Nonmonetary Incentives and the Implications of Work as a Source of Meaning (aeaweb.org)

From a research paper [PDF]: Many workers care about more than financial compensation in their job. Nonmonetary incentives often matter, too. A firm's mission and the design of one's job can create meaning and purpose for employees. As a result, firms will have reason to care about meaning of work. We believe economists can usefully contribute to the debate about the implications of meaningful work. We are not arguing that financial compensation is unimportant. Lazear (in this volume) provides an excel- lent review of monetary incentives in certain organizations. But we believe that in order to manage modern organizations and understand the future of work, studying workers' nonmonetary motives will be crucial.

Comments

Any good manager already knows this

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Good managers are rewarded for retaining and motivating people without paying them anything else. (Early in my career I was told by managers that I was "hard to read" or that "they weren't sure what fired me up"; that made the "f u pay me" conversation easier.)

Re:Any good manager already knows this

[sanf780]

In this day and age of MBAs, it is hard to get well compensated if the top brass believe they can easily get more workers in other countries. The workers on other countries are highly motivated by increasing wages. They tend to leave the company after two years of work as it is a loss for them not to do so. Managers do not see that technical debt is increasing because of the low retention of these workers.

Re:Any good manager already knows this

[Kjella]

Good managers are rewarded for retaining and motivating people without paying them anything else. (Early in my career I was told by managers that I was "hard to read" or that "they weren't sure what fired me up"; that made the "f u pay me" conversation easier.)

Well if you go into a salary negotiation saying you're super happy with the job and wouldn't dream of switching then you're just being stupid. Dial it down to being content but ready to move on if a better offer comes up. But if I'm miserable about something and it's in my manager's power to fix it then sure I'll tell him. I mean either he can fix it or he can pay me more to make sure I stay anyway, worst case I get nothing and he knows I'm unhappy about it but then I feel I've signaled why and there's no reason for him to act butt hurt or surprised if I quit. Of course if I know he can't fix it then I'd rather leave him in the dark until I hand in my resignation.

Re: Any good manager already knows this

[datavirtue]

Not that so much as cracking the "we have competitive pay and good benefits and some standard perks" nut. The top gets this in their head and pretty much turns off their brain after that point. Even with good pay and benefits and perks a lot of people leave the corporate shitholes and the top is insulated from the reality that they do not provide meaningful work to most of their employees. One guy went into a conference room and played xbox for three fucking weeks trying to get fired. He gave up and quit. This is a place steeped in the cultish belief that it is a wonderful place to work. The employees know otherwise. Still, people get paid well and the other choice is another corporate shithole that pays well.

Re: Any good manager already knows this

[Kjella]

One guy went into a conference room and played xbox for three fucking weeks trying to get fired. He gave up and quit.

Waaaaaaaaaait a minute, he could play xbox all day without getting fired and wanted to quit? What company is this, asking for a friend...

Re:Any good manager already knows this

[Bruce Perens]

I've had this dialogue with managers. It usually goes this way: "If I want fulfillment, my home project has flown on the space shuttle. I do my work to get paid so that I can do those other things, so hold the intangibles, sorry, and pass the salary."

Re:Any good manager already knows this

[Darinbob]

The job itself matters. No amount of stellar management can make up for having to work for someplace that makes business software. At some point you realize that it doesn't help or hurt the world if you do a bad job or not.

Re: Any good manager already knows this

[Scarletdown]

Obviously Dilbert's company. I think Wally just posted.

Re:Any good manager already knows this

[tlhIngan]

I've had this dialogue with managers. It usually goes this way: "If I want fulfillment, my home project has flown on the space shuttle. I do my work to get paid so that I can do those other things, so hold the intangibles, sorry, and pass the salary."

That might work for you, but there are certain intangibles you probably would like to get. Top compensation means nothing if you don't have time or energy to do the things you want.

So they can pay you well and work you such that you go home and sleep and work and sleep and work. And your outside pursuits fall by the wayside due to lack of time and/or energy.

So perhaps some intangibles may be as simple as a 40 hour work week. Yes, they exist, and for me, I'm happy to say practically everyone in the company works 40 hours. There may be times they work more, but they're generally compensated for it with time in lieu. And perhaps vacation time, enough so you can do your pursuits.

I get it - there are some intangibles that I don't care for - a foosball table, a ping pong table, an arcade machine, not terribly exciting to me. But things like paid time off, remote working, etc do appeal, and those are still parts of the compensation package. And even things like flex time, perhaps even the ability to work an hour earlier so you can see your kid home from school on Friday. All these are intangibles and while a lot of companies say they have them, it's often pretend (as in good luck using them).

Yet, those are the ones that cost almost no money at all, and can bring employee satisfaction up

Re:Any good manager already knows this

[AmiMoJo]

I've been lucky enough to be doing my hobbies for work a couple of times. It's great but the thing is it never lasts. Commercial considerations always come in eventually.

So I agree, if our interests align that's great for both of us and you will see some real passion, but that's an added bonus and in no way a substitute for salary. At best it's a reason not to go looking for more interesting work.

