Skip to main content

Daniel Pink says we're doing it wrong

Daniel Pink claims science says we're doing it wrong in the Deloitte Digital studio model.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

Currently within my office there is a formalized effort to find ways to improve our work culture. According to Pink, the organization needs to learn to support and reward the correct set of motivations. Based on his talk, one of the friction areas I see between studio consulting and financial consulting is that the bonus structure for financial consulting where mere effort and extra time linearly deliver incrementally better results works against you in the creative software and design work we do in the studios. Pink suggests if we want to adapt to what the decades of motivation research conclude, maybe we should talk about removing the consideration of performance-affected bonuses from the studio model entirely, just push the financial concern right off the table, and let people have the agency to act on the intrinsic motivations that made them worth hiring in the first place. Sure, all I'm backing this up with here is just a TED talk on Youtube, but the points about morale, turn-over, and productivity dropping when a performance-based reward system is imposed over creative work seem to align fairly well with experience so far. Food for thought...

Here's an even better version of the talk where he goes more in depth. I apologize for the crackling audio. It goes away after a bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mG-hhWL_ug

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

UiAutomator and Watchers: Adding Async Robustness to UI Automation

"I'm looking over your shoulder... only because I've got your back." ~ Stephen Colbert After my recent UiAutomator review a user brought up an important question about the use of UiWatcher. The watchers serve as async guardians of the test flow, making sure the odd dialog window doesn't completely frustrate your tests. Having a tool that automatically watches your back when you're focused on the functional flow of your tests is awesome. 100% pure awesomesauce. Since the API documentation on watchers is scant and the UI Testing tutorial on the Android dev guide doesn't cover their use in depth, I figured I should add a post here that goes over a simple scenario demonstrating how to use this fundamentally important UI automation tool. In my example code below, I'm using uiautomator to launch the API Demo app (meaning run this against an Emulator built in API level 17 - I used the Galaxy Nexus image included in the latest ADT and platform tools). ...

UiAutomator.jar: What happened when Android's JUnit and MonkeyRunner got drunk and hooked up

"Drunkenness does not create vice; it merely brings it into view" ~Seneca So Jelly Bean 4.2 landed with much fanfare and tucked in amongst the neat new OS and SDK features (hello, multi-user tablets!) was this little gem for testers: UiAutomator.jar. I have it on good authority that it snuck in amongst the updates in the preview tools and OS updates sometime around 4.1 with r3 of the platform. As a code-monkey of a tester, I was intrigued. One of the best ways Google can support developers struggling with platform fragmentation is to make their OS more testable so I hold high hopes with every release to see effort spent in that area. I have spent a couple days testing out the new UiAutomator API  and the best way I can think of describing it is that Android's JUnit and MonkeyRunner got drunk and had a code baby. Let me explain what I mean before that phrase sinks down into "mental image" territory. JUnit, for all its power and access to every interface, e...

Why Developers Shouldn't Perform Software Testing - A Rebuttal

Take a minute and read the following 2-pager entitled " Guest View: Why developers shouldn’t perform software testing ". Man, I tried to like this article because the author, Martin Mudge, clearly knows that businesses who undervalue quality by trying to eliminate testing through simply shuffling the traditional testing task to developers are making a huge mistake. Unfortunately he begins by making an assertion that testing overburdens a developer which at face value is complete nonsense. If you feel overburdened, it is a timeline issue and that is true no matter WHAT the nature of the tasking is.  So his assertion of “one the most important” contributing factors being overburdening the developers is massively flawed. It gets immediately worse from there because his second point is about time constraints.  Mr Mudge just gets so much wrong. What he really should be shooting down is the idea that testing, as a cost-center not as a task, can be eliminated by having your p...