Summary of video

  • Incentivization only improves performance for simple tasks that have a simple series of procedures to reach the desired outcome.
  • Many of these procedures are increasingly being performed by computers
  • For high-level activities,

    when the outcome is incentivized.

  • Therefore, for businesses (in fact, any institution where there are people working on complex, high-level tasks) performing complex skills and working on creative solutions to challenges, another model is needed, otherwise the business suffers.
  • Cutting edge companies who realise this are now working on more effective ways to enhance performance, which enhance the following core outcomes:
    • Autonomy
    • Mastery
    • Purpose
  • Autonomy
  • is enhanced through creative time-out (eg, Google engineers are allowed 20% of their work-time for working on their own projects, which have produced Google News, Gmail, & Orchid, to name but a few)

So Where Does This Leave Performance-related Pay

In my view: On the scrap heap. Incentivization doesn’t work for the complex decisions and high-level thinking that are now the norm not the exception, for the majority of the workforce in any organisation.

For this large majority, performance-related pay harms the desired-outcome of enhanced productivity.

So why is still the default position for many businesses? Perhaps the answer is because in those organisations, they haven’t heard or realised that the "default" paradigm (expressed or just assumed) doesn’t work any more.

So why does this ‘default’ position exist at all?

At heart, every business, every organisation, every individual, has within them, a belief about how things are, whether or not they have been articulated.

In my next post, I’ll unpack more of why this is the case, and, if you don’t like the way things are, what you can do to change this "default future".

 

Swimming With The Sharks

Swimming with the Sharks – Part 1

Swimming with the Sharks – Part 2

Jonathan Miller is not only smart, he’s also an entrepreneur who has incredible belief and certainty that what he’s got is worth at least $1million.

Now, this is despite the derision he receives from already-made-it millionaires (and billionaires for that matter).

What else can we say about him?

  • He’s smart – he has a background in Venture Capitalist deals, and he’s not going to be pushed by the self-confident prodding of his interviewers
  • He’s fearless in the face of opposition. This guy has got GUTS, and lots of them. When the other sharks bear their teeth in the room, he bares his back
  • He doesn’t back down in the face of offers which he knows aren’t in his company’s best interests, even when those offers seem lucrative (ie, he doesn’t sell out just for a quick buck)
  • He goes on the offensive when attacked for what he believes in
  • He is motivated by what he knows will bring him ultimate satisfaction, and it’s not money. This is absolutely crucial, as many business owners short-sell themselves on what they could achieve if they’d only stuck to their "big why"
  • He knows how to negotiate and do a deal. Notice how he ends up negotiating a very good result with the one shark left in the pack, because he senses that this shark will bite his bait, and wants what he has got to offer.

Here’s a recent update on Jonathan’s business:

(Block your ears for the 15 second interruption infomercial from a double-glazing (yes, really!!!!) company at the beginning of the video!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit Element Bars to order your custom-made element bar now.

What do you think about Jonathan Miller? Is he an entrepreneur worth $1million, or is he just delusional with an unfounded faith in himself? Add your comment here.