Having said that, man are we lucky. At the bottom end of the job market perks like a decent kitchen and free coffee really matter, but not as much as being able to pay the rent.

Re: Any good manager already knows this

[AmiMoJo]

Obviously a Playstation guy.

Re: Any good manager already knows this

[rtb61]

Loyalty and professionalism is a two way street. Disposable employees == disposable employers == disposable customers. Psychopaths have turned the system into a shit show, where professionalism is down rated and profitable lies promoted.

Re:Any good manager already knows this

[cayenne8]

So perhaps some intangibles may be as simple as a 40 hour work week.

Hmm...I take the 40 hour work week as an assumption, not an "intangible".....

To me there is the assumption of work week length, regular holidays off and at least 3 weeks sick/vacation time....

Sure, there is the occasional OT needed at crunch times here and there, but that's not my MO for working...otherwise, I get a better job.

Re:Any good manager already knows this

[joe_frisch]

In well run organizations managers are rewarded for *success*. That means doing work that is valuable to the organization at quickly and efficiently as possible - overall. Part of that is motivating employees to work, and that is done by a combination of direct compensation, benefits, and intangible motivations.

Re: Any good manager already knows this

[Scarletdown]

Pardon the gratuitous use of the fuck word, but that is actually fucking hilarious. :D (Or perhaps it is just the cheapass Strawberry Fields talking).

Nothing new to a psychology researcher

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it so difficult for economists to acknowledge that people may and do derive value from things other than money? Psychologists have been showing this for decades now. There is an abundance of research on both sides of the coin. On the one hand, people may totally not care about money when they, for instance, work on things they find interesting and which aligns with personal values. On the other hand, the argument that monetary incentives undermine core values is also not true when money aids people in doing what they love (e.g., steve jobs and apple).

Are economists afraid that when they admit that non-monetary cues are valuable to people the world economy collapses?

Re:Nothing new to a psychology researcher

[ShanghaiBill]

Why is it so difficult for economists to acknowledge that people may and do derive value from things other than money?

The do acknowledge non-monetary incentives, and this is a fashionable focus of economic research. They just have difficulty building models that accurately predict behavior.

Re:Nothing new to a psychology researcher

[youngone]

People sometimes confuse economists for scientists, but they're not.
Economists are either priests, or acolytes, depending on how senior they are.
Economists brook no dissent, and punish heretics severely.
Do not make the mistake of listening to the advise of an economist. Listen to your accountant instead, they're just like economists, but useful.

Re:Nothing new to a psychology researcher

[Areyoukiddingme]

Why is it so difficult for economists to acknowledge that people may and do derive value from things other than money?

The do acknowledge non-monetary incentives, and this is a fashionable focus of economic research. They just have difficulty building models that accurately predict behavior.

Considering their models around money don't accurately predict behavior either, I think they're out of luck.

I can still hear in my head the Chinese TA saying "opportunity cost", as if anyone chooses to spend most of their money after making conscious trade-off decisions...

First world problems

[valnar]

This sounds like a white-collar issue, of which most slashdot readers are. But ask any blue-collar worker if incentives are worth more than money and the expected answer will be obvious.
https://youtu.be/FFrag8ll85w?t...

Re:First world problems

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as I get nonmonetary incentives in addition to sufficient monetary incentives, I'll keep working.

When the conversation changes to instead of, my choice of employer will also change to instead of.

Re: First world problems

[datavirtue]

Blue collar incentives amount to peanut shells that fall out of the mouths of upper management. They secretly want management to choke on their own nuts.

Re: First world problems

[Opportunist]

Secretly? I didn't know it's a secret, sorry.

Re:First world problems

[joe_frisch]

I don't think all or even most blue collar workers take the highest paying job available. They also consider working conditions, commute etc when they pick a job. People with no choice may take whatever job they can get, but it a choice shows up, many will consider non-monetary compensation as well.

I don't think this has much meaning

[rsilvergun]

outside the top 10-15% of jobs. I mean, we have nurses striking because their pay is too low, something I don't think I've seen in 30+ years.

This would be an interesting conversation if we had single payer healthcare. More so if we had basic income. In other words if all or a majority of people had their basic needs met. But in a country where 45,000 people die every year and overtime pay isn't guaranteed anymore this comes off as a bunch of managers trying to figure out how they get can 80 hours of value for 40 hours pay.

Re: I don't think this has much meaning

[datavirtue]

Nurses are generally paid well but they are not getting a cut of the ever increasing pie. Just like college administrators looting the government coffers medical administrators are doing g the same thing and acting like they are broke.

Nurses are treated like 19th century coal miners.

Re: I don't think this has much meaning

[Darinbob]

They're not necessarily paid "well". People have this mistaken idea that the medical industry is rolling in money, but it's not. Most nurses don't make enough to be the sole breadwinner in the family.

Re: I don't think this has much meaning

[schematix]

The medical field is ABSOLUTELY rolling in the dough. Maybe not the nurses, but others are. For example, I just picked up new tenants in my rental property who are doctors in their first year of practice. Their salary is 3x what I make as an electrical engineer with over a decade of experience. I won't quote exact numbers because that's private info, but we're talking about annual salary levels higher than most people make cumulatively in a DECADE.

