82,891
edits
Compensation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision 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 15: | 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 30: | Line 28: | ||
{{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]] | ||