Slashdot Mirror
Google Rewards Employees With Millions
iseff writes "According to News.com, the Google guys created a program in November which rewards employees for outstanding achievements. The program gives the possibility of millions of dollars of stock to teams who perform great work. The goal of the program, according to Brin, is two-fold. First, it allows the company to reward 'genius', or whatever they see as genius. And second, it allows them to continue to hire all sorts of employees. According to the article, they believe that a recent grad who would like to work in a start-up will still be attracted to them because of the opportunity to create something great and be rewarded with millions (and without much of the risk associated with startups)."
Hey, at least they are redirecting their hoarde of gold back at the people who generated it instead of the execs.
Actually, that isn't America. In comparison to other countries it awards Great Performers (whatever the market decides that is) quite outstandingly.Some people suggest, that there might be causal connection with the following table:Please note, before I am accused as communist, I don't want to force someone to pay someone less. I just want to suggest that the people think about it.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Insightful is still a pretty dumb idea. If you're going to use a different mod, use underrated. That doesn't carry any description, it just ups the score and (as far as I know) karma.
I love this in America... whatever you do don't reward the Great Performers, that's unfair because it makes me feel bad.
First of all, the parent didn't actually argue sypathy with the losers, it was a pragmatic argument about the net effect of such systems. There is some quite thorough research to show that the negative effects of bonus systems etc. can and often do more than offset the extra effort extracted (it may be possible to employ rewards well, but it is certainly not automatic). This may be less of a problem in this case though, since the stated goal was to attact startup-types, not to make your average office guy work harder. But ignoring the possibility as a matter of principle would be naïve and silly.
Secondly: Umm, what planet do you live on, where democratic countries that spread the rewards less than America does are easy to find?
You also, like many who argue laissez-faire capitalism, seem not to understand the concept of "degree". You make like it's either "winner takes all" or the straw man of not rewarding anything. I do understand the argument that if there is no reward people won't put in their best. I don't believe it's always quite that simple, but yeah, some dangling perks certainly can motivate at least some types of people. But sometimes it seems like you guys want me to believe that if the greatest realistic prospect was the get "just" a few thousand times richer than your neighbour, rather than, say, a billion times richer, everyone would just slack off all day. If you subscribe to that for even one second, you should be reminded in no uncertain terms that you are clearly working from conclusions and backwards, and not the other way around.
sudo ergo sum