82,891
edits
Compensation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|hr|{{image|Filthy lucre|jpg|}}}}{{d|Compensation|/ˌkɒmpɛnˈseɪʃən/|n|}} | ||
Investment banks are equally good at hyperbole and euphemism, the latter being a sort of inverted hyperbole, [[calculated]] to make the unseemly seem chaste; the trivial important, the quotidian grandiloquent and the ignoble dignified. Bankers are at their creative best when discussing their own pay. Of their number, none are more given to euphemism, and indeed hyperbole, than the good people of [[personnel]] or, as they like to think of themselves, ''[[human capital management]]''. You see? They can’t help it. | Investment banks are equally good at hyperbole and euphemism, the latter being a sort of inverted hyperbole, [[calculated]] to make the unseemly seem chaste; the trivial important, the quotidian grandiloquent and the ignoble dignified. Bankers are at their creative best when discussing their own pay. Of their number, none are more given to euphemism, and indeed hyperbole, than the good people of [[personnel]] or, as they like to think of themselves, ''[[human capital management]]''. You see? They can’t help it. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
This, all agree, is the unavoidable price one must pay to persuade good men and women to devote their creative souls to the dark arts of financial service. | This, all agree, is the unavoidable price one must pay to persuade good men and women to devote their creative souls to the dark arts of financial service. | ||
But ''is'' it? Every [[agent]], however devoted to its [[principal]], has against it the same, aligned, common interest: that, whatever happens, it should continue to be ''needed'', and therefore ''paid''. Do not forget that such a fellow, like the one who hotly insists on imposing gardening leave upon departing colleagues, is, at one remove, talking {{sex|his}} own book. This is the [[agency]] | But ''is'' it? Every [[agent]], however devoted to its [[principal]], has against it the same, aligned, common interest: that, whatever happens, it should continue to be ''needed'', and therefore ''paid''. Do not forget that such a fellow, like the one who hotly insists on imposing gardening leave upon departing colleagues, is, at one remove, talking {{sex|his}} own book. This is the [[agency problem]]. | ||
And plenty of organisational psychologists have identified better, more plausible drivers for optimised productivity and excellent performance than the discretionary bonus. {{author|Daniel Pink}} has made a fair bit of his own compensation making this very point. Superficially, it is easy to understand why this might be so: the simple amount of energy, infrastructure and human ''effort'' that goes into figuring out, to the penny, who gets what itself occupies a month or more of the collective assembled’s time. Now, here is the proof of the [[AI]] pudding by the way: however much the [[thought leader]]s swear [[neural network]]s will replace divisions of their staff, if you think they would, for a moment, entrust ''any'' part of determining their own compensation to an algorithm, you have profoundly misunderstood the nature of this beast. | And plenty of organisational psychologists have identified better, more plausible drivers for optimised productivity and excellent performance than the discretionary bonus. {{author|Daniel Pink}} has made a fair bit of his own compensation making this very point. Superficially, it is easy to understand why this might be so: the simple amount of energy, infrastructure and human ''effort'' that goes into figuring out, to the penny, who gets what itself occupies a month or more of the collective assembled’s time. Now, here is the proof of the [[AI]] pudding by the way: however much the [[thought leader]]s swear [[neural network]]s will replace divisions of their staff, if you think they would, for a moment, entrust ''any'' part of determining their own compensation to an algorithm, you have profoundly misunderstood the nature of this beast. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
It cannot. It is a major, stubborn, persistent mystery. It eludes every observer of the financial markets that the [[JC]] is aware of. Not even Jordan Peterson can explain it. Not just that the titans of commerce are overwhelmingly straight, white and male — they are, but ''someone''’s got to be, and they can hardly help it, can they? — but that, especially given the lengths the collective goes to find the best people, so many of the ones it winds up with are so ''mediocre''. | It cannot. It is a major, stubborn, persistent mystery. It eludes every observer of the financial markets that the [[JC]] is aware of. Not even Jordan Peterson can explain it. Not just that the titans of commerce are overwhelmingly straight, white and male — they are, but ''someone''’s got to be, and they can hardly help it, can they? — but that, especially given the lengths the collective goes to find the best people, so many of the ones it winds up with are so ''mediocre''. | ||
But this odd pay | But look: this odd disparity in pay and advancement is hardly a unique, outlying, paradox of weirdness in an otherwise sober realm. It does not stand like some rigid geometric anomaly, awkward and out of place, in an ancient cradle of fractal probity and common sense. ''Everything'' about the world of financial services is completely mad. ''Everything''. The {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles on this very site are some kind of testament to that. No-one seems in any hurry to fix any of the other absurdities. To the contrary, everyone seems to rather like them. So why should this one be any different? | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Agency problem]] | |||
*{{br|Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us}} — {{author|Daniel Pink}} | *{{br|Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us}} — {{author|Daniel Pink}} | ||
*[[Diversity]] | *[[Diversity]] | ||
*[[Performance appraisal]] | *[[Performance appraisal]] | ||
{{c2|Devil|Office life}} | {{c2|Devil|Office life}} | ||
{{newsletter|5/2/2021}} | |||