"The best use of money as a motivator is to pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table." Daniel Pink, "Drive" (@ 4:50 http://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc )
I've been listening to Daniel Pink ever since I've started studying education. He's no Ken Robinson, but he has some good points. If I seem sarcastic about him, I am. He thinks that we can have a global economy based on designer spatulas. But, aside from his economic positivity (insanity?), Pink is making radical comments about how to change the speed of business in America.
Nothing he says is new. The only thing about Pink is that he's a politician, and so is good at getting people to listen. He's the mouthpiece of an idea who's time has come. Here are the highlights from my perspective:
1. ROWE: Results Only Work Environment. We don't care when you clock in or out. We don't care if you bring your dog to work, or your kids. We don't care if you need to listen to Rush all day in noise-cancelling headphones. The only thing we care about is that you get your work done.
2. Mastery: People will do hard work for free if it means that they are building skills toward mastery. Mastery is also a euphemism for power.
3. Higher Purpose: People will work harder for less if their work is perceived to have a positive effect on society or the environment. People feel better about doing well when they know everyone else is doing well as well :)
4. Creative Capital/Design Revolution: Although I think that this shift is over-hyped, it is important. Basically, the first world is awash in materials. Pretty much everyone in this socio-economic level who wants a car, a TV, a cell phone, a computer has them. On our way up, the economic model has been all about making the car cheaper so that more people could buy it. But what do you do to compete when you've made cars as relatively cheap as possible? Well, then you start designing good cars which are demonstrably better than the POS cars everyone already has. This is the design revolution. This is why when you go to Target, your spatula has some designer's name on it. This is why IKEA is IKEA (they're actually an interesting disruptive forerunner here). This is why I'm typing on an Apple MacBook Pro (brushes shoulder off). This is why the local food movement is trendy. There have always been those that prefer quality. The point is, now it is trendy to prefer quality, and it's because it's now the only way to distinguish one's self in a world where everybody has everything. (I wouldn't put any stock in this long-term, btw. This is a 10 ft tall house of cards. This is where I'm on-board --> http://opensourceecology.org/gvcs.php )
OK, those are all good ideas, good changes. But when Pink says that we need to find a way to give people access to my 4 bulleted items, and then figure out how much to pay them so that money is no longer an issue, I start to scratch my head. I want to disagree. I want to cry "Absurd!" How could you ever pay someone "enough" money? How could money be taken "off the table"? Won't I always want a little bit of a raise every year or so, just so that you have a chance to tell me that you love me as my employer? How else will you communicate that I'm doing good work? How will you likewise tell all those who don't get raises that they aren't doing good work?
I want to just reject this notion, but I'm going to let it in. I'm going to think about it. What would it mean if I was employed by a company who offered to pay me "enough". I admit that it's hard to imagine this outside of some extremely socialistic situation where the "Company" provides me with a house, a car, utilities, and pays all of my school loans. Then all of my income would be pretty much discretionary, besides food. It seems that if this wasn't the case, all of the employees at the company would be actually getting "paid" vastly different sums of money. There would be those with 12 kids and a huge house working beside the unmarried, but they're both getting "enough". But "enough" doesn't always equate to "enough", now does it?
Why would this bother me? Again, why do I care? Having 12 kids is its own punishment. Our difference of lifestyle has its own risk/rewards without thinking of pay. I don't really know. I will say that it creates a storm of thoughts in my brain about work that is very different. It lessens the natural antagonism which exists between employer and employee when pay is "on the table". Also, it changes my view of aspirations. If I'm expecting to advance through making more money, then my expression of this as an individual will be to buy expensive stuff. But if I'm basically "advancing" in the sense of mastering my job and capitalizing on my own time to spend on other things, then my aspirations are more DIY-esque. I'll dream about taking our work to places of need, or learning how to play guitar, or learning how to bake good bread, or whatever. Things that I'll really enjoy every day. My money won't be getting saved up for the escapes we call vacation, but I'll be more focused on mastering my everyday life.
I don't know. But imagine if a company like Google came to you and offered you a job which payed you "enough", in which you were allowed autonomy in a ROWE, in which you were encouraged to pursue mastery of your job, design your work space, and had a voice in the higher purposes of the company. I'd probably take it. But I like granola, own a pair of Birkenstock's, and have lots of student loans. What about you?
No comments:
Post a Comment