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: | ||
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 investment bankers=== | ===What motivates investment bankers=== | ||
But | But 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]] | ||