What is rational is real, what is real is rational, ma purtroppo non dev'essere sempre giusto ed equo. Chissà se poi gli esseri umani davvero desiderano la giustizia e l'equità. La teoria dei giochi, ovvero quella serissima teoria che a dispetto del nome frivolo si occupa di studiare le scelte ottimali degli agenti in condizioni di incertezza e in relazione alle scelte di altri agenti (in conflitto o in collaborazione), può aiutarci a capire meglio certi aspetti del mondo che ci lasciano perplessi: ad esempio potrebbe aiutarci a capire lo stipendio di Marchionne, di cui tanto si parla in questi giorni con toni indignati.
È noto e confermato da molte ricerche psicologiche che che il livello di soddisfazione personale o di felicità soggettiva di un individuo non dipende affatto dai traguardi attained in an absolute sense, but much more on performance relative to other individuals of the same circle. This is why a billionaire, on average, not much happier than a scavenger: it is because the billionaire is surrounded by other billionaires, many of them richer than he. Indeed, the wealth being distributed in a very discontinuous (fractal, one might say), it is almost certain that for every billionaire there is another billionaire in comparison to the first billionaire who is the figure of garbage, except of course the more of all billionaire.
would be much easier if all of us make do with small joys of daily living, if only badassimo to our needs, our goals and success of our objectives, without being ever to compare the length of our pea to that of others, or who has the coolest phone model, or the machine more expensive. Unfortunately, human nature, highly competitive, making it difficult to live up to this great purpose, and therein lies the root of many of our miseries.
this in mind, perhaps we should not be so surprising that even the rich, as I was just saying, it is distributed so unevenly and unfairly. It is not so much the fact that there are differences to provoke outrage, except perhaps for the most ardent communist, but it is not always the fact that these differences you can not give an explanation in terms of personal merit. That is, nobody cares that a bicycle repairman who can repair twenty bikes at the same time that another repair or repair ten, earning the right to double the first. But when we read about sports with fabulous rewards, or CEOs who earn hundreds or even thousands of times the salary of a worker, our sense of justice begins to kick.
That is, if the fee depends on the absolute value, then it is clear that there is something wrong, because the first tennis player in the world ranking is not twice or ten times as good, say, the player immediately after him. To be the first to be just slightly more clever, but very little. Marchionne And certainly not for how good it may be, is worth ten other managers or even 800 workers. But differences in the richness of sport, or managers, are not proportional to the difference in their absolute values, but are much larger. Tiger Woods is much richer than good in the second golfer in the world. A generalization and a joint, after all, the principle of "The Winner Takes It All."
As I said, this may seem unfair, but it might be considered more appropriate to a system where everyone is given according to his or her actual skill level of productivity. But if your situation, in terms not relative, it is never considered a reliable measure of happiness, why should we adapt to that compensation, and not on performance? It is a natural consequence of our psychology? The fees, in sports as in the office hierarchies, are what they are because people must have a motivation to try to get effective, and probably a lower wage, fair, is not a strong enough stimulus. Why should I be damned and work hard to only have a few euro more than my colleagues less good? Working twice as hard to earn the double is not enough, while working a bit 'more to earn ten times as much ... you start to think.
The absolute value is also difficult to measure: Who was the greatest tennis player in history, or the greatest boxer? Boh, we can only say who the best in a certain historical moment, and we can only say so on the grounds that he beat all the others, but being the first player in the world at one time may also depend on the fact that all rivals are low level. Perhaps the number 10 of 1980 was better than the No. 1 of 2000, but we can be sure that he earned much, much less. So even if we wanted to be more "equitable" we are met with this difficulty, that is impossible to measure the value and productivity in a reliable way: much easier to carry out a simple order (to determine who is better than who and reward accordingly.)
