83,056
edits
Candle problem: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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}}. | ||
=== | But for our purposes, it hints at what might be wrong with [[Compensation|discretionary compensation]], and why investment banks are likely to stick with it anyway. | ||
===The candle problems === | |||
The problem comes from the [[Duncker candle problem|''Duncker'' candle problem]], first formulated by gestalt rockabilly entertainer Elvis Duncker in 1945, which challenges participants to figure out how to attach a lighted candle to a wall so that no wax gets on the floor, using only matches and a tray of tacks. Duncker correctly predicted participants’ “[[functional fixedness]]” regarding the tray — seeing it as only a container for the thumbtacks and not otherwise relevant to the problem — would hinder their arrival at the simplest solution to the puzzle: tack the box to the wall, and put the candle in the box. | The problem comes from the [[Duncker candle problem|''Duncker'' candle problem]], first formulated by gestalt rockabilly entertainer Elvis Duncker in 1945, which challenges participants to figure out how to attach a lighted candle to a wall so that no wax gets on the floor, using only matches and a tray of tacks. Duncker correctly predicted participants’ “[[functional fixedness]]” regarding the tray — seeing it as only a container for the thumbtacks and not otherwise relevant to the problem — would hinder their arrival at the simplest solution to the puzzle: tack the box to the wall, and put the candle in the box. | ||
Thus, solving the [[Duncker candle problem]] requires a small amount of lateral thinking, to overcome the “[[functional fixedness]]”. | Thus, solving the [[Duncker candle problem]] requires a small amount of lateral thinking, to overcome the “[[functional fixedness]]”. | ||
Enter flamboyant pianist Elton Glucksberg, whose addition was to run the [[candle problem]] with two groups, each incentivised differently. One group was not given an incentive but told the experiment was a to test out various problems to decide which to use in a later experiment”. The 25% fastest problem solvers in the other group would win $5 each, the fastest, $25. The rest got a [[donut]]. | Enter flamboyant pianist Elton Glucksberg, whose addition was to run the [[candle problem]] with two groups, each incentivised differently. One group was not given an incentive but told the experiment was a to test out various problems to decide which to use in a later experiment”. The 25% fastest problem solvers in the other group would win $5 each, the fastest, $25. The rest got a [[donut]]. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Well, not quite. But the insistence of big organisations on narrow, stupid compensation models maddens {{author|Daniel Pink}}, giver of said TED talk, who rails at the absurdity and venality of our institutions, whose leaders stick religiously to the traditional bonus structure in the face of overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work. It doesn’t just madden Pink, it ''baffles'' him. | Well, not quite. But the insistence of big organisations on narrow, stupid compensation models maddens {{author|Daniel Pink}}, giver of said TED talk, who rails at the absurdity and venality of our institutions, whose leaders stick religiously to the traditional bonus structure in the face of overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work. It doesn’t just madden Pink, it ''baffles'' him. | ||
===What motivates bankers=== | ===What motivates investment bankers=== | ||
But {{author|Daniel Pink}} is proving the wrong point here. The puzzle isn’t understanding | But {{author|Daniel Pink}} is proving the wrong point here. The puzzle isn’t understanding that “autonomy, mastery, and purpose” motivate people more than a bit of extra cash — who didn’t, instinctively, know that? — but why our corporate overlords who, in their reflective moments, surely know it as well, ignore this plain, ''[[a priori]]'' fact. | ||
[[File:Influence on incentive structure 1.png|500px|thumb|right|Why the leaders of your organisation like to eat what you kill]] | [[File:Influence on incentive structure 1.png|500px|thumb|right|Why the leaders of your organisation like to eat what you kill]] | ||