4 ms·

You just made an argument that salaries should be artificially low effectively screwing the employee out of a fair wage for their skill by hiding information fr

by aestra 13y ago

You just made an argument that salaries should be artificially low effectively screwing the employee out of a fair wage for their skill by hiding information from them. And anyway, money isn't everything. I'd be willing to work for a little less money to have an awesome environment where I am treated well, have good benefits, and do great work I enjoy rather than worked 50 hours a week with micromanagement breathing down my neck stressing me out and doing soul crushing work. Because you lose people to salary is telling, perhaps your environment isn't actually the best as you imagined, or the salary isn't as fair as you imagined.

dworin 13y ago
Here is a summary of some research saying salary isn't that important for motivation: http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv/ http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv/ However, here's a good summary that argues that pay is actually a very strong motivator, and the discrepancy comes from the fact that saying you aren't motivated by money is considered the socially acceptable response: http://www.utm.edu/staff/mikem/documents/Payasamotivator.pdf http://www.utm.edu/staff/mikem/documents/Payasamotivator.pdf The research about job-seeking behavior is fairly similar, although I can't find the specific sources right now. When surveyed, people say that money isn't the most important thing when they're evaluating job offers, but when asked to compare job offers as bundles of attributes, money ends up being pretty important. Part of the reason is that people under-state how important money is to them, another part is that during the job-evaluation phase, money is concrete, measurable, and knowable, while the other characteristics are very hard to determine. It's going to sound obvious, but the real answer is that compensation is a piece, but not the only piece, of what people look for in jobs (probably about half).
- swombat 13y ago
  One of the most interesting conclusion of Douglas McGregor (inventor of the Theory X vs Theory Y management theories you've probably heard of) is that when it comes to the question "what motivates people?", whatever theory you set out to try to prove, you typically find evidence to support its validity. So if you start with Theory X, for example, "people are lazy and need to be motivated into work through the external means of money and threat of firing", you find plenty of evidence that that is indeed how people function. Anyone who believes otherwise must be mad. If you start with Theory Y's assumptions, though, "people want to work in jobs where they can be intrinsically self-motivated, and while external factors need to be 'good enough', internal motivation is far more important" - you will find plenty of evidence that this is true as well. The point is, be very careful of what assumptions you start with, because you might think you can check them with facts, but actually they will shape everything you do and remain largely unquestioned. Therefore, choose your assumptions based on the outcome you want, not based on the assumptions you started with.

by aestra 13y ago

dworin 13y ago

Here is a summary of some research saying salary isn't that important for motivation: http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv/ http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv/ However, here's a good summary that argues that pay is actually a very strong motivator, and the discrepancy comes from the fact that saying you aren't motivated by money is considered the socially acceptable response: http://www.utm.edu/staff/mikem/documents/Payasamotivator.pdf http://www.utm.edu/staff/mikem/documents/Payasamotivator.pdf The research about job-seeking behavior is fairly similar, although I can't find the specific sources right now. When surveyed, people say that money isn't the most important thing when they're evaluating job offers, but when asked to compare job offers as bundles of attributes, money ends up being pretty important. Part of the reason is that people under-state how important money is to them, another part is that during the job-evaluation phase, money is concrete, measurable, and knowable, while the other characteristics are very hard to determine. It's going to sound obvious, but the real answer is that compensation is a piece, but not the only piece, of what people look for in jobs (probably about half).

swombat 13y ago
One of the most interesting conclusion of Douglas McGregor (inventor of the Theory X vs Theory Y management theories you've probably heard of) is that when it comes to the question "what motivates people?", whatever theory you set out to try to prove, you typically find evidence to support its validity. So if you start with Theory X, for example, "people are lazy and need to be motivated into work through the external means of money and threat of firing", you find plenty of evidence that that is indeed how people function. Anyone who believes otherwise must be mad. If you start with Theory Y's assumptions, though, "people want to work in jobs where they can be intrinsically self-motivated, and while external factors need to be 'good enough', internal motivation is far more important" - you will find plenty of evidence that this is true as well. The point is, be very careful of what assumptions you start with, because you might think you can check them with facts, but actually they will shape everything you do and remain largely unquestioned. Therefore, choose your assumptions based on the outcome you want, not based on the assumptions you started with.