Re:I don't think this has much meaning

[thegarbz]

I mean, we have nurses [youtube.com] striking because their pay is too low

Strikes are rarely exclusively about pay, especially nurses striking. Often pay discussions are the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes for some nice soundbytes but really the answer was in the first few seconds of your video. When some group asks for pay rises that perfectly align with those of another group it's not about money as much as equality.

Lots of things get lumped in as "pay me more" especially in nursing around the world. But do a google search on nurse striking and you start seeing all sorts of things stacking up:
- Understaffing in hospitals
- Overworking in hospitals
- Work hours inflexible / excessive
- Agreed pay rises at or below rate of inflation leading to a decrease in income relative to cost of living.
- Where I live it's actually about security. Nurses get attacked too much by patients.

Ultimately though when it gets down to it, if people are desperate enough to strike exclusively over pay then it's often because they aren't being paid enough to live. You can't have a source of meaning at work if you live in your car and have a diet existing of ramen.

Nice to be thanked for working to death

[Anonymous Coward]

Many workers care about more than financial compensation in their job

It'd be nice to be thanked for working our fucking balls off for the sole benefit of the company execs and shareholders yeah.

But let's not forget work is simply a means to survive, nothing more. Those that define their lives by working are in the minority and are, to the rest of us at least, borderline insane. We toil for our corporate masters in return for money which is then given to other corporate masters in return for making our lives pleasant.

It's a balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Compensation is important.

But as they say, find a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life.

Getting paid a few percent more to go to a job I hate? No thanks.

Complicated issue

[bobstreo]

Compensation is the only reason I ever have worked.

This kind of article seems to be arguing that management can appease appalling work conditions with a pat on the back, not actually rewarding them for accomplishments.

That being said, working with people you like and respect makes work less stressful and sometimes even fun.

If you're getting paid poorly, with people you would happily kill if you could only get away with it, it's probably way beyond time to leave.

Wow!

[no-body]

Is there anything else beyond the dream of "making it" shown over and over again on media, and then, the dream never becomes true and the compensation patterns set in... just not to admit that one has been just screwed over for good?

There may be other countries where actual research is done on human fulfillment and happiness, in the US, in case you ever tried?
Result: Chastised, not taken serious, outcast suspected of "nastiness" and what else have you....

Look at the homeless - humans born to this planet like you and me, just not able to make it or destined for failure from - any reason is good for justification - ...

Will see what happens in the coming decades with the earth-ship turns quicker and quicker into the vortex of self-destruct... maybe ready for another try?

My guess: Too late honey, missed the train...

No problem

[nospam007]

I gladly accept stock options, company car, company jet, real estate, rare metals, free vacations, use of yachts, hookers and other perks just like our bosses.

Re:The search for purpose...

[olsmeister]

I don't care about the purpose. I want to know the reason.

Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[lucasnate1]

In individualist capitalist societies, all social structures are broken. Nations, tribes, friendships, romances, families, it all breaks down. The only social institute that remains is work.

This causes people to seek purpose in their work, to identify themselves with it, to hate those who do not work as hard.

This is all very convenient for the ruling caste, a new form of religion, bypassing all stupid rituals, enslaving people directly, while they thank you for it.

Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[PPH]

The only social institute that remains is work.

40 hours per week out of 168 is for work. The rest is for you to do with as you please (employment drug testing aside). 40 hours is still a lot of time to spend doing something you hate. So you have to be somewhat selective. But you can still seek fulfillment elsewhere.

In individualist capitalist societies

The trade off is that capitalism neither controls nor subsidizes social structures outside of work. If you don't like that, look at all the options someplace like the Soviet Union offered its citizens.

Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[lucasnate1]

40 hours per week out of 168 is for work.

That's bull, most tech jobs will usually call you afterhours, except you to do over time, etc. etc.

The trade off is that capitalism

I get it, you really like capitalism and you are butthurt over what I said. Well, let me give you a stick and a carrot:

Stick - Germany is not like the soviet union, it is a country where workers have basic rights, where people have a public health system, and yet it is not a hellhole like the soviet union. Hell, I'm Israeli, which likely makes you think I am living in a war zone, but I still feel safer here, knowing that even though there's a chance that I will be assaulted by a terrorist (a very low chance, much higher chance to die in a car accident), there is a public health system (with flaws) that will take care of me if I become sick.

Carrot - You think that I'm some kinda crazy leftist? Look again at what I wrote, "INDIVIDUALIST capitalist" societies, nations and families. The left has a responsibility here too, it insisted on ruining traditional structures without reallly providing something else in return except for "do what you want".

