# What really motivates us?



## Mpsox (17 Jun 2011)

Personally, I found this fascinating,  Takes about 10 minutes to watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc


----------



## shopgirl (17 Jun 2011)

Thanks for posting that.  The animation was so interesting I sometimes nearly forgot to listen to the message!


----------



## Vanilla (17 Jun 2011)

Yep. Very interesting- loved the quote; 'You probably wanna do something interesting...let me just get out of your way'. If only more employers would do this!


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Jun 2011)

Enjoyed that, though maybe not  100% as revolutionary as it makes out. Dusting  off the auld  OB from college  (in my head, I'm not THAT sad), Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a triangle, with food, shelter etc at the bottom rising up to self-actualisation (basically being all you can be) at the top. It noted things like pay as a "hygiene" factor, ok not having enough is a problem but once you have enough then more & more doesnt necessarily motivate.

My own view is a maybe more cynical view that there's nothing for nothing and the more you demand the more is demanded of you and chasing money all the time isnt necessarily the best road. Plus in a time of cut-backs the higher the salary figure the bigger the potential saving. I'm not saying dont be ambitious or back yourself, but I'd caution against bluster and self-delusion and people talking themselves into salaries.

Organisations have copped on to the rewards thing a bit as well, how often do you hear how much people appreciate a simple thank you, or involvement, respect etc, (convenient too that they're free.... the cynic in me again) but yes I agree its true. Or compare a €500 payrise to the boss saying "I know you're off for a weekend, keep the hotel receipt and I'll bung it through on expenses for you", same cost to the organisation but the reaction is whoopy-flippin-do OR sound man, fair play to you.


----------



## horusd (18 Jun 2011)

Very interesting Mpsox tho I found the visuals distracting! I recently was reviewing Viktor Frankel's book _Man's Search for Meaning_. Frankel survived the Nazi death camps. Altho written in the 1940's it has huge significance even now. His basic claim is that meaning motivates human existence. We are meaning-driven beings striving and struggling for worthwhile goals and this is inherent in what it means to be human. The significance of our lives is defined by traversing the gap between what we are and what we could be. Here's two small quotes:

" _...(the) meaning of life is discovered in the world rather than within man or his own psyche... denotes the fact that being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone other than oneself - being a meaning to fulfil or another human being to encounter.  The more one forgets himself to a cause to serve or another person to love - the more human he is and the more he actualises himself."_

" _Life asks man what his meaning is_ _for him."_ 

And even suffering can be borne in the cause of meaning. Quoting Nietzsche:" _He who has a why to live for, can bear almost any how_."

So the view of man that he is  selfish and greedy needing money as a motivator is just plain wrong.


----------



## Complainer (18 Jun 2011)

Betsy Og said:


> Or compare a €500 payrise to the boss saying "I know you're off for a weekend, keep the hotel receipt and I'll bung it through on expenses for you", same cost to the organisation but the reaction is whoopy-flippin-do OR sound man, fair play to you.



Yes, it's always great news to know that you can conspire with your boss to evade tax for yourself and the organisation. That's just what the country needs right now.


----------



## Betsy Og (18 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> Yes, it's always great news to know that you can conspire with your boss to evade tax for yourself and the organisation. That's just what the country needs right now.



Leave it out Rodney, it isnt salary substitution, its someone being sound, and its coming out of his pocket. You're obviously not given a direct choice between the two, the point was the different reaction or motivational impact they have.   If you want to see why we're where we are you should work you way through the following first:

1. Banking remuneration structures.
2. A government hooked on property tax revenues.
3. Credit addicted population.
4. Greed
5. Worthless trade unions
6. Out of control public sector spending (see 5 above)

After fixing the above no doubt we'll still flounder of the weight of the odd staff perk.....


----------



## Complainer (18 Jun 2011)

Betsy Og said:


> Leave it out Rodney, it isnt salary substitution, its someone being sound, and its coming out of his pocket.


How does 'bung it on expenses - same cost to the organisation' equate to 'coming out of his pocket'? Bung it on expenses means that the company is going to pay it. The company gets a tax break by treating it as a business expense, and you get a tax break by no paying tax on the income. Win-win for you and your employer, lose-lose from the State. At least until the Revenue auditors come knocking on the door.



Betsy Og said:


> You're obviously not given a direct choice between the two, the point was the different reaction or motivational impact they have.


The employer has a direct choice between the two, between complying with the law or breaking the law. By breaking the law, he is undercutting his competitors who don't break the law.



Betsy Og said:


> Leave it out Rodney, it isnt salary substitution, its someone being sound, and its coming out of his pocket. You're obviously not given a direct choice between the two, the point was the different reaction or motivational impact they have.   If you want to see why we're where we are you should work you way through the following first:
> 
> 1. Banking remuneration structures.
> 2. A government hooked on property tax revenues.
> ...


I'd agree with you about numbers 1-4, but you're forgetting one important cause. Number 7 should be the culture of tax evasion here in the 80s and into the 90s where tax was only something for the little people. Anyone with cash income or a cash business put their money offshore aided and abetted by the banks, and public services suffered. The Health Services was just starting to recover from the cutbacks of the 80s before the latest round of cutbacks hit.

But I guess it's always someone else's fault -right?


----------



## Purple (19 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> The company gets a tax break by treating it as a business expense,


 While I agree with your stance this comment is incorrect. Businesses pay tax on their profit, not on their turnover. As expenses are not a profit they don't pay tax on them. There is no "tax break" here.


----------



## Pope John 11 (19 Jun 2011)

Betsy Og said:


> Enjoyed that, though maybe not  100% as revolutionary as it makes out. Dusting  off the auld  OB from college  (in my head, I'm not THAT sad), Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a triangle, with food, shelter etc at the bottom rising up to self-actualisation (basically being all you can be) at the top.


Thats Maslows alright.



Betsy Og said:


> It noted things like pay as a "hygiene" factor, ok not having enough is a problem but once you have enough then more & more doesnt necessarily motivate.



But this is a slightly different theory, the two factor theory by Herzburg, hygiene factors and motivators, as far as I can recall.

Great video though.


----------



## Betsy Og (19 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> How does 'bung it on expenses - same cost to the organisation' equate to 'coming out of his pocket'? Bung it on expenses means that the company is going to pay it. The company gets a tax break by treating it as a business expense, and you get a tax break by no paying tax on the income. Win-win for you and your employer, lose-lose from the State.
> _
> Apologies but this multi-quote isnt working for me. Basically he's a business owner so "the company" is, ultimately, his pocket. Even if he gets a tax deduction it still costs him - say he pays €100 he saves c€50 in tax so it still costs him a net €50. As regards tax for me, as I said its not salary substitution, if he never did that for me I still wouldnt be paying any more tax.
> _
> ...


----------



## Complainer (19 Jun 2011)

Betsy Og said:


> I think you're unfairly tarring me with the  ruination of the nation over something trivial.


Just a slight exaggeration there, I think.


----------

