82,891
edits
Candle problem: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|g|[[File:Candle in the wind.jpg|450px|frameless|center|Elton Glucksberg performing ''Candle on the Wall'' yesterday.]]}}The [[candle problem]] is a | {{a|g|[[File:Candle in the wind.jpg|450px|frameless|center|Elton Glucksberg performing ''Candle on the Wall'' yesterday.]]}}The [[candle problem]] is a series of related experiment from social psychology about overcoming assumptions when solving problems (this is the “[[Duncker candle problem]]”), and then what sorts of incentives work best for solving those kinds of problems (the “[[Glucksberg candle problem]]”). | ||
Popularised by {{author|Daniel Pink}} in a TED Talk and a book on the topic: {{br|Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us}}. | Popularised by {{author|Daniel Pink}} in a TED Talk and a book on the topic: {{br|Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us}}. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
But {{author|Daniel Pink}} is proving wrong point here. The puzzle isn’t the how “autonomy, mastery, and purpose” will motivate people more than money — who didn’t, instinctively, know that? — but why our corporate overlords who, in their reflective moments, surely must know that as well, ignore this plain, ''[[a priori]]'' fact. | But {{author|Daniel Pink}} is proving wrong point here. The puzzle isn’t the how “autonomy, mastery, and purpose” will motivate people more than money — who didn’t, instinctively, know that? — but why our corporate overlords who, in their reflective moments, surely must know that as well, ignore this plain, ''[[a priori]]'' fact. | ||
As ever, the [[JC]] has a theory: it is all about personal incentives. In the same way that the average wage-slave’s major | As ever, the [[JC]] has a theory: it is all about personal incentives. In the same way that the average wage-slave’s major motivator during the entirety of her career is [[fear]] and her primal instinct the covering of one’s own arse, regardless of the clothedness of the organisation’s as a whole, the major driver for those captains of industry who run our banks is ''personal enrichment''. Solving the organisation’s, and its clients’, actual problems and achieving its commercial goals is good, inasmuch as it generates a healthy pay packet, but it is a second order priority to generating a healthy pay packet, and if he has to choose between them it will lose. | ||
Now consider the candle incentives. The CEO is in an excellent position to decide who should get that $25 | Now consider the candle incentives. The CEO is in an excellent position to decide whether to go with the individual incentive or the collective incentive. | ||
He is also, should he go with the individual incentive, well placed to influence who among the workforce should get that $25 prize. His management suite, if they think they might get a fiver, are likely to agree with him. The remainder of the group, who are destined for a [[sugary treat with a hole in it]], may have a different view, but they are in no position it advance it, because no-one with any influence is listening to them. The reason no such person is listening is because they are on the phone to their Aston Martin dealer. | |||
If they were minded to rationalise they might look at it this way: in the individual incentive model, to fund the total incentive will cost $150 ($25 for the CEO and 150 between the 25 board members). To fund the collective incentive model, on the other hand, we could either give everyone — including ourselves— ''nothing'', or a fiver, or ''the whole twenty five bucks''. | |||
Now no-one likes the sound of a rolling [[donut]], so that is obviously off the table. But funding the whole organisation would cost $500, and funding the whole organisation $25 each would cost ''two and a half grand''. So, unless collaborating would create a ''huge'' increase in productivity, purely in [[cost]] terms, the individual incentive scheme is ''much'' more attractive to our shareholders | |||
The CEO will ask himself how much better the whole group would have to do, for ''him'' to get $25 through collaboration? This means ''everyone else'' would have to get $25. That total cost of $2,500 would be a ''huge'' total increase in performance of the whole undertaking. | The CEO will ask himself how much better the whole group would have to do, for ''him'' to get $25 through collaboration? This means ''everyone else'' would have to get $25. That total cost of $2,500 would be a ''huge'' total increase in performance of the whole undertaking. | ||