[MUSIC]

Hello. Today and

in the follow sessions we're going to talk about pay.

We're going to talk about pay as a motivator.

And the extent to which employers and managers can use pay to motivate.

How and what circumstances they can do that.

So a relationship between pay and motivation seems deceptably simple.

People work to get paid so give them more pay, and

there will be more work or possibly not.

And in order to get more pay, you'll get better people, but again, possibly not.

For the deeper we look into the relationship between pay and

the motivation to work, the more complex it appears.

Take the example of lottery winners,

something most of us have thought of sometime.

The US Career Builder's Survey of 2014 found

that 51% of US workers said they would continue working even if they won.

30% would stay in their present jobs.

Of course, there's a big difference between what people say and

what they actually do, but an ABC news report of 2012 found

that a Florida women took a day off work as a waitress after winning $1 million.

A Cardiff man in 2008, went back to a minimum wage job at McDonald's,

18 months after winning 1.3 million pounds, or roughly $2 million.

He said quote, there's only so much relaxing you can do.

An Oxford economic survey of 2012, of 3,000 UK lottery winners

found that 19% kept their jobs, 15% started a business.

So many people stay at work of some sort

even when they financially no longer need to.

The implications of this for managers are important.

It indicates that people do not work just for pay,

and may continue to work when they clearly do not need to pay.

If paying a lottery winner an extra dollar or a euro an hour

is not likely to make them work harder, that may well be the case with others.

This is a viewpoint that has had some widely known supporters.

Frederick Herzberg's One More Time: Pay is Not a Motivator, was for

decades the Harvard Business Review's most requested article.

It argues that it was just necessary to pay enough to stop actual dissatisfaction

as a clear message to managers, don't waste your money on pay raises.

It was undoubtably tempting for them.

Yet against this, there are other reasons and other evidence

to suggest that pay does play an important part in motivating people.

Maslow proposed five levels we need to satisfy in a particular order starting

with physiological needs, then on to safety needs, needing to belong,

self esteem, and what he called actualization needs.

Maslow did not mention money at all.

But we need money to satisfy all those needs in a monetary economy.

Money to buy food, a house, to socialize.

It also serves as a basis in comparison with others.

How well am I doing in comparison with other people's pay?

The existence of pay secrecy clauses demonstrates that

employers understand this very well.

Money may well be necessary to self actualize and

that involves becoming a great yokes man or a great golfer.

On the other hand a person might find a root to self actualization

through their job.

Becoming a great teacher or a doctor, etc.

So using money as a tool for

motivating staff is not straightforward, because money has so many roles.

And because people work for such a large variety of reasons..

Clearly, in addition, pay is not the only motivator.

In the following sessions, we're going to look into this in more depth.

That is, how and when managements can use pay as a motivator.

Beginning next time with an examination of how important a motivator pay actually is.

[MUSIC]

Introduction and overview

The Manager's Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Managing People at Work

与讲师见面