This economic theory does not make sense. If it were the case that people destroyed other efforts in the same work environment, then the company itself would notice and fire those workers, since they would lose money from they destruction.
This is simple mathematical rationality. To optimize the worker's production, how would making them minimize each other's production help? This would minimize the company's production and profits! This simply does not make sense!
I think what you have stumpled on is more like the psychology of tournament theory rather than the reality. what you fail to see is that it is set up in this way to maximise profits by whatever means necessary. The guy in the comfy chair is going nowhere and you never met him at your level. you will never get there no matter how good or backstabbing you are. your job is on the way to Asia anyway. keep running for the carrot.
So what does this theory have to say for office environments where managers, trained in management, are paid more than the employees they manage who have very high skill sets that do not play into management. I'll give an example. Let's say a software designer at a corporation is paid X dollars. He, among other designers, is managed by a boss (with no skills outside of management) who is paid 5X. These people have no interest in management, ever. Still paid less even if they generate millions.
A corporation pays themselves what they want at the top and delegate pay towards the bottom because they can. This is proven easily using modern examples. The banks are were too big to fail, got tarp money, and paid themselves huge salaries. Was this for a job well done? ROFL.
It's been shown that the highest levels of worker engagement come from environments that don't have major emphasis on extrinsic rewards, but rather give their employees a chance to do meaningful work. To explain this in the words on Daniel Pink, extrinsic motivators, carrots and stick, work poorly on anything complex and can shut down creativity. Intrinsic motivators, autonomy, mastery, and purpose, inspire creativity and high levels of worker engagement. It's why google and wikipedia work.
The better ones dont get promoted, They get stuck in the same job because they know how the system works.
Whilst the back stabbing ass hole who creates shit about the boss pretending to be your mate then running to the boss and saying his version of things so the shit dont stick on him.
Well start a company, dont use this obviously counterproductive method. Then you could make your self some real money. Or just write a book about it and make your self some money too lol.
The eggs are too funny!!
gjdjdtht 2 weeks ago
this is really really well depicted - top notch :)
iliveonthisplanet 5 months ago
This economic theory does not make sense. If it were the case that people destroyed other efforts in the same work environment, then the company itself would notice and fire those workers, since they would lose money from they destruction.
This is simple mathematical rationality. To optimize the worker's production, how would making them minimize each other's production help? This would minimize the company's production and profits! This simply does not make sense!
bdg323 5 months ago
I think what you have stumpled on is more like the psychology of tournament theory rather than the reality. what you fail to see is that it is set up in this way to maximise profits by whatever means necessary. The guy in the comfy chair is going nowhere and you never met him at your level. you will never get there no matter how good or backstabbing you are. your job is on the way to Asia anyway. keep running for the carrot.
rsolgtp 5 months ago
My work place is the tournament of ass-kissers. Doing your job well doesn't count, in fact it only spurs more ass-kissing from the ass-kissers.
1980PintoMan 8 months ago
Thats greT and all but critiquing and offering solutions are quite different. What does he propose?
AroundSun 9 months ago
So what does this theory have to say for office environments where managers, trained in management, are paid more than the employees they manage who have very high skill sets that do not play into management. I'll give an example. Let's say a software designer at a corporation is paid X dollars. He, among other designers, is managed by a boss (with no skills outside of management) who is paid 5X. These people have no interest in management, ever. Still paid less even if they generate millions.
ModerateNachos 1 year ago
down with the eggs!! lol
McInside 1 year ago
A corporation pays themselves what they want at the top and delegate pay towards the bottom because they can. This is proven easily using modern examples. The banks are were too big to fail, got tarp money, and paid themselves huge salaries. Was this for a job well done? ROFL.
vidfreak56 1 year ago
It's been shown that the highest levels of worker engagement come from environments that don't have major emphasis on extrinsic rewards, but rather give their employees a chance to do meaningful work. To explain this in the words on Daniel Pink, extrinsic motivators, carrots and stick, work poorly on anything complex and can shut down creativity. Intrinsic motivators, autonomy, mastery, and purpose, inspire creativity and high levels of worker engagement. It's why google and wikipedia work.
david0aloha 2 years ago 3
The better ones dont get promoted, They get stuck in the same job because they know how the system works.
Whilst the back stabbing ass hole who creates shit about the boss pretending to be your mate then running to the boss and saying his version of things so the shit dont stick on him.
Thats how you get promoted....
TheScumbug 2 years ago
@TheScumbug Absolutely 100 per cent true from almost 40 years of experience.
malcolmbryant 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheScumbug 2 years ago
Well start a company, dont use this obviously counterproductive method. Then you could make your self some real money. Or just write a book about it and make your self some money too lol.
Bender711 2 years ago
stating the bleedin' obvious
joebloggsgogglebox 2 years ago
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Tim Harford, destroyer of eggs!
MutantBamHammer 2 years ago 12
great video buddy- keep going. Hats off. You guys make youtube what it is.
santoshiom 2 years ago
yuck... another stupid book about nothing that matters.
Relss40 2 years ago
...And what matters is subjective.
z4ckpete 2 years ago
boss? "she"? major mistake right there
Monkeyboy92037 2 years ago
very cool marketing tactic, I can see this being very effective for books.
ModernModr 2 years ago
great videos Tim
jonscott1 2 years ago 6