Incentives/Disincentives

Abbott · November 23, 2010, 10:18pm

[From Bruce Abbott (2010.11.23.1715 EST)]

Rick Marken (2010.11.23.1145) --

Fred Nickols (2010.11.23.1118 MST)

Rick Marken (2010.11.23.0910)

Fred Nickols (2010.11.23.0853 MST)

FN: Moreover, I find nothing in PCT to negate or void those concepts.

RM: But you negate it yourself in your next paragraph:

FN: So you say, Rick, but I don't agree that I negate it myself. That an
incentive (or disincentive) hinges on whether or not the prospective
recipient wants it (or is controlling for it) doesn't wipe out the concept
of incentive; all it does is point out that incentives have no operational
existence apart from someone wanting them. ï¿½I can offer Joe a $500 bonus

to

do X and if Joe has no interest in the $500 then that $500 is not
functioning as an incentive. ï¿½But if Joe does want that $500 then it does
act as an incentive.

RM: It acts as an incentive only if you use it as an incentive -- as a
means of controlling Joe's behavior. It may be that your friends know
that $500 can't incent (cause) behavior if people don't want it. But
if they find that $500 will incent behavior (because Joe wants it)
they are happy to use it as a behavior control method instead of just
giving it to Joe (since they know he wants it and they apparently have
it to give) or cooperating with him (asking if Joe how much X he would
be willing to do for $500, for example). Calling something an
"incentive" betrays an interest in control of behavior rather than in
how behavior controls.

Joe knows that I need to have the plumbing fixed, and since he's a plumber,
he knows how to do it, so why won't he do the job for free? Apparently he's
more interested in controlling my behavior than in helping me to control the
functioning of my plumbing. In fact, he won't do the job for me unless I pay
him the $500. In other words, he's incentivizing my behavior of paying him
$500 by offering to fix the plumbing for me ONLY if I agree to pay him for
it, the #@!% control freak.

Bruce A.

rsmarken · November 24, 2010, 1:53am

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.23.1750)]

Bruce Abbott (2010.11.23.1715 EST)--

FN:ï¿½I can offer Joe a $500 bonus to
do X and if Joe has no interest in the $500 then that $500 is not
functioning as an incentive. ï¿½But if Joe does want that $500 then it does
act as an incentive.

RM: It acts as an incentive only if you use it as an incentive -- as a
means of controlling Joe's behavior.

BA: Joe knows that I need to have the plumbing fixed, and since he's a plumber,
he knows how to do it, so why won't he do the job for free? Apparently he's
more interested in controlling my behavior than in helping me to control the
functioning of my plumbing. In fact, he won't do the job for me unless I pay
him the $500. In other words, he's incentivizing my behavior of paying him
$500 by offering to fix the plumbing for me ONLY if I agree to pay him for
it, the #@!% control freak.

Yes, it sounds like a parallel situation. But I think there is a
difference and it turns on the fact that, in specialized economies, we
have agreed to exchange money for specialized labor and in a market
economy the market establishes the exchange rates. So when Joe took
the job with Fred he agreed to do Y labor for Z salary. The salary was
not offered as an incentive but as a trade for labor. Same for Joe the
plumber; when he takes the plumbing job for you he agrees to do Y'
labor for Z' salary.

The "incentive" situation in Fred's job was the offer of $500 for
extra work. There is no negotiation or market bargaining here; Fred
just says "if you want $500 more you can get it by doing X". Assuming
that Fred knows that Joe needs the $500 and that there is no other way
for Joe to get it than by doing X, then I would say that Fred is now
trying to _arbitrarily_ control Joe in the sense that he's trying to
get Joe to do something that Fred wants to see done but that Joe may
not want to do (for his own reasons). And Fred's doing it by taking
advantage of a known need in Joe.

The equivalent situation (of arbitrary control) for the plumber would
occur if the plumber knew that the person who hired him wanted or
needed some extra plumbing service and the plumber then offers to
provide it for an extra $500. This is arbitrary control because the
plumber (like the manager) is trying to take advantage of a known want
or need to get a person to do something (pay an extra $500) that the
person may not want to do.

Actually, I agree that in even many cooperative interactions between
employer and employee there is mutual control. The employer is
controlling for the employee'swork by paying the employee contingent
on work and the employee is controlling for money by working
contingent on pay. But this is mutual control that is agreed on in
advance, like the mutual control that happens when you pay a cashier
and expect to get change. When you give the cashier $10 for a product
that costs $5.75 you are controlling for having the cashier return
$4.25 to you. And the cashier is controlling for getting the cost of
the product, $5.75, from you. So there is mutual control again but it
is agreed on control .

The kind of control that goes on with incentives is _arbitrary_
control, in the sense that there is no concern about what the
controllee would be willing to do for the "incentive". As I said in an
earlier post, the $500 bonus could be changed from an incentive
(arbitrary control method) to a mutual control agreement simply by
negotiating. Just ask Joe what he is willing to do for $500 or how
much he would like to be paid for doing X if he's willing to do it.
All the "incentivizer" needs to do to not be an arbitrary controller
is take into account the fact that teh "incentivee" is an autonomous
control system, just like the "incentivizer". I think the principle
is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". You can quote
me on that.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

BUSINESS_GAVIN_HERMA · November 24, 2010, 2:18am

(Gavin Ritz 2010.11.24.15.NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2010.11.23.1750)]

Bruce Abbott
(2010.11.23.1715 EST)–

The kind of control that goes on with incentives
is arbitrary

control, in the sense that there is no concern about
what the

controllee would be willing to do for the
“incentive”. As I said in an

earlier post, the $500 bonus could be changed from an
incentive

(arbitrary control method) to a mutual control
agreement simply by

negotiating. Just ask Joe what he is willing to do for $500 or how

much he would like to be paid for doing X if he’s
willing to do it.

All the “incentivizer” needs to do to not be
an arbitrary controller

is take into account the fact that teh
“incentivee” is an autonomous

control system, just like the
“incentivizer”. I think the principle

is “do unto others as you would have them do unto
you”. You can quote

me on that.

Rick

This is all well and good
if and only if the individual is aware of their selection of control. Most are
not. They have a vague sense of it or none at all. I have profiled 1000’s
of people once I share with them their controlled selections some have ahaa experiences
other say hell I’ve always known that but have been unable to articulate
it. Others say yip that’s what I control for (a very small percentage).

I was once very cheeky in
a profiling situation and I said to the lass heck you’re a bit “hot
to handle” you probably select for a red BMW, well she almost fell over
in shock. I said to her “what’s the problem”. Her reply was I
drive a red BMW. When I explained to her how the profiler works she realised it
was not really sooth saying but a simple deduction of her selection criteria.

If I try to get an individual
to select for say money and they really control for safety then there’s a
mismatch. And this is what happens most of the time.

Regards

Gavin