Look, I think that every culture has its big mistakes. For many past cultures, that mistake is believing in god, or thinking that the earth is flat, or something like that. For our culture, I think it is the belief that the individual is purely rational, that we can trust his feelings and thoughts because in our base, we are rational beings. Well, I don't think so, I think that we are all prone to irrationalities, I don't think we have 50 genders and I also don't think we should all be allowed free access to guns. It's not a matter of hero capitalists against monster communists, it's a matter of finding the balance between lots of choices, most of them are shitty. Hell, maybe we're bound to fail just because our brains are not good enough for the task of being civilized, history seems to hint in that direction.

Just, don't be naive, don't think that the current system is without flaws, it is, and it has room for improvement.

Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[Opportunist]

I kinda pity you.

Then again, I can well exist without social structures. Actually, the fewer I have to endure, the better.

Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[lucasnate1]

I can well exist without social structures

This, this is our century's crazy illusion, just like "the earth is flat" of the past. A man connected to the internet, who lives in a society of millions who provide him with utilities every day, says that he can exist without social structures. Dude, I am sure that there are people who can exist without social structures. Let me give you a hint, they don't comment on slashdot.

Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[youngone]

look at all the options someplace like the Soviet Union offered its citizens.

Ah yes, because there are only two possibilities, either good ol' freedom loving USA, or nasty Soviet Union. There's no way there could be any other kind of society.

Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[Kjella]

A man connected to the internet, who lives in a society of millions who provide him with utilities every day, says that he can exist without social structures. Dude, I am sure that there are people who can exist without social structures. Let me give you a hint, they don't comment on slashdot.

Uh, unless I totally misread him he was talking about the social interaction/attachment not the actual utilities/services, in a big city nobody will notice if you don't want a social circle. And I'm sure there's some kinds of gig work where you're pretty much only dealing with an app instead of a boss/coworkers/customers. If you also use self-service/checkout systems, e-tail etc. you can pretty much avoid dealing with people entirely while still living in modern society instead of being a hermit. Some people prefer being lone wolves.

Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[Darinbob]

Some tech jobs. When you say most, you're probably thinking IT support staff or such, or a game company.

Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[m00sh]

In individualist capitalist societies, all social structures are broken. Nations, tribes, friendships, romances, families, it all breaks down. The only social institute that remains is work.

This causes people to seek purpose in their work, to identify themselves with it, to hate those who do not work as hard.

This is all very convenient for the ruling caste, a new form of religion, bypassing all stupid rituals, enslaving people directly, while they thank you for it.

No, it doesn't break down. Why the hell would it break down? Makes no sense.

Re: Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[that this is not und]

Right. My job is rather strictly 8-5 right now. I work for a small tech company. There is a pick-and-place machine for surface mount components and a wave soldering machine for through-hole one floor above where my workspace is. We're a small electronics device manufacturer for a niche market in the midwest.

When I first started working there I discovered that I couldn't stay late if I wanted to. The owner wants to lock up and go home at 5.

Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[Opportunist]

You DO know that your Facebook friends are not what would be Webster's definition of "friend", yes?

Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures.

[lucasnate1]

I've never done either of them, and yet I had to do over time.

Re:This is bullshit

[ShanghaiBill]

I just want money.

You are likely motivated by non-monetary factors more than you realize. My company used to give semi-annual bonuses, and then decided to redirect that money toward "adventures". We had a company river rafting trip, went skydiving, hot air ballooning, and skiing. We sent many of the programmers on a "coding cruise" to Alaska. The result was better retention, better morale and camaraderie, and easier recruitment.

We're going hang gliding next month.

I enjoy my work

[joe_frisch]

I want fair compensation but I also want and have a job that I enjoy and which I think does something with a positive impact on the world. Iâ(TM)ve turned down higher paying jobs because they didnâ(TM)t offer these things

I feel sorry for you

[raymorris]

If the only thing in life you can see any value in is money, I feel sorry for you, because you'll never be satisfied. Money is only a means to an end. If you chase money as though it were the end until itself, you'll be forever chasing, trying to get more money in order to finally be satisfied. But no amount of money is ever enough, because it doesn't provide satisfaction, contentment.

Just look at all the multi-millionaire stars of stage and screen who have committed suicide, or otherwise ruined their lives. They've had tons of money, yet life was so empty death seemed the only way out.

Or perhaps you didn't notice the summary says people value non-monetary things TOO. Nobody said money isn't useful, and even important. They said it's not the only thing that is important.

I could switch jobs and earn probably 50% more, at least 35% more easily. I don't do that because money isn't the only thing important to me. Time with my family is important. My job provides me important time with my family in multiple ways. They let me work from home, so I can have breakfast with my daughter instead of sitting in traffic. They give me time off no questions ask whenever I need it. Actually last week I tried to ask my boss if it was cool for me to take the next day off and he couldn't even understand how that was a question. If I wanted to take a day to go to the water park with my family, that was 100% up to me - I just needed to tell him, not ask him. They respect my work hours vs home hours and don't expect me to be working at 8PM.

My boss and my company treat me with respect. They ask me "are you okay with doing it this way?", or even "how do you think we should it?", rather than dictating from on high.

Our company had a conversation about what we want to do to improve the world. We don't want to sell just another product like the others, that doesn't really benefit anyone. We want to do something different, something we can believe in as our work doing a little something to make the world a slightly better place.

