<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Will organizational leaders accept the evidence about incentives and creative work?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/09/09/will-organizational-leaders-accept-the-evidence-about-incentives-and-creative-work/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/09/09/will-organizational-leaders-accept-the-evidence-about-incentives-and-creative-work/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:28:22 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jim McGee</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/09/09/will-organizational-leaders-accept-the-evidence-about-incentives-and-creative-work/comment-page-1/#comment-242051</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim McGee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:21:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastforwardblog.com/?p=3651#comment-242051</guid>
		<description>I gave serious thought to pointing to Alfie Kohn here as well.

I am skeptical that we&#039;ll see any leaders enlightened enough to &quot;do the right thing&quot; here. The benefit too easily from the broken system that currently exists. Any most, I fear, are too short-sighted to grasp what will happen as the brokenness becomes more evident</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I gave serious thought to pointing to Alfie Kohn here as well.</p>
<p>I am skeptical that we&#8217;ll see any leaders enlightened enough to &#8220;do the right thing&#8221; here. The benefit too easily from the broken system that currently exists. Any most, I fear, are too short-sighted to grasp what will happen as the brokenness becomes more evident</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Paterson</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/09/09/will-organizational-leaders-accept-the-evidence-about-incentives-and-creative-work/comment-page-1/#comment-242049</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Paterson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:58:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastforwardblog.com/?p=3651#comment-242049</guid>
		<description>I find Alfie Kohn&#039;s work on this very helpful too.

But for those that dismiss him I offer a few concrete alternatives. The Fire Brigade - who would say that they are not high performance? But they put teamwork ahead of everything. So there is no performance pay. Each pay grade is tied into what you have proved that you can do to your peers. If you wish to go into management - Captain and above - you have to have been a real fireman first. No one can jump into a managerial role without having demonstrated that they have the right stuff as a fireman.

The key being that in a fire, you have to be able to trust the person next to you and the person who sends you into the fire. Everything in the system is focused on this - nothing must distract from it.

Performance pay is highly divisive. Why do I say this? I was responsible for a large bank&#039;s Total Comp design - over 2$ billion - in another life. It over emphasizes the individual contribution and divides people.

Let&#039;s look at the typical trader in a bank. He can claim to have made millions. But what enables him to do this are many structural things that don&#039;t apply to him at all:

* The banks balance sheet - he is betting with the shareholder&#039;s money - that is where the gearing is. When investment banks had their own capital, the potential was much less - you were betting your own money

* The banks&#039; capital base and reputation - key to trading is getting the flow and the deals - you don&#039;t get either without the good name of the bank. Flow is seeing enough volume to get the picture - like an aircraft controller - Without the limits set by counter party risk - you don&#039;t get the deals either

* The banks systems - without millions spent on trading support etc - you would not make a trade

I could go on but I think you might get my drift.

Finally we get to the heart of it all. Bank leaders say that they need to do this to keep innovation alive. Innovation for whom?

Since the 1980&#039;s when banks had access to huge amounts of capital after the old regulation was put aside, the financial system has sucked the wealth from the working people of the nation. Wages, meaningful jobs have all been in decline since deregulation.

This has been a tragedy that has spawned the crisis and the systemic breakdown of society.

It&#039;s all based on a self serving lie</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find Alfie Kohn&#8217;s work on this very helpful too.</p>
<p>But for those that dismiss him I offer a few concrete alternatives. The Fire Brigade &#8211; who would say that they are not high performance? But they put teamwork ahead of everything. So there is no performance pay. Each pay grade is tied into what you have proved that you can do to your peers. If you wish to go into management &#8211; Captain and above &#8211; you have to have been a real fireman first. No one can jump into a managerial role without having demonstrated that they have the right stuff as a fireman.</p>
<p>The key being that in a fire, you have to be able to trust the person next to you and the person who sends you into the fire. Everything in the system is focused on this &#8211; nothing must distract from it.</p>
<p>Performance pay is highly divisive. Why do I say this? I was responsible for a large bank&#8217;s Total Comp design &#8211; over 2$ billion &#8211; in another life. It over emphasizes the individual contribution and divides people.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s look at the typical trader in a bank. He can claim to have made millions. But what enables him to do this are many structural things that don&#8217;t apply to him at all:</p>
<p>* The banks balance sheet &#8211; he is betting with the shareholder&#8217;s money &#8211; that is where the gearing is. When investment banks had their own capital, the potential was much less &#8211; you were betting your own money</p>
<p>* The banks&#8217; capital base and reputation &#8211; key to trading is getting the flow and the deals &#8211; you don&#8217;t get either without the good name of the bank. Flow is seeing enough volume to get the picture &#8211; like an aircraft controller &#8211; Without the limits set by counter party risk &#8211; you don&#8217;t get the deals either</p>
<p>* The banks systems &#8211; without millions spent on trading support etc &#8211; you would not make a trade</p>
<p>I could go on but I think you might get my drift.</p>
<p>Finally we get to the heart of it all. Bank leaders say that they need to do this to keep innovation alive. Innovation for whom?</p>
<p>Since the 1980&#8217;s when banks had access to huge amounts of capital after the old regulation was put aside, the financial system has sucked the wealth from the working people of the nation. Wages, meaningful jobs have all been in decline since deregulation.</p>
<p>This has been a tragedy that has spawned the crisis and the systemic breakdown of society.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s all based on a self serving lie</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

