
A Conversation with Dan Ariely About What Shapes Our Motivations - geodel
https://blog.longreads.com/2016/11/17/a-conversation-with-dan-ariely-on-what-shapes-our-motivations/?utm_content=buffer6608a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
======
chongli
I heard about Ariely's research a few years ago and found it very exciting at
the time. Now I find it unsettling. I can't help but think that an employer
may gain insights from this research in order to undercompensate workers and
exploit their psychology. The idea that employers already attempt to cultivate
an atmosphere of _family_ at work is deeply troubling.

I think Slavoj Žižek nails it when he describes the contrast between the _old-
school_ authoritarian boss and the _post-modern_ boss [0].

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM)

~~~
bduerst
Why is this troubling? Before we had today's military-style _old-school_
authoritarian corporate structure, Artisan guild economies were very family-
like.

It's not under-compensation if the worker is getting more of what they want.
Even Žižek says that the authoritarian style assumes that you know what the
workers want more than they know themselves, and you're assuming that they
want monetary compensation more.

~~~
chongli
The difference with a family-like artisan guild is that the workers themselves
own the means of production, unlike today's typical corporate structure.
Žižek's stated preference for the in-your-face authoritarian style is
underpinned by his Marxist background. He wants the boss to get in your face
so that you are better able to rebel against capitalism.

He sees this post-modern soft totalitarian style as far more threatening to
the worker's liberty. Like with a cult, a prostitution ring, or organized
crime, any situation where a person is convinced that they are part of a
family in order to exploit them is dangerous to our free society.

~~~
bduerst
I think there is a difference between identifying and supplying workers with
what they know they want (family in the providing sense), with cults,
prostitution rings, and organized crime (family in the extortion sense). The
former doesn't necessarily mean the latter.

Also, in trade guilds, apprentices and journeyman rarely owned their own means
of production.

------
JimboOmega
The huge caveat with the "money can be demotivating" argument - which I feel
never gets raised - is how damaging underpaying can be. If you see others
being compensated more than you, for instance, for doing the same... even dogs
get resentful:
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9794478...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97944783)

I also can't be the only person who gets upset when the team works incredibly
hard, puts in extra hours, etc, towards some goal - say, keeping the company
alive - and the only reward is a "good job team". It's quite possible that a
party, a day off, etc, would be as good as a financial bonus.

If I feel I am undervalued at my current company, or if I am valued less than
others I feel comparable to - that is a much bigger demotivator.

Similarly, cash or equity bonuses (especially after hard work, and not as a
pre-set bonus triggering on a condition) feel great and help me to feel like
the company cares about me.

------
pmoriarty
Along similar lines, see "Punished by Rewards":

[https://www.amazon.com/Punished-Rewards-Trouble-Incentive-
Pr...](https://www.amazon.com/Punished-Rewards-Trouble-Incentive-
Praise/dp/0618001816)

------
koga-ninja
Is the argument that people do not know what is best, or That it doesn't
matter?

People are an incredibly broad range, from the Homeless gentleman lying on a
heating vent, to the hedge fund billionaire who does not waste a quarter,
Because he knows what it will be worth compounded For thirty years. Granted I
have used outliers to make my argument.

------
CarlsonKeith
He is an amazing person. Met him in person and was blown away!

