What money can't buy

I'm listening to Daniel Ariely's first book, Predictsbly irrational. (Read by Simon Jones who is very easy on the ears. From Audible.co.uk.

Today I was struck by Ariely's findings that money is not very motivating at work. Money does not seem to lead to increased performance or outcomes. In Ariely's study, people worked harder at a task they volunteered to do than volunteers who were paid. The amount of compensation affected the amount of work done, but those donating their time worked hardest.

As the study involved short term tasks, I dare say that economics would play a part in changing things in a longer study. The fact remains a wage only buys so much loyalty. Part of that loyalty is how much of ourselves we are willing to sign over to work. Back in my banking days low commitment workers were called 'warm bodies'. They came, they did their assigned tasks and other tasks as directed, they collected their salary and they went home. The bank owned 37.5 hours per week of their attendance, not necessarily their attention. They were valued accordingly.

So as an employer how do I 'buy' your engagement?

I could ask, but do you know? When employees are asked they often choose money because it is a no-brainer. It's what everyone wants, right? What would you rather have? More money or less hours? Or more autonomy or less of a loathed but essential task? Or authority to go with all the responsibility you should?

And what could you offer me in this more perfect world that you're not offering your employer now?

Don't try to fix the people: they aren't the problem.

Don't try to fix the people, just work on the process. Fixing people is cripplingly expensive: in time, energy, goodwill and - often - sanity. Usually, it doesn't work because usually the people aren't the problem.
While a clean sweep has it's appeal at times, it's too easy to start and too hard to finish. Most of us aren't ready for that much change or that much hassle for a mirage.
I can guarantee that, most of the time, if you were to replace the broken people in your life you would still have problems with the (new) people in your life. They'll just be different problems.
Tired of managing your stick-in-mud, cynical seat warmers? Great! How about you swap them for some high achieving, ruthlessly competitive, individualists?
Focus instead on the process. This holds true whether the process is a business process, or a family relationship. Why is the situation not working? Is it lack of understanding of what's needed (and if so, why)? Is it lack of cooperation (and if so, why)? Is it ingrained risk aversion (and if so, why)? Is it just a habit of mediocrity that now feels comfortable?
The two near eternal needs are more money and better personnel. Genuine success rests on first improving what you can do with what's available of both.
This is post 23 of 43 posts.
Sent from my iPhone

Maximise, she says

During a discussion of what makes a good job, a wise woman told me to check out the Gallup Strengthsfinder 2.0 as one strength, Maximiser, sounded like me:

Excellence, not average, is your measure. Taking something from below average to slightly above average takes a great deal of effort and in your opinion is not very rewarding. Transforming something strong into something superb takes just as much effort but is much more thrilling.
Seek roles in which you are helping other people succeed. In coaching, managing, mentoring, or teaching roles, your focus on strengths will prove particularly beneficial to others. For example, because most people find it difficult to describe what they do best, start by arming them with vivid descriptions.

We each have 5 dominant strengths, and this is just one. It's one I didn't have a name for before. Knowledge is power. This is a hard concept to explain in a resumé: I have been threatening for a while now to have business cards printed with 'agent provocateur' as the job description.

Want to know about your own strengths? Buy one of the strengthsfinder books (from bookdepositry) and you get a key that allows you to take your own strengths questionnaire.

This is post 2 of 43 posts.

Choosing between competence and compliance

Sometimes, we're asked to do something we think is wrong. Not wrong in a moral or ethical sense, just wrong in being ineffective or even counterproductive.  What do we do?

There are two ways of being a good employee. One requires us to do what is asked, without complaint or argument. The other requires us to question, to critique, to speak up. The second way won't always make us popular. The first way won't always save us from blame.

Which path we choose, whether in a single instance or as a repeated pattern throughout our life, may tell us a lot about who we are, and what our values are. Do we value consensus and cooperation more than personal integrity or outcome? Do we put our sense of accomplishment and worth above the needs of the situation? Do we simply ask, 'how high?' when we are asked to jump? Are we being provocative or simply being a pain in the bum? Are we right, or righteous? Are we wrong, but well-meaning?

Does it make a difference if we feel that doing the 'right' thing is likely to be a wrong move career-wise?