A year ago I thought I might have to switch jobs because I wasn't sure I could trust my new boss. I don't want to work for someone I don't trust. That matters to me. It turns out he has earned some trust, so I'm still there. Trust and honestly matters.

For many years I ran my own businesses, with a few employees. I work for a much larger, much more stable, company now, because stability matters. It gives me peace of mind. (For further peace of mind, I also have a backup, another large, stable company I could switch to if needed).

My job let's me learn and grow, working on different things, and gives me some flexibility in what I want to work on. Learning and growing are important to me.

I could go on and on, but you get the gist.

Re:I feel sorry for you

[Decameron81]

If the only thing in life you can see any value in is money, I feel sorry for you, because you'll never be satisfied.

That's a bit extreme though. This discussion is about what you value in work, not life. You could love travelling on your own, but still only care about money from work.

As an example: I'd really rather travel with my family than do it with my colleagues.

In my life work serves a very specific purpose: sustain myself and my family. For fun, learning, and other things... I prefer to do them on my own, with the people that I chose.

Re:I feel sorry for you

[thegarbz]

You could love travelling on your own, but still only care about money from work.

So what you're saying is that holidays, time-off and flexible hours are important to you. Kind of exactly what we're talking about when we say "non monetary".

Re:I feel sorry for you

[cascadingstylesheet]

If the only thing in life you can see any value in is money, I feel sorry for you, because you'll never be satisfied.

That's a bit extreme though. This discussion is about what you value in work, not life. You could love travelling on your own, but still only care about money from work.

As an example: I'd really rather travel with my family than do it with my colleagues.

In my life work serves a very specific purpose: sustain myself and my family. For fun, learning, and other things... I prefer to do them on my own, with the people that I chose.

Precisely.

The nice thing about money is that it is so versatile. You use money to make sure that housing, food, and other needs are met. What you use with what's left over is up to you. Maybe I don't like ping pong; I'd prefer money over the office ping pong table, then I can use it for something I do like.

And as for time with family, while you could, of course, spend time with them just sitting around looking at whatever rocks or leaves that nobody wants, if you actually want to have some variety in that time, family activities and supplies for those activities often do cost some money.

Re:I feel sorry for you

[Green Mountain Bot]

If the only thing in life you can see any value in is money, I feel sorry for you, because you'll never be satisfied. .

Where did you get that from the OP? He said that money is his only motivation for working, not that it's the only thing he values in his life. There are plenty of people - like myself - for whom work is simply a means to pay for the things that I really value, like time with family, creative-but-unprofitable endeavors, travel, recreation, etc.

Personally, I feel sorry for people whose only meaning comes from work. So much to see and do in this great big world, and they just want to drone. Sad.

Re:I feel sorry for you

[raymorris]

Since you mentioned travel as one of the things that is important to you, I'll just refer you a couple posts up in the thread:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Nonmonetary motivation

[Opportunist]

Like stocks?

Seriously, let's be honest here: Show me ONE C-level that cares about mission statement, meaningful work, job design or any other bullshit-feelgood wording and we'll talk about it.

Can't find one?

Guess why.

Re:How much is this perk worth to you?

[Opportunist]

Let's see, what is it worth to me...

Flexible hours. Nothing. At least not more than for you, because flexible also means that I won't drop the pencil at 1700 instead of finishing that terribly important thing you want done today. Without flexible hours, so sorry but I work 0900-1700, you will see me finish it tomorrow at 0900.

Telework. Nothing. Actually, my question would be how much you're willing to pay extra for me to provide you with power and a workplace in my home at my expense.

Job security. Good one. Got a few more like that and you have a standup routine.

Think about available time outside work

[Camembert]

Of course compensation is important. But a job you like doing is equally important for a meaningful life.
Think about the hours you spend at work, commuting and sleeping. Not that much time left for other things. Meaning, your work is a big part of your life. It is in my opinion important to spend it on work you like doing, otherwise life would become miserable.
I have a friend in a rather boring job who says: “I work to make other things possible”. Such as a nice holiday destination etc. But at the same time he doesn’t enjoy most of his waking hours.
I work at my 3rd employer, since this month I work there for 20 years. Yes, the compensation is ok, but I only stayed so long because most of the time I truly enjoy it, find it interesting, challenging and with opportunities to meet great people.

Re:Money is the ONLY reason I work.

[Opportunist]

This is so not true, money isn't everything. How short sighted and narrow minded can you be? I'm not in for the money.

I'm in for the stock options.

Re:This is bullshit

[Opportunist]

You can certainly tell me why I'd value that over getting the money those trips cost, right?

Hint: I HATE traveling. I have to do a lot of it as part of my work, and that's way more than I willingly would do.

Re:This is bullshit

[R3d M3rcury]

I've often said that there are three criteria that I weigh when looking at a job:

• What I'm Doing
• Where I'm Doing It
• How Much I'm Getting Paid To Do It

What will I be doing? Is the work interesting, challenging, exciting, boring?
Where will I be doing it? Is it someplace where I want to live? Are there interesting things about that area? If it's already in the area, how much of a nuisance is it to get to work? A 10 minute commute? An hour? Two hours? Is there mass transit?
How much will I be getting paid to do it? Will I be able to support myself?

