Whocares

In your opinion, does the mismatch described by Dan Pink between what science knows about motivation, and what business does with stock options, explain why they are ineffective - as described in the Case Study?  Why or why not?

I have always thought that providing stock options was a way of getting employees to have a reason to provide more. It acts like a catalyst for better decisions for the company. After reading the article and listening to Mr Dan Pink, i feel otherwise. He stated, that a lot of research was done which showed that providing money wasn't a motivator but in fact would deteriorate people from thinking and performing the task. If that rationale is applied to stock options, then, if the job isn't focused enough or repetitive enough, stock options could lead employees to not only choke when the going gets tough but also make irrational decisions for the betterment of the company.

Stock options were ways of getting a CEO for example, to be motivated to perform better. But providing stock options to a CEO whose company just took a 10 billion dollar loss doesn't make sense. If the incentive is there to do the best for the company, clearly, when decisions are made that affect the company in the wrong way, the CEO still doesn't get the stock option that he craves for. This only makes the CEO feel that the stock option isn't an incentive but part of his yearly pay package that he/she is entitled too.

For short term gain, i could see company employees make decisions that would help them make a profit through the stock option. Clearly, stock option is motivating people, but not in the intended way. So, i have to agree with Mr Dan Pink that there is a mismatch between what science knows and what is being practiced currently.