« Marketing Compensation to Employees and Managers? You Bet . . . | Main | Making Work More Human »



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

As many of us are now (becoming) aware, the "stickiness" of this 10 percent threshold with people has a foundation in neuroscience research - which was specifically addressed in a segment of our referenced WorldatWork conference presentation (http://www.compensationcafe.com/2017/05/the-next-big-idea-begins-here.html) last year.

I am more than a little surprised by the apparent "lengths" that people are willing to go obtain that 10 percent increase, but I'll assume that there's a strong likelihood of the confluence of neuroscience research and at least a hint of the human irrationality typically associated with applied behavioral economics, that's also in play here. Interesting.

Thanks Chris,

I appreciate the additional science. Like many "surveys", I suspect, if given a real opportunity" all the people who supported an answer would not act on that support.

The issue is troubling. Less from a political perspective than from the seeming desperation by people to get a raise that will change little about their lives.

There's definitely something magical about 10 percent - and its clear relationship to those Just Noticeable Differences (JND) associated with the 10-12 percent of difference threshold for the five human senses.

Several years ago during an internal training initiative, we challenged groups of attendees to finish the statement: "I wouldn't dream of changing jobs for anything less than a ______ percent pay increase." In more than a handful of sessions, as many as 19 out of 20 attendees answered with a common response. You guessed it: 10 percent. Although none of the attendees could adequately explain the "why" for their answer.

I'm not that surprised that so many people chose to give up their right to vote for a 10% increase.

I think that many people don't really value their right to vote, so it's an "easy" thing to give up. Think about it - if we have 50% turnout in a non-presidential election, that's huge. The average turnout for mid-term elections is about 40%. Even presidential elections don't generally get turnout much beyond 50% - in 2016, it was 58%.

What's the cause of the apathy? A couple of things spring to mind. I think most people who don't vote believe their vote doesn't make a difference in the outcome. Another issue is a lot of people think most politicians are the same, so who is sitting in the chair makes little difference. There's ample anecdotal evidence to support both.

The comments to this entry are closed.