drsmooth wrote:I think, I hope, I've said this before with respect for "merit" pay - it's bunk. It''s like paying CEOs based on merit. CEOs do shitworth. The CEO of Costco, sensibly, earns under $1 million base annual compensation (he collects another couple million in equity rewards annually). The job just isn't that hard. It's time-consuming, sure, and there's a lot of "responsibility", whatever that means (a job attribute I feel is over-rewarded at the top), but lives don't hang in the balance of decisions about whether to stock more coke or more pepsi; plenty of other people can do it, and jobs like it, pretty much as well. Paying people jillions mostly because they've been aggressive, ambitious pricks all their lives is stupid.

What is the cause of the varied performances of yahoo, google, and apple in the last 10 years? Luck? You're clueless.

Werthless wrote:What is the cause of the varied performances of yahoo, google, and apple in the last 10 years? Luck? You're clueless.

Sigh

Costco isn't any of the above firms. But on to your preferred examples.

Of course you know, based on evidence, that most of apple's & google's success is attributable primarily to the activities of the CEOs of those organizations. Because, unlike everyone else who has subjected organizational performance to real scrutiny, you have incontrovertible proof of your beliefs.

Lemme lend you a magnifying glass so you can find someone your own size to pick on.

EDIT: wait, hold it, I know what's confused you. I said "the job wasn't all that hard". Producing outsized successes is a remarkable accomplishment. But "hard" or "easy" aren't terms that adequately capture the nature of what might be rewarded there. It's not like by trying "harder" others might have produced like results. Presiding over executive decisionmaking processes is not "hard", like hitting a Halladay cutter is hard.

I'm as much a believer in Branch Rickey's dictum about luck as anyone else. But I'm aware that luck still exists, and accounts for an underappreciated share of the results of any enterprise's "successes". And I've also been close enough to the activities of compensation committees to know that there's a pile of self-congratulatory BS that too often skews rewards for organization performance to those doing the self-congratulation.

drsmooth wrote:CEOs do shitworth.The job just isn't that hard.

It sounds like you think CEOs dont do anything that could make them worth ~1M. So tying it back to the teacher merit pay... it sounds like you're arguing that there is no way to tell who the best teachers are, so merit pay is a flawed option. Is that right?

A good CEO can set a strategic vision for a company to follow, and if he makes a poor decision, set the company back years. Alternatively, a great CEO, like Jobs, can set the company up for success for years, especially if he's willing to stick to a plan. it's no coincidence Apple turned around when Jobs returned. He might not have done it all himself, but he hired the right people and put them in a position to succeed.

I've had the opportunity to work for a company that has had so so CEO's and now has a great CEO. He set a vision, has stuck to it, took risks on people and has completely changed the culture and attitude of his employees for the better. Werthless is right on the money.

As for Costco, it provides a valuable service to small businesses and consumers, allowing them to purchase items at a significant discount to other retailers. You may think its an insignificant impact, but millions of people disagree with you.

cshort wrote:A good CEO can set a strategic vision for a company to follow, and if he makes a poor decision, set the company back years. Alternatively, a great CEO, like Jobs, can set the company up for success for years, especially if he's willing to stick to a plan. it's no coincidence Apple turned around when Jobs returned. He might not have done it all himself, but he hired the right people and put them in a position to succeed.

There are plenty of people who know more about it than you or me who have questioned, and will continue to question, whether Jobs was ever a great executive. A "visionary", or whatever, perhaps. An executive, that's more open to question. And hiring decisions in contemporary organizations are among those that seldom come down to one person's extraordinary discernment.

I've had the opportunity to work for a company that has had so so CEO's and now has a great CEO. He set a vision, has stuck to it, took risks on people and has completely changed the culture and attitude of his employees for the better. Werthless is right on the money.

Thanks for your n of 1. I've worked for firms with terrific leadership that struggled; I've worked at firms with leadership that was carried to solid results by its footsoldiers. And I've been part of organizations that seemed to get better-than-tolerable results without any discernable 'special someones' at top, middle, or bottom.

