Candle problem: Difference between revisions

Candle problem (view source)

Revision as of 18:06, 1 September 2020

197 bytes removed , 1 September 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 The remainder of the employee 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 for that is because ''the people with influence are all on the phone to their Aston Martin dealers''.
-If our captains and leaders ''were'' minded to rationalise their decisions — and that would require powers of self-awareness that, as a rule, they lack, but let’s just say — they might look at it this way: to fund the individual incentive model will cost just $150 ($25 for the CEO and 150 between the 25 board members). To fund the collective incentive model, would mean giving everyone — including ourselves— either ''nothing'', or a fiver, or ''the whole twenty-five bucks''.
+Our captains and leaders might look at it this way: to fund the individual incentive model will cost just $150 ($25 for the CEO and $5 each for the board). To fund the collective model, would mean giving everyone — including the C-suite— ''nothing'', a fiver, or ''the whole twenty-five bucks''.
-Now no-one likes the sound of a rolling [[donut]], so that’s off the table. But funding everyone a fiver would cost $500, and giving everyone $25 would cost ''two and a half grand''. So, unless the collective incentive 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’s off the table. But funding everyone a fiver would cost $500, and $25 would cost ''two and a half grand''. So, unless the collective incentive would create a ''huge'' increase in productivity, purely in [[cost]] terms, the individual incentive scheme is ''much'' more attractive to our sainted shareholders...
 Gentlemen, I move that we do that. All those in favour?