cryx: Me, infront of a wall, with surprisingly dark hair (money)
One of the projects I've been working on is around encouraging more people to contribute to our knowledgebase. I am fascinated by motivation and related things, and I really enjoy reading case studies and research on this kind of thing. I just came across this example which I find very striking:

From all business, my favorite case on incentives is Federal Express. The heart and soul of their system—which creates the integrity of the product—is having all their airplanes come to one place in the middle of the night and shift all the packages from plane to plane. If there are delays, the whole operation can’t deliver a product full of integrity to Federal Express customers.

And it was always screwed up. They could never get it done on time. They tried everything—moral suasion, threats, you name it. And nothing worked.

Finally, somebody got the idea to pay all these people not so much an hour, but so much a shift—and when it’s all done, they can all go home. Well, their problems cleared up overnight.

It's pretty obvious when put like that, but how many times is the idea supported by where you put the cash, that a set number of hours is more important than the outcome ?
Date/Time: 2016-10-26 23:47 (UTC)Posted by: [identity profile]
Getting paid by the hour for things that need to get finished (as opposed to things that need to be done continually, like customer service, for instance) has always struck me as very weird. If one can take twice as long to do something and therefore get paid double, where's the upside of getting it done faster and getting paid less?


cryx: Me, infront of a wall, with surprisingly dark hair (Default)

September 2017


Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags