Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the leadership dept.

Small signals of appreciation have a decisive influence on the output and quality of the work of employees. A field experiment of KIT (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) economist Petra Nieken and two colleagues revealed that a combination of performance-oriented piece wage and motivating words increases the performance by 20% and reduces the error rate by 40%.

"Our results are relevant to entrepreneurial practice," Nieken emphasizes. She holds the Chair for Human Resources Management of KIT's Institute of Management. How can staff members be motivated? Theory lists two instruments: Financial incentives, such as bonuses or piece wages, and the capability of executives to motivate their staff members. The question whether and how these two instruments complement, strengthen or weaken each other, however, is not clearly answered by theory. That is why this question was in the focus of the study performed at Bonn University.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:23PM (#253256)

    This isn't necessarily old news.

    At one end of the spectrum, if I'm making a half-million a year as a test subject for an ongoing experiment on the psychological effects of extreme torture, I'd say the money wasn't worth it.

    At the other end, if I'm making next to nothing but I'm relaxing in a nice air-conditioned office with free television/internet/coffee, I'd say the intangibles weren't worth it.

    Somewhere in between there's a balance between money and "job lifestyle," and by isolating money, the experimenters ignore the fact that people who pay well tend to also include some measure of intangible benefits--they can be artificially divorced from one another, but not entirely.

    HR cost cutters take this and run with it in a cynical direction: lower salaries that can partially offset the cost of free donuts in the break room, hoping that we'll be distracted by the sugar and ignore the fact we're not getting raises (again) this year.

    No thanks.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=5, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @03:39PM (#253262)

    edit: This isn't necessarily new news.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by srobert on Thursday October 22 2015, @05:04PM

    by srobert (4803) on Thursday October 22 2015, @05:04PM (#253294)

    "HR cost cutters take this and run with it in a cynical direction"
    It reminds me of the way that Stephen Covey's book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" struck me as incisive before human resources people discovered it and turned it into a workplace cult.