For example, if you want me to work on accounting software in North Dakota, you're going to have to pay me a lot more than if I was working on robotics in North Dakota or working on accounting software in southern California (though obviously cost of living comes into play).

So, at least for me, it isn't purely money. Yes, I want to be paid adequately. I don't want to have to eat ramen noodles 5 days a week so that I can pay rent. If my car breaks down, I want to be able to get it fixed and not have to pinch pennies for the rest of the month until I get a paycheck. But I'm willing to sacrifice some extra money to work on interesting things.

Bottom line

[Alwin Henseler]

Probably top management (or shareholders) mostly care about the bottom line. Or worse: nothing but the bottom line. But even then: hiring workers from a low-wage country that only care about the pay, could be worse for that bottom line than hiring workers from a higher-wage country if they care about things besides pay. Likewise if that decision affects customers' perception of the company.

So even assuming the worst for management's motives, having a look at those non-monetary incentives could be beneficial for the bottom line. Not to mention other yardsticks along which a company's performance might be measured.

nice try boss

[mikesum32]

Nice try boss, but I'm not taking a pay cut. I'm ready to live in the Star Trek universe though, preferably a nice slice of TNG.

The impression I got from the video

[rsilvergun]

is that they're having trouble making ends meet. Given what student loans are like these days and the high cost of living in a lot of areas I can believe it. Nurses are one of those essential services you need even when the average cost of a house is $500k+. Like school teachers, police and fire department. People living in those communities want those services but they don't want to pay the people providing them enough to live where they work.

People have started using the word "gentrification" but I think we need something better to describe what happens when the working class are squeezed out of an area but the well to do and rich still want their services.

Re:This is bullshit

[110010001000]

That sounds horrible. I would quit a job like that. I want vacation with family and friends with my bonus, not vacation with co-workers.

You want time off in the right season? Really off?

[raymorris]

So you want time off at the right seasons for traveling to each destination? How do you feel about getting work calls while traveling with your family? How about working 40 hours while traveling, as many people do?

Do you like to travel in a van, or in first-class on airliners? Do you enjoy spending time around other travelers, rather than homebodies?

I dare say your work can have quite an effect on your travel.

Re: This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

âoeYou are likely motivated by non-monetary factors more than you realize.â

Actually, sometimes people just tell you the truth.

Me, OTOH, only care about money when there isnâ(TM)t enough of it. And âenoughâ(TM) isnâ(TM)t actually all that much. Has to be an interesting problem, or it doesnâ(TM)t matter how much you pay me, I probably canâ(TM)t focus on it for all that long.

I encourage calls, prefer them

[raymorris]

This is an example of different people having different values and preferences. I very much encourage my co-workers to call me, for a number of reasons.

At my job, we each have our own area of expertise and responsibility. Especially with my 20 years of both experience and constant study, there are certain things which are very much in my domain and either I care very much how it's done, or I have significantly more knowledge or experience about a certain thing (such as about code that I wrote).

I very much value efficiency, getting a good value, more bang for the buck. Therefore it bugs me when I find out that someone spent 8 hours trying to figure out something I could have told them in four minutes. I'd much rather answer their call - I'm probably driving (Bluetooth) or sitting at some social gathering I don't care about anyway, so their call is a welcome break from the boredom. It's just far more efficient to ask me, sometimes.

Other times, I've come back from being gone, or just from concentrating on other work, and found that a co-worker has made a big mess which could have been avoided with a five-minute conversation, because they were stretching too far outside their limits*.

Sometimes I have to clean up their mess. Other times the situation doesn't allow me to clean it up, so I have to live with their mess. I'd rather take the phone call.

I'm ALSO able to say "I'm a bit busy right now, but I can call you back in two hours", or even "I'm going to have to work with you on that when I get back to the office. There are some traps there that might bite you, so it might be a good idea to wait."

I can totally understand people not wanting you be disturbed though!

* In my experience there is a "right" amount of stretching one's abilities. Just like with physical fitness, fitness experts tell us to stretch our muscles, but don't stretch so far that it hurts - pain indicates damage. I'm not saying people should never do more than they've done before. Studies in education indicate learning happens when people go just a little beyond what they know well - not when they are in deep over their head.

Re:I encourage calls, prefer them

[cayenne8]

Therefore it bugs me when I find out that someone spent 8 hours trying to figure out something I could have told them in four minutes. I'd much rather answer their call -

When that proverbial door hits me on the ass on the way out of the workplace....I leave my brain there too and don't give it a 2nd thought when I am on MY time.

If I'm not being paid to think about work...I'm not thinking about work.

I mean, after all it is is JUST......a job.

Re: I encourage calls, prefer them

[Lije Baley]

Same here. I will also add that I'd trade money for less nonsense.

Re:I encourage calls, prefer them

[aix tom]

For me boils down on how strict the line between MY time and THEIR time is. For example, they could NEVER get me to answer the phone after hours by offering me MONEY.

