Re:Stop Paying Executives for Performance (2016)
by cirnine on Sunday January 15, 2017 @11:55AM
(#13404848)
The last paragraph of the article answers your question:
"We only half agree: Abundant evidence shows that people
– including top managers – will in fact start to behave
differently if you make a large proportion of their remuneration
dependent on some measure of performance. But it will not be in
a way you want them to behave."
Re:Stop Paying Executives for Performance (2016)
by lhopki01 on Sunday January 15, 2017 @06:34AM
(#13403571)
One is a statement by an individual - an anecdote the other is what data from studies have shown us. Which do you think it is?
Re:Stop Paying Executives for Performance (2016)
by lsiebert on Sunday January 15, 2017 @04:28AM
(#13403220)
Cooking the books isn't working harder.
Re:Stop Paying Executives for Performance (2016)
by Noseshine on Sunday January 15, 2017 @04:42AM
(#13403264)
So we have
1) "his work isn't influenced by bonuses"
2) "the danger of bonuses is that they influence risky behavior"
I see two statements - but I don't see a contradiction.
Which is it?
They are independent of one another?
Re:Stop Paying Executives for Performance (2016)
by ffggvv on Sunday January 15, 2017 @05:32AM
(#13403387)
Exactly. They influence but not in a good way.
Re:Stop Paying Executives for Performance (2016)
by Noseshine on Sunday January 15, 2017 @07:18AM
(#13403687)
Now that is a contradiction: You say "exactly" to then claim the exact opposite?
How do they interact? I said - and still say - those are completely independent statements.
How does 1) have any influence on 2)? If that individuals work is or isn't influenced by bonuses the general statement 2) changes somehow? Magically? Or vide versa, the same. No connection. No matter what you think of 2), the personal statement 1) is right or wrong independent of 2).
Which is it?