So now we've got more examples to consider. Progress!

As for Costco, it provides a valuable service to small businesses and consumers, allowing them to purchase items at a significant discount to other retailers. You may think its an insignificant impact, but millions of people disagree with you.

Costco provides a stellar service, but relative to other firms with like revenues, profits, #s of employees, etc, its CEO & executive ranks are rewarded relatively modestly. And my feeling is that that reflects positively on their business acumen.

That was my primary point. Sorry you were unable to grasp it.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:CEOs do shitworth.The job just isn't that hard.

It sounds like you think CEOs dont do anything that could make them worth ~1M. So tying it back to the teacher merit pay... it sounds like you're arguing that there is no way to tell who the best teachers are, so merit pay is a flawed option. Is that right?

I confess - I under-explained my points.

I feel that CEOs, as a tribe, are overcompensated for what they do. Their attributes are over-rewarded in our current business culture. And it's not because marvelously capable performance assessment systems have somehow failed when applied to the exertions of people filling those roles; it's because performance assessment systems mostly suck, for most functions in most enterprises, including educational ones.

I guess I'm urging everyone not to get too hung up about "merit", the determination of which must depend at least partly on performance. Because our measures aren't all that good. If you're going to err, err on the side of flatter pay pyramids.

And to that we say... maybe? CEO pay is out of whack, I don't particularly disagree with that. But I'm not going to work for a company that only reward tenure or degrees, aka, the US education system. And Americans don't want that. I, or anyone besides the most dogmatic Republicans/libertarians, recognize the role of BABIP/luck in life, but that doesn't mean those hits didn't fall in.

It's likely that CEOs can make a difference and they're overcompensated. That is, if you paid them less, you'd still get as good performance. In any event, speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with the Jobs and the Gates of the world and their enormous rewards. It's the shitty CEOs who run companies into the ground and still make 7 figures. The kind of people who think a merger between AOL and Time-Warner is a good idea. If the company has to file chapter 11, the CEO should have to commit seppuku.

TenuredVulture wrote: In any event, speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with the Jobs and the Gates of the world and their enormous rewards. It's the #$!&@ CEOs who run companies into the ground and still make 7 figures.

This, except it often goes well beyond seven figures. What angers people about executive compensation is how frequently there's an absence of any logical relationship between performance and pay. It's even worse when the compensation comes from doing active harm to many people, as with so many of the finance sector names of recent years.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote: In any event, speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with the Jobs and the Gates of the world and their enormous rewards. It's the #$!&@ CEOs who run companies into the ground and still make 7 figures.

This, except it often goes well beyond seven figures. What angers people about executive compensation is how frequently there's an absence of any logical relationship between performance and pay. It's even worse when the compensation comes from doing active harm to many people, as with so many of the finance sector names of recent years.

You mean like Mitt Romney at Bain?

/dig at the GOP nominee

The thing about merit pay in education is that it pops up every 20 years or so, fails, and then disappears until its next appearance. It's been tried over and over without success. And based on the research I've done, it doesn't seem to work well in other fields either.

I'm not against the idea, just the lack of results when it's been tried. It's expensive and doesn't work. Let's find ways that do increase achievement and put the money there.

The thing about merit pay in education is that it pops up every 20 years or so, fails, and then disappears until its next appearance. It's been tried over and over without success. And based on the research I've done, it doesn't seem to work well in other fields either, and I went into the research on the side of merit pay. But when facts tell me something, I try to listen.

I'm not against the idea, just the lack of results when it's been tried. It's expensive and doesn't work. Let's find ways that do increase achievement and put the money there.

The thing about merit pay in education is that it pops up every 20 years or so, fails, and then disappears until its next appearance. It's been tried over and over without success. And based on the research I've done, it doesn't seem to work well in other fields either, and I went into the research on the side of merit pay. But when facts tell me something, I try to listen.

I'm not against the idea, just the lack of results when it's been tried. It's expensive and doesn't work. Let's find ways that do increase achievement and put the money there.