On the other hand, I'm willing to answer (some*) of my companies calls after hours based on the fact that for example my company was also flexible enough to let us go swimming for a few hours during "lunch break" during the heat wave. Basically for me the flexibility they give me is worth more than a few extra bucks.

*But I have made it clear that once someone has called for a non-emergency their calls will no longer be answered.

People hate mandatory extraciricular crap

[knorthern knight]

> Me, I show up, work hard for 8 hours, and expect a check
> every two weeks. That is the extent of my requirements.

If that's that the extent of your boss's requirements, great. You've got a nice work environment.

* It took many years, but the principle has been established that female employees are not required to be their male boss' s sex partners. Now all we have to do is establish that male employees should not be required to be their male boss's beer buddies. It's glossed over with euphemisms like "after hours teambuilding excercises", but it basically comes down to cruising the strip joints, crawling the pubs, and getting home totally plastered at 2:30 AM in the morning.

* "work hard for 8 hours" is fine. Not 12 hours day-in day-out without overtime, and being on call 24x7 even when on vacation.

* Mandatory Fecesbook accounts. Someone please tell the HR-cunts that being an overgrown 13-year old girl who needs to constatnly post selfies does not constitute the one true way to live.

Re:People hate mandatory extraciricular crap

[cayenne8]

Mandatory Fecesbook accounts.

What job has this as a requirement?

Never heard of that before...although I could maybe understand it if you worked FOR FB, but outside of that, what job requires you to have a FB account,or any other social media account for that matter...?

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds horrible. I would quit a job like that.

And we are happy for you to do so. We want team players here.

Re:Money is the ONLY reason I work.

[Scarletdown]

None of the places I shop at take stock options as payment. That is why money comes first, everything else anywhere after that.

Re: This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. Part of my work-life balance is to spend my free time with people I don't work with.

Re:Money is the ONLY reason I work.

[Opportunist]

You shop in the wrong places, pleb! ;)

Re:This is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. This comment made me throw up in my mouth a bit.

Re:Money is the ONLY reason I work.

[thegarbz]

You're hardcore man. I'm one of those SJW snowflakes that would prefer not to show up for Christmas, or any other public holiday.

Who am I kidding, on top of that I also prefer not to show up for 40 days a year and to have the flexibility to work from home.

Re:This is bullshit

[AmiMoJo]

What do the people with disabilities and health issues that prevent them from going river rafting, skiing and hang gliding get?

Re:This is bullshit

[gander666]

Ans: the high, hard one

Re:This is bullshit

[cayenne8]

You are likely motivated by non-monetary factors more than you realize. My company used to give semi-annual bonuses, and then decided to redirect that money toward "adventures". We had a company river rafting trip, went skydiving, hot air ballooning, and skiing. We sent many of the programmers on a "coding cruise" to Alaska. The result was better retention, better morale and camaraderie, and easier recruitment.

We're going hang gliding next month.

Well, I'd only consider those things positive, IF I already was being paid a satisfactory salary/bill rate.

But then again, I'd always be wondering if they can afford to pay for these type events, could they afford to be giving me a bit MORE direct $$ than spending it on company mandated activities?

I suppose it might depend on the frequency and the extravagance of the activities...a little is good, but a lot means they could be paying me more.

I prefer to have the money to decide how it is spent myself, I figure I can do better with my money than a company or the government.

Surfer dudes?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Lazear (in this volume) provides an excel- lent review of monetary incentives in certain organizations.

excel- lent ??

Re:This is bullshit

[cascadingstylesheet]

I just want money.

You are likely motivated by non-monetary factors more than you realize. My company used to give semi-annual bonuses, and then decided to redirect that money toward "adventures". We had a company river rafting trip, went skydiving, hot air ballooning, and skiing. We sent many of the programmers on a "coding cruise" to Alaska. The result was better retention, better morale and camaraderie, and easier recruitment.

We're going hang gliding next month.

Extreeeeeme! (sorry, 90s flashback there)

Those trips might be a tad tough for me; I have a disabled child and my wife has herself become disabled. I ain't going anywhere.

If I worked there, could I perhaps just have the money? (Or is it maybe soft age discrimination?)

Re:This is bullshit

[buddyglass]

I want money too. Like you, if you don't pay me enough I'm not showing up. That said, even with the money, I'm not super happy about the work I do, and often find myself wondering, "What the hell am I doing with my life? (other than making money)". I think that may be what this article is addressing: staving off existential ennui. For instance, certain physician specialties have very high self-reported job satisfaction. They're also compensated reasonably well. Is the high job sat score because the job itself is so great, or because they can tell a credible story to themselves about how their work is "meaningful" and how they're "helping people"? Other jobs that have high self-reported job satisfaction are clergy, firefighters, physical therapists, etc. The common thread seems to be the ability to assign "meaning" to the job, and not necessarily pay. I make considerably more than the average firefighter, yet the average firefighter is probably more satisfied with his or her job than I am with mine.

