I’m sure I could identify lots of top-selling business books that cover the topic of how to motivate your workers to create great products for your company. It seems a little implausible that none of what they suggest works.
Is that a special case of a more general belief that if there are lots of top-selling books about how to do X, it follows that people can do X in an intentional/systematic way? Or is there something special about motivating workers here?
I find it implausible that the threat of being fired is the only good way to motivate workers. It definitely seems like some companies are much better run than others, doesn’t it? How do you think the best-run ones are well run? Probably by hiring the best people and having a great corporate culture. Here’s a good Aaron Swartz piece on this.
Is that a special case of a more general belief that if there are lots of top-selling books about how to do X, it follows that people can do X in an intentional/systematic way?
To a degree I’d expect that to be true, especially if the books are written by smart, credible people, which is how I tend to perceive the authors of the best business books. Certainly much more credible than the folks who write books on how to win the lottery scientifically.
Like you, I find it implausible that the threat of being fired is the only good way to motivate workers. Indeed, for many jobs I don’t even think it’s a good way.
I think the best-run companies are well-run by virtue of individuals in positions of influence who are good at running companies. Hiring good people is a symptom of that, as is having a great corporate culture. A poorly run company won’t suddenly get better if the CEO decides “Oh, I know! Let’s hire the best people and have a great corporate culture!” unless said CEO develops skill at running companies.
To a degree I’d expect that to be true, especially if the books are written by smart, credible people, which is how I tend to perceive the authors of the best business books. Certainly much more credible than the folks who write books on how to win the lottery scientifically.
Isn’t that because you don’t already believe “people can [win the lottery] in an intentional/systematic way”, but you do believe “people can [motivate workers] in an intentional/systematic way”?
I’d expect the authors of the best business books (e.g. Andy Grove, Tony Hsieh) to have experience managing top corporations, or get paid to consult for managers of top corporations. Those are tasks that require intelligence and rationality to succeed at and consist of more than just motivating your workers. I’d expect that if there was no way to motivate workers in an intentional/systematic way, these smart, rational people would have said that in their books and it would be a truism in the business world. Instead, the truism is just the opposite.
I also think that things people take to be common sense should be given a strong prior in general. I see essentially no reason to believe that the threat of getting fired is the only thing that motivates anyone, so it’s a bit frustrating to see you (apparently) privileging that hypothesis (because the great Eliezer, who has never managed anyone or worked at a for-profit corporation, suggested it?) when common sense holds the opposite.
Possibly I’ve been reading too much Dilbert, but I expect that books detailing brilliant new management insights would thrive regardless of the actual existence of such insights.
That said, I, like you, have a higher prior for employee motivation than lottery-winning. I just think this preexisting (perfectly rational) prior is your true rejection.
Is that a special case of a more general belief that if there are lots of top-selling books about how to do X, it follows that people can do X in an intentional/systematic way? Or is there something special about motivating workers here?
I find it implausible that the threat of being fired is the only good way to motivate workers. It definitely seems like some companies are much better run than others, doesn’t it? How do you think the best-run ones are well run? Probably by hiring the best people and having a great corporate culture. Here’s a good Aaron Swartz piece on this.
To a degree I’d expect that to be true, especially if the books are written by smart, credible people, which is how I tend to perceive the authors of the best business books. Certainly much more credible than the folks who write books on how to win the lottery scientifically.
Like you, I find it implausible that the threat of being fired is the only good way to motivate workers. Indeed, for many jobs I don’t even think it’s a good way.
I think the best-run companies are well-run by virtue of individuals in positions of influence who are good at running companies. Hiring good people is a symptom of that, as is having a great corporate culture. A poorly run company won’t suddenly get better if the CEO decides “Oh, I know! Let’s hire the best people and have a great corporate culture!” unless said CEO develops skill at running companies.
Regardless, thanks for answering my question.
Isn’t that because you don’t already believe “people can [win the lottery] in an intentional/systematic way”, but you do believe “people can [motivate workers] in an intentional/systematic way”?
I’d expect the authors of the best business books (e.g. Andy Grove, Tony Hsieh) to have experience managing top corporations, or get paid to consult for managers of top corporations. Those are tasks that require intelligence and rationality to succeed at and consist of more than just motivating your workers. I’d expect that if there was no way to motivate workers in an intentional/systematic way, these smart, rational people would have said that in their books and it would be a truism in the business world. Instead, the truism is just the opposite.
I also think that things people take to be common sense should be given a strong prior in general. I see essentially no reason to believe that the threat of getting fired is the only thing that motivates anyone, so it’s a bit frustrating to see you (apparently) privileging that hypothesis (because the great Eliezer, who has never managed anyone or worked at a for-profit corporation, suggested it?) when common sense holds the opposite.
Possibly I’ve been reading too much Dilbert, but I expect that books detailing brilliant new management insights would thrive regardless of the actual existence of such insights.
That said, I, like you, have a higher prior for employee motivation than lottery-winning. I just think this preexisting (perfectly rational) prior is your true rejection.