relevant.