It doesn't sound capital efficient at all - instead they've got people deliberately milling about doing nothing while waiting for the "penalty window" to lapse.
If anything, this is a brilliant example of how applying measurable incentives can distort motivations and make people do stupid things to please whatever metrics are being measured.
Left to their own devices, these very smart and ambitious people would no doubt make up their own mind about the value of their time and ensure they don't waste time milling about when they're busy, and so go to lunch early or late or in the middle if they're not too busy anyway or want to chat with someone in the queue. Instead, they're now forcing themselves to fit a stupid "penalty window" to save a few bucks, because that's what the incentive system in place dictates.
Measurements are a very, very dangerous beast. Apply with caution.
"they've got people deliberately milling about doing nothing" //
But that also means that those who need to get a quick lunch have a window towards the end of the cost penalty period in which they can breeze through the line and more easily get a table.
I like the idea in general, but presumably it's the employees own time they're wasting.
Surprised it's not a graduated system, like a normal curve with a plateau over the traditional dinner hour.
Do Goldman also allow staff to have flexibility in their work hours - that would tend towards reducing choke points like this I imagine.
But that also means that those who need to get a quick lunch have a window towards the end of the cost penalty period in which they can breeze through the line and more easily get a table
Doesn't seem that way. From the article.
"If you find yourself in the cafeteria sometime around 1:20 pm, ... the cafeteria area between where the food is collected and where you pay is quite crowded. The Goldman lunchers are chatting with each other, waiting for the final minutes to tick down until they can save a dollar or two."
In other words, if you want to breeze through the queue, you have to come after the 1:30pm queue for the cashiers has subsided. If you want to get a table, you may have to come even later.
In general, I find this to be a bizarre and overly complicated solution to the basic problem of 'time wasted in queues'. There are may other ways to tackle this but it doesn't surprise me that an investment bank thinks manipulating prices is the 'right' way to do it.
Do Goldman also allow staff to have flexibility in their work hours - that would tend towards reducing choke points like this I imagine.
Well, the trading hours of the markets determine, more-or-less, the required work hours of many employees. However, successful traders will be at work both before and after the market trading day to preview/review the events of the day.
My company is small (11 people, £1m turnover) and yet this book provided some solid data and insights to convince me that measurement-based management is very dangerous (which I was thinking about already, but I was lacking a solid explanation and some data about).
The point of the book is relatively straightforward, but the explanation is pretty solid, and it provides some data to substantiate that point, and a model about which approaches work in which situations. Imho it's a very valuable read if you're in a position where you're designing an incentives system (e.g. if you're trying to create a company with employees).
For contractors via oDesk - it will still help. The model is valid in general. You won't necessarily be able to do all the things that you would with a team that's physically there, but the general ideas still apply.
instead they've got people deliberately milling about doing nothing while waiting for the
You're equating the time wasted due to the probably large lines during the rush hours to the time wasted by a few people hanging around for a few minutes before 1:30.
I object to your automatic assumption that those are equivalent and that the people who put the policy in place have no clue as to whether or not their incentives were a benefit. Without actual data, you're just giving us your preconceptions and labeling them as "a brilliant example".
Comments
It doesn't sound capital efficient at all - instead they've got people deliberately milling about doing nothing while waiting for the "penalty window" to lapse.
If anything, this is a brilliant example of how applying measurable incentives can distort motivations and make people do stupid things to please whatever metrics are being measured.
Left to their own devices, these very smart and ambitious people would no doubt make up their own mind about the value of their time and ensure they don't waste time milling about when they're busy, and so go to lunch early or late or in the middle if they're not too busy anyway or want to chat with someone in the queue. Instead, they're now forcing themselves to fit a stupid "penalty window" to save a few bucks, because that's what the incentive system in place dictates.
Measurements are a very, very dangerous beast. Apply with caution.
(Great book on the topic: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Measuring-Managing-Performance-Organ... )
But that also means that those who need to get a quick lunch have a window towards the end of the cost penalty period in which they can breeze through the line and more easily get a table.
I like the idea in general, but presumably it's the employees own time they're wasting.
Surprised it's not a graduated system, like a normal curve with a plateau over the traditional dinner hour.
Do Goldman also allow staff to have flexibility in their work hours - that would tend towards reducing choke points like this I imagine.
Doesn't seem that way. From the article.
In other words, if you want to breeze through the queue, you have to come after the 1:30pm queue for the cashiers has subsided. If you want to get a table, you may have to come even later.
In general, I find this to be a bizarre and overly complicated solution to the basic problem of 'time wasted in queues'. There are may other ways to tackle this but it doesn't surprise me that an investment bank thinks manipulating prices is the 'right' way to do it.
Well, the trading hours of the markets determine, more-or-less, the required work hours of many employees. However, successful traders will be at work both before and after the market trading day to preview/review the events of the day.
Is it a great book with advice even small companies can use, or just an interesting read? The only people I manage are contractors via oDesk.
My company is small (11 people, £1m turnover) and yet this book provided some solid data and insights to convince me that measurement-based management is very dangerous (which I was thinking about already, but I was lacking a solid explanation and some data about).
The point of the book is relatively straightforward, but the explanation is pretty solid, and it provides some data to substantiate that point, and a model about which approaches work in which situations. Imho it's a very valuable read if you're in a position where you're designing an incentives system (e.g. if you're trying to create a company with employees).
For contractors via oDesk - it will still help. The model is valid in general. You won't necessarily be able to do all the things that you would with a team that's physically there, but the general ideas still apply.
instead they've got people deliberately milling about doing nothing while waiting for the
You're equating the time wasted due to the probably large lines during the rush hours to the time wasted by a few people hanging around for a few minutes before 1:30.
I object to your automatic assumption that those are equivalent and that the people who put the policy in place have no clue as to whether or not their incentives were a benefit. Without actual data, you're just giving us your preconceptions and labeling them as "a brilliant example".