Slashdot Mirror
Open Source vs. Wall Street Bonuses
tcd004 sends in a piece from PBS NewsHour on money and what actually motivates people. "What best motivates the workforce? More money? Fame? New studies reveal that beyond a certain threshold, large financial rewards can actually become a drag on performance in the workplace. Reporter Paul Solman compares million-dollar Wall Street bonuses to the rewards earned by the labor force behind the open source community."
Who would've imagined that knowing you'd get a huge bonus anyway would make you work less/not as hard? The rest of us in the real world already know this.
You should read the article (unorthodox, I know). It involved a puzzle lasting about 15 minutes in the worst case.
I think that money can motive even a drugged-up hippie for 15 minutes. And yes, intrest, cameras and stimulating conversation would probably motivate better and perhaps a bit longer. I doubt it would work for any realistic job-like length of time though (say, a month).
Add to that the simple fact that using money is not to motivate people that are currently doing the job, that, as the article says, does not work. It motivates other people to vie for the job (especially true for wall-street ceo jobs before Obambi made it an absolute certainty that politicians get the job). The competition and the threat of getting fired (and actually firing incompetent people) ensure the job is carried out by capable people.
But imho, the article is right, giving a raise to an individual will not increase motivation. Except perhaps when it's a raise like in "a christmas carol".
Of course, if too many ceo's think like this jobhopping is going to become a national passtime (although if my colleagues are any indication jobhopping is THE way to get payraises already).
Similarly, in my experience, the people who end up in the highest-paying jobs are usually not the most productive or useful workers at a company, but simply the most sociopathic ones. Instead of helping others and improving the system, they optimized for their own success.
So what Open Corporate Culture would promote and reward good behaviour in a realistic way?
Scientia et Potentia
How are the things executives do and the things open source developers do even remotely comparable?
This whole thing is just a bunch of wankers saying how awful business people are because they get paid well.
You know, fine, it's a standard trope at PBS. But at the same time, these wankers are saying I'm perfectly happy being underpaid. Well, fuck you very much, no I'm not, and you don't need to be pontificating on how much I should be paid. I think I can represent myself to potential clients just fine without your help, ta much.
The supporting scientific evidence that they provided (the psychological experiment) seems to me to be bogus (and its results misinterpreted).
The people who were offered money for solving the task may have been influenced in a way that made them subconsciously believe it was a difficult (perhaps even impossible) task to solve. Subconsciously, they may have been kind of PARALYZED by this very thought. Why would a psychologist offer dollars to me if this was easily solvable?
On the other hand, the other group, which was offered no money, must have been more RELAXED, less paralyzed and more positive-thinking. Simply put, the people in this group believed it was possible to solve the task.
Hence, in this particular context, the conclusion that money decreases motivation might be incorrect. And the biggest mistake was to generalize that conclusion and apply to any business.
Yeah, sort of.
Like, I got certified as an EMT way, way back in 1980. I've never been paid a dime for performance of duties related to being an EMT. Not a cent. But, damn, it feels good to actually save someone's life. Sometimes, you even hear a word of thanks. That's cool too.
In the world of open source, I don't really contribute much, and I certainly make no money for what I do contribute. But, again, it's a good feeling just to assist somewhere, and to hope that your input might help to create a better product.
On the job? Yeah - I ask for raises now and then. I need more money. But, the money isn't the REASON I go to work. I like solving problems, I enjoy doing things. My biggest frustration on the job is not lack of money, but the shortsighted pennypinching fools who can't understand that sometimes spending x dollars will actually save x times y dollars over the next few months, or years, or decades.
Of course, the very same pennypinching fools decide whether I get my raise or not. That's not a pretty picture either.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Some people who earn a lot don't do anything useful (though what's useful is somewhat subjective anyway).
However generalizing that to a universal law is a bit of a stretch.
You appear to assume a person can only be motivated by one thing at a time. I'd say, at the risk of getting too technical, that's it's a load of bollocks.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
However generalizing that to a universal law is a bit of a stretch.
I don't think it's general law, just like Parkinson's law probably isn't. I am just (half-jokingly) giving arguments why it could be true, while I don't see good arguments for the opposite situation (except maybe the generally inborn human need for justice - see ultimatum game for instance).
You appear to assume a person can only be motivated by one thing at a time. I'd say, at the risk of getting too technical, that's it's a load of bollocks.
Well, at the end of the day, you have to compare the two things and determine which one is more important, or what their conversion ratio is. For example, you have to determine whether you want interesting but low paying job or less interesting but high paying job. The point is, the other party can take advantage of this in their offer. (And there are examples from Slashdot too - see e.g. game developers vs. business application developers.)
In fact, --- this is just your opinion. There is a lot of work outside of your personal experience which might appear less useful to you because you have not thought about it yet. This is ok. Nobody knows about everything. The limitation of your viewpoint does not set a standard and should not let you judge other people's work.
There are several jobs I would consider useful for society where it would be difficult to come up with "intrinsic motivation" (my opinion). For myself, I conclude that equaling the glamor of a job with its usefulness is highly flawed.
For corporations, there is a validated and accurate test for detecting sociopaths (those with a genetic absence of conscience and empathy) so simple testing and exclusion is sufficient to resolve that problem. Whilst narcissists can also be damaging they generally lack the abilities to succeed outside of mass media, other than as puppets of the sociopaths who do the plotting and scheming whilst the narcissist presents the public face (think the Cheney Bush partnership).
The rewards offered need to match the psychology of the desired work force, while still providing for an acceptable life style. Where the government provides a significant portion of important elements of a liveable society this free business from those costs ie. universal health care, free public education, welfare support for unemployment or injury, low cost quality housing, readily accessible low cost public transport. Full provision of these public services de-stresses a society as such, there is less pressure to earn more by what ever means possible, just in case you need it, this provides a more stable and honest work force.
Greed can never be sated, in point of fact, greed is not so much driven by what they get but in what they can deny you, exclusivity, the rest of society starving and desperate whilst they wallow in excess (more than they can consume in a thousand life times).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I got an Alan Smith - no, sorry, Adam - on line 2. Something about economies of scale.
And you do know that limited liability companies are not necessarily large, don't you? I don't see how a hundred small or ten medium sized businesses going under is much different to one large one failing.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That is not a bonus. That is base compensation - even if the amount of the bonus isn't a fixed dollar figure. A bonus is something you are NOT entitled to.
Actually, I would love if my manager would do something worthwhile 100% of his time. He would certainly be capable of that. But he has to deal with constant s**t that someone even higher decided.
So yes, I believe he is less useful than he could be, but I don't fault him. I fault the top-down hierarchical system of direction, where the people need to fight constant battles against each other (everybody fears of those above, below and to the side of them). I would say having 50% management has little logical basis.
Anyway, my point was more general than managers vs. other employees. Look for example how teachers or scientists are paid relative to people who do finance or sell insurance.
P.S. Envy is not a bad thing. Look up Ultimatum game. The very mechanism that drives "irrational" behavior of actual humans could be described as envy.
No, that is incorrect. Stock value has relatively little correlation with how a company is actually performing. Paying executives in stock, vested or not, is still giving a bonus without regard to company improvement. The only difference is will that stock pay a little or a lot, but again, to drive the point home, does not have anything to do with performance, only speculation on the stock price itself. What we need is a 180-degree turn and find a way to tie bonuses to performance.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.