Have Big Banks heard about this “Bonuses” study sponsored by Fed Res Bank?

I have blogged many times about the “iatrogenic” effects from paying big bonuses. Like when “Bonus Culture” inhibits creativity in the organisation and the observation that rewards sabotage people’s intrinsic motivation and sabotage good customer service.  The idea of using rewards to drive/modify behaviour comes from the Old Psychology models. To get to understand the [...]

I have blogged many times about the “iatrogenic” effects from paying big bonuses. Like when “Bonus Culture” inhibits creativity in the organisation and the observation that rewards sabotage people’s intrinsic motivation and sabotage good customer service.  The idea of using rewards to drive/modify behaviour comes from the Old Psychology models. To get to understand the nature of intrinsic human motivation we need to look to New Psychology models.

Well the RSA have just produced this video summary in their Animate series from Dan Pink which summarises some of the other problems about paying bonuses, including a study at M.I.T. sponsored apparently by the USA Federal Reserve Bank.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Breaking News -RBS Performance Improves when top people (the bonus seekers?) leave!

I have blogged quite a lot about the problems of the “bonus culture” particularly where very large bonuses are concerned. There was
How Rewards Sabotage Creativity and
Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract? and
Bonus Culture – proud to win a cabbage not the cash?
And have you heard the latest spin on this from the [...]

I have blogged quite a lot about the problems of the “bonus culture” particularly where very large bonuses are concerned. There was

How Rewards Sabotage Creativity and

Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract? and

Bonus Culture – proud to win a cabbage not the cash?

And have you heard the latest spin on this from the Royal Bank of Scotland? (as reported by Graham Jones)

Graham says

The boss of RBS has scored a Gordon Brown-like “own goal”. The bank’s Chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, has admitted that city bankers are paid too much – “astonishingly high”, is what he said their salaries were. He went on to say, however, that if you don’t pay these big salaries, then people leave. Indeed, said Sir Philip, many of the “top people” have already left RBS. That was before he went on to explain that the bank had achieved much better results than expected. Sorry, run that past me again? The “top people” have left – and the bank has improved. Er…sounds to me like you should let more of them leave, Sir Philip…!

which is more or less what I have been saying for sometime!

and Graham goes on to say:

But why is it that everyone in the banking industry – and the Government – falls for the line “we have to pay people high salaries in order to keep them”?

If you want to read more on this then go to Graham’s blog here

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

RBS Performance Improves when ‘Top People’ Leave (unintended consequence?)

I have blogged quite a lot about the problems of the “bonus culture” particularly where very large bonuses are concerned. There was
How Rewards Sabotage Creativity and
Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract? and
Bonus Culture – proud to win a cabbage not the cash?
And have you heard the latest spin on this from the [...]

I have blogged quite a lot about the problems of the “bonus culture” particularly where very large bonuses are concerned. There was

How Rewards Sabotage Creativity and

Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract? and

Bonus Culture – proud to win a cabbage not the cash?

And have you heard the latest spin on this from the Royal Bank of Scotland? (as reported by Graham Jones)

Graham says

The boss of RBS has scored a Gordon Brown-like “own goal”. The bank’s Chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, has admitted that city bankers are paid too much – “astonishingly high”, is what he said their salaries were. He went on to say, however, that if you don’t pay these big salaries, then people leave. Indeed, said Sir Philip, many of the “top people” have already left RBS. That was before he went on to explain that the bank had achieved much better results than expected. Sorry, run that past me again? The “top people” have left – and the bank has improved. Er…sounds to me like you should let more of them leave, Sir Philip…!

which is more or less what I have been saying for sometime!

and Graham goes on to say:

But why is it that everyone in the banking industry – and the Government – falls for the line “we have to pay people high salaries in order to keep them”?

If you want to read more on this then go to Graham’s blog here

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Bonus Culture? Proud to Win a Cabbage not the Cash?

Apparently on Radio 4 this week, Shane O’Riordain (Group Communications Director of the Lloyds banking group) said “It’s entirely right for companies both our company and others, to pay bonuses when performance targets have been met – its an appropriate part of compensation”
One wonders, knowing the sort of unethical things that were being done in [...]

Apparently on Radio 4 this week, Shane O’Riordain (Group Communications Director of the Lloyds banking group) said “It’s entirely right for companies both our company and others, to pay bonuses when performance targets have been met – its an appropriate part of compensation”

One wonders, knowing the sort of unethical things that were being done in the name of ‘performance’ and bonus attainment, that the phrase “entirely right” shows that these top bankers still just don’t get it. After all it does appear that a lot of the time their ‘performance’ could be equated with highly driven ‘unethical behaviours’ (see Unintended Consequences – what do very large bonuses attract?)

Later the same morning Radio 4 had Paul Moore, the HBOS “Whistle-Blower”, being interviewed by Michael Buerk in the programme “The Choice”.  This contained extraordinary material on the targets culture.  It included the “Cash or Cabbages Day” when, in full public gaze, those who had made their targets received some cash, while those who hadn’t were awarded a cabbage.  Mr Moore spoke graphically about the culture of fear and much more, which will be familiar to many who found themselves caught up in such a ‘macho’ culture. The Programme can be viewed again on BBC iplayer here

So I would just like to praise those at HBOS who won the cabbage. Be Proud. Because most likely the reason you did not earn the ‘performance’ cash was that you were behaving and selling ethically!

Thanks to Brian Leeming and Henry Neave for bringing the Radio 4 interviews to my attention.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Unintended Consequences? What do Very Large Bonuses Attract?