The thing about merit pay in education is that it pops up every 20 years or so, fails, and then disappears until its next appearance. It's been tried over and over without success. And based on the research I've done, it doesn't seem to work well in other fields either, and I went into the research on the side of merit pay. But when facts tell me something, I try to listen.

I'm not against the idea, just the lack of results when it's been tried. It's expensive and doesn't work. Let's find ways that do increase achievement and put the money there.

you sure?

About what part? As of my research two years ago for a project, that was the result of what I found. There were a few new pilot programs starting at that time, but nothing positive at that point. And education history was riddled with attempts at merit pay that failed. A few places showed some improvement, but it went away in a few years. Money is actually a poor motivator over time as people come to expect it. And a lot of the intrinsic motivation is also lost because people expect rewards for less and less. That part is basic psychology, true of pretty much all primates.

I've said it before, but if people think it's such a good idea and think it will work, show me some evidence that it does. Before you go spending tons of money on it, show me some evidence. I would be very happy to hear it. The pilot programs have been failures. The system we have isn't working, obviously, but I don't think merit pay is the answer.

Wow, a quick google search came up with this... just came out a few days ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-wo ... 77886.html

Did policy makers read the study published last week by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) showing that merit-pay for teachers may be ineffective and have unintended negative consequences.

-------
Merit pay plans are less common in the private sector than people think, research shows. Only one in seven employees is covered by a merit pay plan and most of those workers are in real estate or sales.
--------

In the proposed plans for teachers supported by Obama and by the US Department of Education in their Race to the Top grants, merit pay plans tie teachers' pay to the scores their students earn on standardized math and reading tests. Advocates of this approach base their support on two assumptions: first, that merit pay is long-established and widespread in the private sector, and second, that students' test scores are a reliable way to gauge how well teachers are doing their jobs. Both assumptions are faulty, according to the EPI research report.

In Teachers, Performance Pay, and Accountability: What Education Should Learn from Other Sectors, researchers Scott J. Adams, John S. Heywood and Richard Rothstein examine the evidence that underlies these assumptions, concluding that the use of merit pay systems has negative consequences that often block the larger goal of improving the quality of services.

lol

first one a looked at and it was notable because it just came out.

When I did a very thorough research presentation a few years ago, that's pretty much what I found. There were a few pilot programs over the years that showed some short-term gains, but the gains were temporary.

Since you guys are saying it works, maybe you can find some good research saying it does. I think the burden is on you anyway. Show me a long-term study where merit pay worked in education. If it works, I'm all for it. Seriously, I liked the idea of merit pay before I looked into it.

You're so tone deaf you don't notice you posted the same thing 4 times in a row upthread.

I don't have to find a study that shows merit pay works. As an aside, I call total bs on "1 in 7" in the private workforce, I've never not worked for a firm that had an element of merit pay. Hell I've never interviewed for a firm without an element of merit pay. What that is talking about is basically working on commission.

Now, the reason I'm not going to search for it is because what we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is the way the unions want things done now has resulted in disaster and the ruination of the American teaching system. I'd be, somewhat, ok with settling for being able to blowing up tenure and removing poorly performing teachers. A natural sideline to that is to pay the teachers who aren't terrible more. If you're saying we can't figure that out, then fine, we'll just fire all the bad teachers, keep the good teachers at the same rate and move on. Is that a good solution? The point is, we're going to keep trying to get the merit thing right, and we've got years or even decades to go before it mirrors the terrible status quo of unions and tenure. And give me a break with this idea that principals are going to suddenly just play favorites/nepotism if they're given some control over the merit process. Like the whole system will just fall apart. Principals are going to generally favor people who are good at their jobs and don't cause problems for them. If you throw in an element of merit pay for the principals, as someone upthread suggested, you increase the odds even more that the principals are going to play fair. I mean it's like you think there are right now, a cadre of principals just rubbing their hands in glee about the chance to finally be allowed to be the evil people you know them to be.