82,891
edits
Candle problem: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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. | ||
[[File:Influence on incentive structure 1.png|400px|thumb|left|Why the leaders of your organisation like to eat what you kill]] | |||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
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''. | 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 | 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... | ||
{{sa}} | |||