5 ms·

This kind of stuff that Mr. Pink (someone should invite him out to dinner and find out if he doesn't tip :P) mentioned and guys like Alfie Kohn harp on about is

This kind of stuff that Mr. Pink (someone should invite him out to dinner and find out if he doesn't tip :P) mentioned and guys like Alfie Kohn harp on about is intriguing, but there is one huge hole in the plot that I have never seen them address: The Problem of the Paycheck. The studies that are being referenced lead naturally to the hypothesis "what would happen if I didn't give my employees any kind of artificial incentive at all?" (let's assume that they are all knowledge-work employees, say programmers for example). The studies referenced in the talk and in Alfie Kohn's books suggest that you would see an increase in productivity, since that pesky, harmful incentive has moved out of the way. Common sense (and experience, should anyone be foolish enough to actually try it) suggests that your workers will simply walk. So while I think there is a lot of valuable insights to be gained from these experiments (e.g. people work like hell when something has meaning for them - see the works of Viktor Frankl for more on this), I think there's too much of a tendency to oversimplify and say "incentives are bad, mmkay?"

delackner 17y ago
Actaully he addressed the paycheck problem quite directly: pay people decently, fairly, and then the team can focus properly without being distracted with worries about money (lack thereof or competing for bonuses). The logical extension of this is not "don't pay people" but pay everyone well enough and then ask them to impress you.
- IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
  I find that I work best when I know I'm being compensated well, and can just forget about it and get to my job. Salaries should be fair, based on market value, and completely out in the open. I don't understand the absurd secrecy and awkwardness around compensation, culminating in the unholy obscenity of the yearly performance review. You make what you make because that's what it takes to keep you there. If you don't love it, leave. If you're not happy with the money, get another offer. Apart from that, your work should be what motivates you, not the paycheck. The Netflix culture slides captured my feelings on the topic well: http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664 http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664 If I ever go to another BDC after Yahoo, it'd probably be Netflix.
- discojesus 17y ago
  OK then that naturally leads to a slightly different hypothesis: take the candle problem, but have 3 groups: a control group that is paid nothing, a group that is paid "decently and fairly", and a group that is paid according to incentives.
  - PieSquared 17y ago
    The idea isn't that a group is paid vs unpaid. Salary, in this case, is not the type of incentive we're talking about. Having a decent salary is just to get the employee willing to work - not as an incentive to work at max capacity. What we're talking about, really, is already past salary: is a group of fairly paid people more efficient and creative when motivated financially (say, by extra bonuses or salary increases) or by promises of autonomy (say, 20% time). Thus, the candle problem, when placed in the real world, would have three groups: a control group which is paid 'decently and fairly', and a group that is paid 'decently and fairly' and is given financial incentives beyond that, and a group that is payed 'decently and fairly' and is given autonomy as an incentive.
    - discojesus 17y ago
      Thus, the candle problem, when placed in the real world, would have three groups: a control group which is paid 'decently and fairly', and a group that is paid 'decently and fairly' and is given financial incentives beyond that, and a group that is payed 'decently and fairly' and is given autonomy as an incentive. That's fine, but you still need a control group that is given no compensation at all as a baseline.
      - PieSquared 17y ago
        Not if that type of compensation is irrelevant to what you're testing. That would be like having a control group which wasn't fed.
        discojesus 17y ago
        A valid point, however not providing such a control group in this case would mean that you're simply assuming that your definition of 'decent and fair payment' is accurate, which is quite a large assumption.

delackner 17y ago

Actaully he addressed the paycheck problem quite directly: pay people decently, fairly, and then the team can focus properly without being distracted with worries about money (lack thereof or competing for bonuses). The logical extension of this is not "don't pay people" but pay everyone well enough and then ask them to impress you.

IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
I find that I work best when I know I'm being compensated well, and can just forget about it and get to my job. Salaries should be fair, based on market value, and completely out in the open. I don't understand the absurd secrecy and awkwardness around compensation, culminating in the unholy obscenity of the yearly performance review. You make what you make because that's what it takes to keep you there. If you don't love it, leave. If you're not happy with the money, get another offer. Apart from that, your work should be what motivates you, not the paycheck. The Netflix culture slides captured my feelings on the topic well: http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664 http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664 If I ever go to another BDC after Yahoo, it'd probably be Netflix.
discojesus 17y ago
OK then that naturally leads to a slightly different hypothesis: take the candle problem, but have 3 groups: a control group that is paid nothing, a group that is paid "decently and fairly", and a group that is paid according to incentives.
- PieSquared 17y ago
  The idea isn't that a group is paid vs unpaid. Salary, in this case, is not the type of incentive we're talking about. Having a decent salary is just to get the employee willing to work - not as an incentive to work at max capacity. What we're talking about, really, is already past salary: is a group of fairly paid people more efficient and creative when motivated financially (say, by extra bonuses or salary increases) or by promises of autonomy (say, 20% time). Thus, the candle problem, when placed in the real world, would have three groups: a control group which is paid 'decently and fairly', and a group that is paid 'decently and fairly' and is given financial incentives beyond that, and a group that is payed 'decently and fairly' and is given autonomy as an incentive.
  - discojesus 17y ago
    Thus, the candle problem, when placed in the real world, would have three groups: a control group which is paid 'decently and fairly', and a group that is paid 'decently and fairly' and is given financial incentives beyond that, and a group that is payed 'decently and fairly' and is given autonomy as an incentive. That's fine, but you still need a control group that is given no compensation at all as a baseline.
    - PieSquared 17y ago
      Not if that type of compensation is irrelevant to what you're testing. That would be like having a control group which wasn't fed.
      - discojesus 17y ago
        A valid point, however not providing such a control group in this case would mean that you're simply assuming that your definition of 'decent and fair payment' is accurate, which is quite a large assumption.