Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Promotions/Raises

Expand Messages
  • Paul Tiseo
    Micheal: Kohn does not have a lot of hard evidence for some of what he says, and sometimes evidence actually goes contrary to his viewpoints. For example, he s
    Message 1 of 111 , May 10, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Micheal:

      Kohn does not have a lot of hard evidence for some of what he says, and sometimes evidence actually goes contrary to his viewpoints. For example, he's critical of kids and homework, when meta-analysis of the multiple studies on the subject point to homework being effective. Obviously, there are downsides and pitfalls in assigning homework, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is my take.

      Admittedly, if you want to take a stance, there's a business book out there that will support it! :)

      I guess my take on it is that I look at extremes. Kohn would be on one end, and people who shove pointless individual metrics lie at the other. Therefore, I am certain the correct approach is somewhere in the middle and I am still trying to find that "just right" mix.

      On 5/7/2010 6:21 PM, Michael James wrote:
       
      I like that: Sometimes nothing is better than something.

      This has probably already been mentioned, but the footnotes section of _Punished By Rewards_ (Alfie Kohn) is a great source of hard evidence on the issue of extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivators.  (The book itself gets a bit repetitious, so start with the footnotes and read the book if you have time after that.)  

      Chapter 5 of _Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense_ "Do Financial Incentives Drive Company Performance" also presents evidence that tears apart unconscious assumptions about compensation.  And then there's _Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They Backfire and What To Do Instead_, which is a bit long on opinion and short on facts, but does present some case studies worth examining.  I guess Dan Pink's new book _Drive_ is on this same topic, but haven't talked to anyone who's read that yet.  

      At least two Agile books that come to mind are also harshly critical of these practices.  

      Despite all this, I'm having a hard time finding examples of well known companies that have publicly abandoned them yet!

      --mj


      On May 7, 2010, at 2:57 PM, christophe louvion wrote:

       

      can't agree more.
      Trying to replace bad things with good things is an option. Sure.
      Another one is to remove bad things; and not replace them with anything.
      Sometime nothing is better than something.

      I stopped individual and team metrics a while back.
      No one I know of is missing them.

      C

      On 5/7/2010 2:47 PM, Michael James wrote:

       
      On May 7, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Paul Tiseo wrote:

      I try to find team-oriented metrics for individuals, and avoid classic individual "productivity" metrics.

      This describes what I was thinking a couple years ago before taking a hard look at the issue.  Now I'm convinced that "team-oriented metrics", mandatory 360 reviews, etc. are all different shades of lipstick on the same pig.

      The basic problem with all these systems is that B.F. Skinnerian extrinsic motivators are harmful to the deep engagement we need for complex work.  We'll get better results by providing leadership and shared vision, opportunities to learn, camaraderie on the team (you do have a team room, don't you?), protection from distractions and interruptions, and the team's right to weed out the occasional bad apple.

      --mj





      --
      _________________________________
      PAUL TISEO
      paul_tiseo@...
    • Ilja Preuß
      I agree that one shouldn t. How does that connect to what I said? Confused, Ilja
      Message 111 of 111 , May 26, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree that one shouldn't. How does that connect to what I said?

        Confused,

        Ilja

        2010/5/26, Paul Tiseo <paul_tiseo@...>:
        >
        > IMO, one should not confuse creativity/innovation with interdependent
        > work. The two are orthogonal.
        >
        > On 5/25/2010 10:15 AM, Ilja Preuß wrote:
        >>
        >> As far as I remember, the Pink talk argues against rewards for tasks
        >> that require creativity (and he actually points out that rewards can
        >> work well for tasks that don't).
        >>
        >> Whereas the research you are pointing to is about rewarding teams vs.
        >> rewarding individuals (vs. doing both). And in the context of, as far
        >> as I can tell, work that doesn't require a lot of creativity.
        >>
        >> Which doesn't render it invalid or uninteresting. I don't see how it
        >> shifts the picture, though.
        >>
        >> Cheers, Ilja
        >>
        >> 2010/5/25 Paul Tiseo <paul_tiseo@...
        >> <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> The Pearsall reference. Beersma et al. I've posted it already,
        >> Yahoo has archived it, and we've debated it.
        >>
        >> I'm not sure why you and Ron seem to have so quickly and
        >> completely forgotten it already.
        >>
        >>
        >> On 5/25/2010 3:36 AM, Ilja Preuß wrote:
        >>>
        >>> Where can I read about that recent research?
        >>>
        >>> 2010/5/25 Paul Tiseo <paul_tiseo@...
        >>> <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> Mark:
        >>>
        >>> Just go back to many of my previous emails on this thread,
        >>> and pick up some of the points I made and references I got
        >>> out of the literature. Pink quotes research about 3-5 years
        >>> old, which is better than most, but the picture *is*
        >>> shifting. Recent research is slightly center of left.
        >>>
        >>> _________________________________
        >>> *PAUL TISEO*
        >>> paul_tiseo@... <http://paul_tiseo@...>
        >>> (904) 382-5704 (cell)
        >>>
        >>> On 5/24/2010 5:32 PM, Mark Levison wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Paul Tiseo
        >>>> <paul_tiseo@... <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>> wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>> Thank you, Ron, for that simplified answer.
        >>>>
        >>>> So why not call out what oversimplifications you perceive.
        >>>>
        >>>> Cheers
        >>>> Mark
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>
        >> --
        >> _________________________________
        >> *PAUL TISEO*
        >> paul_tiseo@... <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        > --
        > _________________________________
        > *PAUL TISEO*
        > paul_tiseo@...
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.