Doesn't this article contradict itself? On one hand, the article quotes some guy who says his work isn't influenced by bonuses and then just a few sentences later it says the danger of bonuses is that they influence risky behavior.
Which is it?
Which is it?
"We only half agree: Abundant evidence shows that people
– including top managers – will in fact start to behave
differently if you make a large proportion of their remuneration
dependent on some measure of performance. But it will not be in
a way you want them to behave."1) "his work isn't influenced by bonuses"
2) "the danger of bonuses is that they influence risky behavior"
I see two statements - but I don't see a contradiction.
Which is it?
How do they interact? I said - and still say - those are completely independent statements.
How does 1) have any influence on 2)? If that individuals work is or isn't influenced by bonuses the general statement 2) changes somehow? Magically? Or vide versa, the same. No connection. No matter what you think of 2), the personal statement 1) is right or wrong independent of 2).