Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Nonmonetary Incentives and the Implications of Work as a Source of Meaning (aeaweb.org) 148

Posted by msmash from the why-we-do-what-we-do dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nonmonetary Incentives and the Implications of Work as a Source of Meaning More

Nonmonetary Incentives and the Implications of Work as a Source of Meaning

Comments Filter:

  • Any good manager already knows this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Sunday August 05, 2018 @05:49PM (#57074846)
    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.)
    • 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.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday August 05, 2018 @07:28PM (#57075162)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • 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 benefic

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      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 r

    • 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: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        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 a

        • 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: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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 cof

    • 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.

    • 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.

  • Nothing new to a psychology researcher (Score:1)

    by 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 i

    • Re:Nothing new to a psychology researcher (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday August 05, 2018 @06:42PM (#57075060)

      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.

      • 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...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by youngone ( 975102 )
      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.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • 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 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday August 05, 2018 @06:03PM (#57074904)
    outside the top 10-15% of jobs. I mean, we have nurses [youtube.com] 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.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • 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 th

      • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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

  • Nice to be thanked for working to death (Score:1)

    by 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 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 l

  • 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.

  • 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: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      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.

      • 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, k

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

          • 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.

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

      • Re:Jobs are the only remaining social structures. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by youngone ( 975102 ) on Sunday August 05, 2018 @07:58PM (#57075288)

        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.

    • 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. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by lucasnate1 ( 4682951 ) on Sunday August 05, 2018 @07:49PM (#57075258) Homepage

        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: (Score:2)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )

          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 peopl

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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by m00sh ( 2538182 )

      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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

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

    excel- lent ??

  • 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

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

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close