I wasn't sure at first, but I think I generally agree with the hypothesis, from the standpoint that I'm already doing the best job that I can do. Getting paid more (i.e. raises) should be commensurate with my increasing experience and value to the company, but I wouldn't say they would make me "work harder".
I am inclined to agree with performance-based bonuses - I'm willing to put in additional hours if I know there's a bonus involved for early completion, let's say. This may mean some additional family-related stress as a result, but its a trade-off I'm willing to make in the short term if the reward is worthwhile, whereas in the main day-to-day I'm not going to spend less time with my family overall just because you're paying me more.
Relatedly, I was reading that a whole ton of studies were apparently done in the 40s that indicated a 40-hour work-week was the ideal and performance gains diminished rapidly as hours increased beyond that. This appears to have been a well-accepted fact that now in recent decades has been entirely forgotten.
I am inclined to agree with performance-based bonuses - I'm willing to put in additional hours if I know there's a bonus involved for early completion, let's say. This may mean some additional family-related stress as a result, but its a trade-off I'm willing to make in the short term if the reward is worthwhile, whereas in the main day-to-day I'm not going to spend less time with my family overall just because you're paying me more.
Relatedly, I was reading that a whole ton of studies were apparently done in the 40s that indicated a 40-hour work-week was the ideal and performance gains diminished rapidly as hours increased beyond that. This appears to have been a well-accepted fact that now in recent decades has been entirely forgotten.
(Feel free to make my post public.)
Reply
Leave a comment