« Ripped from the Headlines: Breaking News on Pay Transparency | Main | Will Recovery Herald a Wave of Market Salary Adjustments? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Good point, Doug, and all the more reason to read and consider the ideas in Dan Pink's Drive.

We have to start honing in on the intrinsic factors that motivate people, and I hope that compensation professionals have the background in organizational psychology and interest to contribute, otherwise some will be left behind.

Based on the reactions here and on allied blogs to Pink's book from others, some people seem to be in denial as to the importance of this development and resent the fact that financial incentives will have to share the limelight.

Nicely done, Doug (as always)! And I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to JD on behalf of the "others"/allied bloggers, a group in which I suspect I have been included. JD, if you really read what I (and "others") are saying in response to Dan Pink and the "Drive" phenomenon, you would realize that we are, in fact, arguing for balance. (In fact, I just did a Workforce webinar where I spent most of the presentation arguing for expanding our definition of rewards to intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards.) We are simply saying that it cannot be one or the other, that we can't - as many interpret Pink to be suggesting - simply throw out financial rewards and replace them with only intrinsic ones. Rather than advocating either extreme, we are simply suggesting that a successful reward package will include a thoughtful, well-considered combination of these elements.

Thanks for the discussion (and the opportunity to respond)! Just the kind of caffeinated conversation we like to have at the Cafe!

I'm just thankful that Doug and Laura have brought some balance to the discussion of rewards by noting the importance of the intrinsic ones. I'm glad that there are some objective people who will tell it like it is in the anti-Dan Pink environment that I have sensed.

For those who are interested in what Pink says about traditional reward system, I refer them to pages 170-173. It is not at all like the reality some have painted.

JD - you're right and it is important to strike a tone of balance. Doug and Laura have done impressive jobs with this in their recent posts. I think that some (but maybe not all) of what seems to anti-Pink hysteria is a group of us reacting to the conclusion many draw from his book that ALL extrinsic rewards are necessarily problematic - our sense that some are swinging the pendulum way off in one direction and our attempts to push it back to the center.

Thanks for your comments here - and for helping clear the fog and emotion surrounding this debate.

Doug - sorry to co-opt your comment stream.... Ann :)

Thank you for all of your comments. My comments are/were totally mutually exclusive from Dan Pink's work (I never even thought about his work or book as I drafted this post).

The ideas presented here do argue for a using broader set of rewards than just various forms of cash or in-kind rewards, and that "qualitative" rewards are at least part of the future of rewards, in my opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.