Re:This is bullshit

[jareth-0205]

That sounds horrible. I would quit a job like that. I want vacation with family and friends with my bonus, not vacation with co-workers.

A million time yes. We spend more time with co-workers than anyone else in our lives just by being in the office... why would I want to spend any more time with them, nomatter how cool they might happen to be?

When a company says that, they're screwing you

[whitroth]

How many of you have had title inflations? Oh, you're not a programmer, you're a developer, a designer, a fill_in_the_blank. I mean, really, to janitors get paid more by having a title of "sanitary engineer"? Do they get more respect?

Of course not. And do you *really* think that upper management gives a flyin' fart about you, as long as you're willing to do "whatever it takes"? And even then, how much are they going to show you that it matters, in terms of *MONEY*?

Horse hockey. As a datapoint, I think it was in Studs Terkel's book from the late 70's, Working, that he mentioned a study showing that 80% of EVERYONE wasn't just unhappy in their job, but actively hated it. You - are you all wild and enthused when you come back to work Monday morning? Is it as important to you as the weekend, or the holiday, and how you spent that?

Source of Meaning?

[Doctrinsograce]

If people determine meaning from their jobs, they have far more fundamental problems!

Mostly CHOSEN balance point. Slashdot is rich peop

[raymorris]

> That balance point is different for different people

It is indeed different for different people. Most people probably don't realize the extent to which you CHOOSE that point.

If you're making over about $25,000, you are in the top 2% highest income in the world - you're rich. Above that, you're deciding "I'm going to give up X in order to be even more rich". If you're reading this, you probably already have a very high income. Income-wise, you're among the richest people in the world. You may still be living paycheck to paycheck by blowing $6.50 on a latte every day, and $180/ month for 650 TV channels, but that's a choice too. You *could* have $100,000 in the bank at your income level.

Re:This is bullshit

[marcel_in_ca]

We're going hang gliding next month.

Ya ever look at the death and injury rates for that? Does your employer take out insurance on you?

Re:Money is the ONLY reason I work.

[Scarletdown]

Well, to quote Montana Max (only because that was where I first heard it)...

o/~ The best things in life are free
            But you can give them to the birds and bees.
            I need my money.
            That's what I want... o/~

Dan Pink on motivation echoes your points

[Paul Fernhout]

"RSA ANIMATE: Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

More on Dan Pink and his writings: https://www.danpink.com/about/

Alfie Kohn also writes on the topic of intrinsic motivation
https://www.alfiekohn.org/arti...
https://www.alfiekohn.org/arti...
https://www.alfiekohn.org/puni...

I put together a reading list of related ideas here:
"High Performance Organizations Reading List"
https://github.com/pdfernhout/...

Of course, appropriate compensation is important in a society like the USA that has so many exchange transactions (as opposed to subsistence, gift, and planned transactions). Like Dan Pink says, people need to be paid enough to "take money off the table" as an issue. And for some people who like to work independently, saving up money is a way to buy their own time to work on things they care about.

But once money is off the table, these sorts of non-monetary issues affect productivity:
* Purpose (Finding meaning in what you do in how it affects people and the rest of the world)
* Autonomy (being able to make decisions about what you do and how you do it)
* Mastery (personal growth in technical skills and other areas)
* Community
* Infrastructure

Dan Pink talks about the first three in the video above.

Community is related to shared purpose, but I feel is a different thing in itself about how people relate to each other and have fun together. While I feel it problematical to ask employees to travel long distances for special events or to give up evenings or weekends for "team building exercises", a company that uses some of the work day to build community is likely making a good investment. Those can be relatively simple things like lunch-and-learns, holiday parties in the late afternoon, special lunches with invited guests, and so on. Even something like a regular "all hands" meeting to discuss what is going on in the company can help build community. Enjoyable training sessions like using appropriate humor in communications could also help. Even just starting voice or video chats ten minutes before the appointed time so people who show up early can chat briefly about stuff they are doing outside of work can make a difference. But community is not any one thing -- it is about the whole as a culture and also strengthening many individual one-to-one relationships.

Infrastructure overlaps with "Autonomy" to an extent -- but larger organizational choices can make a big difference for software developers; for example:

* The process choices -- e.g. see David Thomas on moving beyond "Agile" to "Agility"

* The tool/language/library choices -- e.g. in the web space there are so many poorly thought out overly-complex systems being adopted like Angular from big-name herd effects. Contrast such overly-complex systems with the idea of simplicity like in "Simple Made Easy" by Rich Hickey (developer of Clojure) or ideas by Chuck Moore (developer of Forth) or by Alan Kay and Dan Ingalls (with Smalltalk) or Leo Horie (with Mithril.js/HyperScript) and Adam Morse (with Tachyons.css). You don't have to use these specific languages or libraries to learn to appreciate things from the perspective of appropriate simplicity as the ultimate elegance, which can then be applied to whatever you are stuck with for legacy reasons.

* Having the appropriate tools you need to do your job (e.g. adequate computing, adequate displays, an appropriate workspace, good audio/visual communications, etc.)

And of course the specific relation an employee has with a manager makes a huge difference, given it is often said people