Still, the fees for the higher hierarchies tend to grow out, and then to be even more unfair when the relative success is very dependent on luck, rather than the actual substance. It seems absurd, but the reason is clear: once again, I do not start to sweat seven shirts to show my value, then if my opponent can overcome a stroke of luck (maybe the referee has declared an "outside" instead it was in), unless the premium is not very high. People play the lottery, which is a game of pure luck, just because the premiums are very high compared to the effort. Since, as we have just seen, measuring performance in business can be very difficult and always contains a large element of arbitrariness and fortune, it follows that the higher you go up in top management, plus the fee increases to excess, and less is deserved . This is the essence of "theory of tournaments (tournament theory) developed by Lazear and Rosen in an article 1981. The theory explains the unfairness of the compensation of Marchionne highlighting how the bottom is not necessary that both deserved (Marchionne could also spend all his time playing in Farmville) but that to be justified simply as constituting a valid reason to work hard for the rest of the company.
Now, the theory of tournaments is quite fascinating and explains a lot: for example, because often explains office life is so darn frustrating and alienating. This is expected when you the player in a tournament where the goal of all the other players is not just to do their best, but also to make you lose. Yet it is not yet very convincing, if we go down and think dall'empireo theory to specific cases, for reasons that should be obvious. Marchionne's salary can never serve as a stimulus for Fiat workers to produce more, Fiat workers because no reasonable hope of becoming a CEO in the future as a result of the excellent work done. The competition takes place only between shareholders, workers are still kept out and are unlikely to draw some consolation from the theory of tournaments.
The fact is that in theory there would be a way to involve them, and that is turn them all into action and make the variable pay based on company performance. If Fiat is fine, all workers, including workers earn, but if it goes wrong, everyone loses. But we see them trade unions to accept a similar deal? Too many risks, better to keep a paycheck, maybe not very high, but at least Guaranteed. It also does not work either as a reason: there are indeed situations in which the pursuit of self-interest leads to a worsening of the community. It is known that such a meal in a restaurant where the bill is eventually split equally among all participants, this tends to be saltier than it would if everyone were to pay what they ate, because it is in nobody's interest moderate too, knowing that she will have to pay anyway the excesses of others.
Similarly, actions not motivated enough to act in the interest of the worker, because the contribution of the individual worker, however hard he tried, it would in any case risibile sull'andamento degli utili della Fiat, e non lo proteggerebbe comunque dai rovesci della finanza, che rischierebbero di intaccare il suo già magro reddito. Un amministratore delegato invece ha una grande responsabilità: se prende delle decisioni sbagliate può produrre danni incalcolabili, mentre decisioni giuste possono arricchire molte persone.
Ai livelli più alti, quindi, i bonus esagerati servono proprio a motivare il manager ad agire nell'interesse dell'azienda. Se il manager avesse uno stipendio fisso, o anche legato alle performances dell'azienda ma in maniera più proporzionata ed equa (se gli utili dell'azienda crescono del 2%, allora anche il compenso sale del 2%) la motivazione potrebbe non essere enough. For example, the manager might decide to squander ten million euro (about 1% of company turnover) in business dinners based on happy girls, knowing that this would affect only 1% of his salary (and maybe it is true the effort). But if he knew that every increase of one percentage point of corporate sales lead to a doubling of his salary, then yes that would be done.
This is a second explanation, then, why the fees are so high Marchionne (this, for those interested in learning more, it is also shown in more detail in the book by Tim Harford, The Logic of Life ). But there yet a third explanation to be taken into account: Marchionne's compensation may not be deserved or justified, but simply stolen . After all who can stop him? In theory should be the shareholders to control his actions, and may decide to take away his confidence when they realize that it is pulling a bit 'too far. But still, it's really in their interest to do so, or have sufficient reasons?
Again game theory and Nash equilibrium conspire against justice: the damage caused to the individual actuation of Marchionne, if they are too high salary, is mild and may not be worth the trouble, especially se l'azienda sta andando bene. Una crisi di successione rappresenterebbe un danno d'immagine e un favore fatto alla concorrenza. In questa ipotesi, tutti sarebbero a conoscenza del fatto che Marchionne sta prelevando fondi all'azienda per il suo interesse personale, ma non potrebbero farci niente.
D'accordo, ciò che è reale è razionale, ma questo non vuol dire che non possa essere reso ancora un po' più razionale, volendo.
0 comments:
Post a Comment