Money not a motivator (unless you're an exec)

[Hopeful]

Dear Mr Arpey,

With such seminal slogans in its repertoire, like 'pull together/ win
together' & the classic 'shared sacrifice', employees are impressed @
how easy AA can rewrite micro economics. In the latest modification to
basic economics AA announced on JetNet that "money is not a top
motivator." Oh really, then why do execs use AMR as their own personal
cash register??? $95 million bonuses paid out in 2006 for losing $800
million & this year bonuses were 2/3 of profits.

The article on JetNet continues: "More than anything else, people want
to be valued. They want to feel that what they do matters. Money can't
do that; personal recognition can." Maybe this is why Dan Garton & Tom
Horton left AA a while ago . . . not to pursue fatter paychecks but for
the promise of group hugs @ Continental & AT&T. A gleaming white AA
coffee mug is a hot commodity, & probably pulled Garton & Horton back to
AMR because "money is not a top motivator."

I am awed witnessing the human race reject the temptations of personal
wealth as described in the preeminent economic resource of our time,
JetNet. However, I'm a tad confused. In the 2007 shareholders' meeting I
asked you to reinvest a portion of your $12 million compensation back
into AMR & you declined. OK, I see my mistake - - I didn't offer you any
recognition. I propose that employees vote for the most valuable exec.
It would come w/ a framed computer generated certificate that would take
your breath away. Remember, "money is not a top motivator."

On 7/17/07, TWU Pres Jim Little attended Al Blackman's 65th anniversary
bash @ JFK. Incidentally, not 1 single exec showed up, as if 65-year
anniversaries occurred daily. Anyhow, Little told several workers that
AA didn't want to give employees anything in the upcoming negotiations.
Despite the sociological behavioral trends shifting toward recognition
incentive from a fiscal-based motivation, Little's comments were met w/
howls & protests. Regrettably, the worker's evolution has lagged behind
the enlighten recognition performance culture of execs. I guess banks
refusing to take a commemorative coffee mug as payment of a mortgage has
something to do w/ it.

Recently, 2 B-1 bombers flew into JFK. I had the privilege of chatting
w/ the ground crew. They are selfless individuals & are the only people
I would believe if they said "money is not a top motivator." When they
asked about employment in the airlines, I couldn't recommend the job
I've had for 2 decades. Airline employees are treated w/ contempt
throughout the industry, while dental hygienists in NYC are paid more
than an aircraft mechanic.

Mr Arpey, for a B-1 mechanic "money is not a top motivator," but for you
& me it is. You're a businessman & so am I. We're all here to make
money. It's that simple.

Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxx
mechanic & burdening the sacrifice @ JFK
AMR shareholder

 

[Wretched Wrench]

It has been taught for decades that money is not a motivator. In the context of those courses, the statement is true. I will not into it, but suffice it so say that it was my major by the time I finally finished college. According to one of my sons, it is still being taught, at least at Stanford GSB. We do have some interesting conversations on this.

However, we can learn much from the Donald Trumps of this world. He is famously quoted as saying "Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score."

One can also say that many of us are motivated by money to feed our families, while those at the top are motivated by money to feed their egos. This comparison invites a form of circular logic that can get us bogged down in Maslow's hierarchy of needs and self-actualizationa and validation and so forth, which runs full circle back to the statement that money is not a motivator. However, it is also taught by other theorists, that money is indeed a motivator until the individual's basic needs are met. After that point, then money is indeed not a motivator. Much of this dialectic hinges on the definition of "basic" and "needs".

Studying any of several of the permutations of Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows that "self-esteem, confidence, achievement, and respect by others" are near the top. For the people in question, I would say that those needs are[\i] the top. I don't think any of these theoreticians ever spent much time with working men. It is also my observation that this stuff is being taught by, and studied by, people who have no experience or even much exposure to working people. My classes were generally populated by wanna be yuppies or at least ambitious clerks who already saw themselves as management material. I believe every hour of studying Maslow should be balanced by a few minutes of reflecting on Eric Hoffer. I suddenly had the realization that I had failed as a parent, and had neglected his education, when my son told me he had discovered Hoffer on his own. On his own, he recognized the value of throwing Hoffer into the mix.

I am digressing, but I believe one of the reasons Hoffer is not taught is because he is blue collar and actually worked for a living. Academia has the same disdain for those who actually work as we see in other places.

 

[Hopeful]

It has been taught for decades that money is not a motivator. In the context of those courses, the statement is true. I will not into it, but suffice it so say that it was my major by the time I finally finished college. According to one of my sons, it is still being taught, at least at Stanford GSB. We do have some interesting conversations on this.

However, we can learn much from the Donald Trumps of this world. He is famously quoted as saying "Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score."

One can also say that many of us are motivated by money to feed our families, while those at the top are motivated by money to feed their egos. This comparison invites a form of circular logic that can get us bogged down in Maslow's hierarchy of needs and self-actualizationa and validation and so forth, which runs full circle back to the statement that money is not a motivator. However, it is also taught by other theorists, that money is indeed a motivator until the individual's basic needs are met. After that point, then money is indeed not a motivator. Much of this dialectic hinges on the definition of "basic" and "needs".

Studying any of several of the permutations of Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows that "self-esteem, confidence, achievement, and respect by others" are near the top. For the people in question, I would say that those needs are[\i] the top. I don't think any of these theoreticians ever spent much time with working men. It is also my observation that this stuff is being taught by, and studied by, people who have no experience or even much exposure to working people. My classes were generally populated by wanna be yuppies or at least ambitious clerks who already saw themselves as management material. I believe every hour of studying Maslow should be balanced by a few minutes of reflecting on Eric Hoffer. I suddenly had the realization that I had failed as a parent, and had neglected his education, when my son told me he had discovered Hoffer on his own. On his own, he recognized the value of throwing Hoffer into the mix.

I am digressing, but I believe one of the reasons Hoffer is not taught is because he is blue collar and actually worked for a living. Academia has the same disdain for those who actually work as we see in other places.

Gee, I wonder what motivates some AA execs to leave, and a couple to come back to AA? Maybe the other companies give them a SUIT allowances since money doesn't motivate.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

The same folks that tell us money is not a motivator say they have to give the execs more money to keep them from leaving.

As Desi would say, they got some 'splainin' to do.

 

[Hopeful]

The same folks that tell us money is not a motivator say they have to give the execs more money to keep them from leaving.

As Desi would say, they got some 'splainin' to do.

Don't worry, Ricky, the pro management defenders here will SPLAIN to you how the executives negotiate their packages and how we are all victims of executive pay envy!

 

[A/C FIXER]

The same folks that tell us money is not a motivator say they have to give the execs more money to keep them from leaving.

As Desi would say, they got some 'splainin' to do.

I say if the sons of female dogs in heat can't stay with us when times are bad, then let the cork soakers leave and replace them with people from within who have stuck it out!

 

[Winglet]

This management does not consider the employees to be actual people that require leadership and motivation. They consider employees cost units.

Most US managers these days ONLY react to if the cost units break or disappear causing a negative impact to the managers' take from the till. As long as the cost units stay, do the work, and don't decrease the managers' cut of the action, then what the cost units think is really quite irrelevant.