It would appear that Very Large Bonuses Attract –  Very Greedy People.
Now if experience tells us this is so (and certainly Alfie Kohn’s research showed that one thing that bonuses and other rewards don’t do is to lead to long-term improvement) how should we read the statements that have been made by the top [...]

It would appear that Very Large Bonuses Attract –  Very Greedy People.

Now if experience tells us this is so (and certainly Alfie Kohn’s research showed that one thing that bonuses and other rewards don’t do is to lead to long-term improvement) how should we read the statements that have been made by the top British Institutions that if they don’t pay large bonuses their top earners will go and work for European or American Companies.

Put these two ideas together (Greedy People and Go Elsewhere) and a super strategy for British Companies would be to – wait for it – stop paying bonuses.

Bonuses might attract top earners but experience (with the credit crunch etc) is telling us that these top earners do not benefit their organisations  IN THE LONG TERM (and therefore do not benefit any of their stakeholders in the long term either).

So are there some British Companies out there brave enough to stop paying ‘performance related’ bonuses and to see what happens? The consequences could be very good! Not a loss at all but a gain.

All the greedy earners who don’t care a stuff about the customers, will go to the competitors (hooray I hear from all those people who have suffered from all this miss-selling), leaving space for a new type of entrepreneur to take up these jobs within companies – (those with an innerpreneur mindset). Would not it be good for the long-term success of financial institutions for example if all the work was done by employees wanting to do the very best they can to give good service for past, current and future customers. Unfortunately as Kohn showed many years ago, big ‘carrots’ move the focus away from the service. The focus in the bonus culture is “what do I need to do today to make my carrot bigger (and also give me bragging rights to the biggest carrot)”. The focus should be of course be “what do I need to do today to really help my customer?”

So should not our politicians be suggesting that bonuses simply STOP in order to make our Institutions better? This then leaves one question. If such an organisation goes on to make increased profit in a ‘no bonus for performance’ model, how do all the employees get to share in this success as an intended consequence? (Answers not on a postcard, but please post your suggestions here)

What is a fair way to keep the focus on customer service, and to share in the benefits that accrue from being a truly long-term customer-focussed (as opposed to a bonus-focussed) company?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

What is Politics Anyway?

What is Politics anyway? One definition

I have seen politics described simply as the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments, but politics has been observed as a phenomenon in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

When I worked [...]

What is Politics anyway? One definition

I have seen politics described simply as the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments, but politics has been observed as a phenomenon in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

When I worked as a Head of a Biochemistry Department in the NHS, I was very aware of this thing called politics. Heads of Departments seemed more concerned with building up their empires (often called Ivory Towers) and doing as much back-stabbing as possible to ensure that it was they and not another department that got the extra member of staff or the extra piece of equipment. The fact that one piece of equipment might make a real difference to patient care and another piece wouldn’t have anything like the same impact, did not seem to matter – it had to be their department that got the funds.

So it is possible to see this thing called politics happening everywhere but that does not mean that it has to be the only way that groups can work together – it’s just one way. If we have a system (whether in a Ladies Institute, a business, workplace or Government) where we select for the characteristics we feel we need in leader (macho, aggressive, manipulative, bonus-incentivised, fire-fighter, hero etc?) and what we finish up with is a conniving, untrustworthy political infighter – then surely we have the wrong model and we are choosing the wrong characteristics for good leaders. (and if we wish to select Innerpreneurial-Spirited and High-Emotionally-Intelligent personnel for Leadership positions then for starters we need to get rid of our obsession with paper qualifications and interview checklists).

Get Back

So getting back to the idea that Politics is simply the process by which groups of people make decisions. I would quibble with this as a definition and reframe as ‘politics is simply one process, one model by which groups of people make decisions. There are other ways and some of these ways will be explored over time in this blog.

Whether some of these ‘better ways’ of working could be effective in a Government or a Parliament situation is untested. But surely we couldn’t do any worse than what we have seen in the last few decades? The farcical scenes we see on the television as the cream of political life engage in the thing they call debate.

Come together right now. Speak up!

So the movers-and-shakers in our Society need to come together, to speak up and speak out and to provide impetus to explore ways that groups of people make decisions in a different way. And perhaps to help conceive something akin to a ‘Non-Political Party’.

From Where does Government take its Lead?

In the past it seems that Government has often taken its lead from the darkside of business (lets just call it the macho, competitive side) and they take advice from those very same people they harangue when they receive their obscene financial bonuses. We all know that the Country’s most effective leaders are just getting on quietly and effectively with running a business. Government needs to look really deep below the surface to find these guys and girls because you won’t see them on programmes like The Apprentice (and by the way, would you hire Alan Sugar?) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192694/So-hire-Alan-Sugan-Mr-Brown-But-special-investigation-reveals-Mr-Sugars-chequered-career-raises-questions-suitability-role-model-businessmen.html

In yesterday’s blog there was this quote: “A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” ~ James Freeman Clarke.

We need the Statesman Mentallity

We need the Statesman mentality now in our Parliament. We need independently minded thinkers. We need something different, tinkering is no longer the medium term option. So how do we ensure we fill our parliaments with statesman not politicians? Can the real Leader’s in this country (those who build a business for the long-term benefits not the short-term gains) and other movers-and-shakers in society stand up, help to guide, design and agree a way that we can fill our Parliaments with Good Leaders and Statesmen not the ‘claim-as-much-on-expenses-as-we-can-and-blow-the-taxpayer’ career politicians. One thing to note is that we might be seeing the first signs of is the demise of the career politician. So expect a fight-back – they won’t go quietly.

As a voter, do you want to be represented by a system that is political by its very nature?

Coming up next:

All political parties are the same – no real choice

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

  • Share/Bookmark

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...