I was walking along, and I saw just this hell of a big moose turd, I mean it was a real steamer! So I said to myself, “self, we’re going to make us some moose turd pie.” So I tipped that prairie pastry on its side, got my sh*t together, so to speak, and started rolling it down towards the cook car: flolump, flolump, flolump. I went in and made a big pie shell, and then I tipped that meadow muffin into it, laid strips of dough across it, and put a sprig of parsley on top. It was beautiful, poetry on a plate, and I served it up for dessert.
Here’s one of the thorniest incentive problems known to man. In an organization there is a job that has to be done. And not just anybody can do it well, you really need to find the guy who is best at it. The livelihood of the organization depends on it. But the job is no fun and everyone would like to get out of doing it. To make matters worse, performance is so subjective that no contract can be written to compensate the designee for a job well done.
The core conflict is exemplified in a story by Utah Phillips about railroad workers living out in the field as they work to level the track. Someone has to do the cooking for the team and nobody wants to do it. Lacking any better incentive scheme they went by the rule that if you complained about the food then from now on you were going to have to do the cooking.
You can see the problem with this arrangement. But is there any better system? You want to find the best cook but the only way to reward him is to relieve him of the job. That would be self defeating even if you could get it to work. You probably couldn’t because who would be willing to say the food was good if it meant depriving themselves of it the next time?
A simple rotation scheme at least has the benefit of removing the perverse incentive. Then on those days when the best cook has the job we can trust that he will make a good meal out of his own self interest. He might even volunteer to be the cook.
But it might be optimal to rule out volunteering too. Because that could just bring back the original incentive problem in a new form. Since ex ante nobody knows who the best cook is, everyone will set out to prove that they are incapable of making a palatable meal so that the one guy who actually can cook, whoever he is, will volunteer.
It may help to keep the identity of the cook secret. Then when a capable cook actually has the job he can feel free to make a good meal without worrying that he will be recruited permanently. It will also lower the incentive for the others to make a bad meal because nobody will know who to exclude in the future.
Even if there is no scheme that really solves the incentive problem, the freedom to complain is essential for organizational morale.
Well, this big guy come into the mess car, I mean, he’s about 5 foot forty, and he sets himself down like a fool on a stool, picked up a fork and took a big bite of that moose turd pie. Well he threw down his fork and he let out a bellow, “My God, that’s moose turd pie!”
“It’s good though.”
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 28, 2011 at 8:58 am
Anon
Shouldn’t the workers offer a bonus out of their own wages?
February 28, 2011 at 12:13 pm
k
how about getting the guy to cook who scores best? of course now the incentive problem is that everyone is going to try cooking as badly as possible.
rather than do this, conduct a first round where people are rewarded – with desert maybe – for being the best cook. then once the best cook(s) are identified, you can divide cooking into different activities, and allocate the best to the most skillful cooking activity, while the rest could rotate the more menial jobs (cutting the potatoes etc).
Of course a well cut potato – even cubes, no skin for eg – will enhance the dish, but this is relatively easy to teach. also, different people are good at cooking different things.
i would think the freedom to praise is also equally, and quite likely much more, important to organizational morale than the freedom to complain.
February 28, 2011 at 5:33 pm
itovertakesme
i really like that story. “It’s good though.” hahahaha…
October 13, 2013 at 8:21 am
Dan Backs
You have to work. You have to eat.You’re on a job where everyone that gets there is hired as a gandy dancer and gets no bonus for working the added work of cooking at the end of the day. Whoever makes the meal at must still be there to do a full and equal part in the dance the next day. Moose Turd Pie solves the problem. Someone mist cook but you/re not caled on to do more than your turn.
You could try organizing to make a united call for a cook but the strawboss fires anyone who talks about group action – you would get stuck without a pay packet in the middle of nowhere.
k is an idiot if he/she thinks the RR workers will want to pay out their meager wage a tax to pay someone to cook – and remember, they can’t talk group action without consequences.
Having group representatives who have the support of the group will find the best answers to this problem. This requires a change in the attitude of the job provider, not the job taker. It also illustrates one of the underlying reasons why union organizing campaigns with an unthinking investor/employer are often motivated by anger and mistrust.