I hate the writing of the article, but the point of having a 25% bonus tied to social being a dumb move I actually find myself agreeing with based on the information presented. (I'd love to read the full memo...)
People should share social features because they want to, not because they're getting a bonus. Google is ignoring an intensely valuable internal feedback mechanism by re-aligning their employees to adopt new social features without skepticism.
The other big problem I see is tying bonus compensation to an area where you are looking for passion and innovation is the easiest way to replace intrinsic motivation with external motivation, the latter having been proven ineffective in research over and over and over again. You can't incentivize passion, you can only create the environment for it. They will likely end up with products built for bonuses instead of products built out of passion as a result.
Comments
I hate the writing of the article, but the point of having a 25% bonus tied to social being a dumb move I actually find myself agreeing with based on the information presented. (I'd love to read the full memo...)
People should share social features because they want to, not because they're getting a bonus. Google is ignoring an intensely valuable internal feedback mechanism by re-aligning their employees to adopt new social features without skepticism.
The other big problem I see is tying bonus compensation to an area where you are looking for passion and innovation is the easiest way to replace intrinsic motivation with external motivation, the latter having been proven ineffective in research over and over and over again. You can't incentivize passion, you can only create the environment for it. They will likely end up with products built for bonuses instead of products built out of passion as a result.