|
|
John Tan
"If big
rewards do not create passion, what does? Challenges do,
according to psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who studied
scores of high achievers, including Nobel laureates. People are
addicted to challenges, and we are often far happier while
working toward a goal that stretches us to the limits of our
abilities."
"Given
this juxtaposition, one can only conclude that Lee and his
authoritarian methods are non-factors in the success of
Singapore. In fact, it might even be safe to infer that Singapore
succeeded in spite of,
and not because,
of Lee Kuan Yew."
|
Vantage
Ministerial
pay hike: A social psychological perspective
18
Apr 07
One of the arguments forwarded by the
government to justify their recent incredible pay hike is that
such humongous salaries are necessary to attract and maintain
quality people in the leadership. What I find lacking in their
defense is the lack of a definition for the word "quality."
Quality can be construed to mean different things by
different people. If by "quality people," the
government meant people who care deeply for the nation and who
would serve it with passion and devotion, then their formula is
absolutely wrong.
For about three-and-a-half decades,
psychologists have observed a phenomenon called the
overjustification effect. In an experiment at the Stanford
University, three groups of children were given magic markers to
draw as they please. One group was told they would be given an
reward if they drew some pictures for the experimenters. The
second group was not given any instructions beforehand but was
rewarded unexpectedly after they drew. The third group was not
promised a reward and none was given.
After more than a
week, behavioral measures found that children in the second
(unexpected reward) and third (no reward) groups continued to
show interest in drawing, whereas children in the expected reward
group displayed a striking reduction in their interest in the
activity.
The reason behind these observations is that the
children who expected a reward interpreted their engagement in
the activity as be extrinsically (or externally) motivated and
not intrinsically (or internally) motivated. In other words,
external reward has undermined internal interest—hence the
overjustification effect.
The same phenomenon has been
observed in many situations and among professionals such as
highly paid footballers and collegiate athletes.
Are
political and corporate leaders exempted from the rules? I think
not. If we compared an entrepreneur's level of passion for his
business and that of a highly paid corporate COE, whom do you
think is more passionate about the business? Many people would
pick the former, and correctly so.
If big rewards do not
create passion, what does? Challenges do, according to
psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who studied scores of high
achievers, including Nobel laureates. People are addicted to
challenges, and we are often far happier while working toward a
goal that stretches us to the limits of our abilities.
If
our ministers have the quality of high achievers, what they need
as motivators are challenges, not money, which they already have
aplenty. (In a speech, during the last election, PM Lee indicated
that having more opposition MPs in parliament would provide him
and his colleagues with immense challenges. Perhaps we should do
them that favor.)
To be sure, I am not suggesting that
ministers should not be paid, and paid handsomely. Of course, the
question that follows is: What is a reasonable amount? Allow me
to digress a little before I answer that question.
Now
that the ministers have their pay increased, do you think they
are happier than they were before the raise? My guess is not
much, if any, and my prediction is pretty soon they will be back
for more.
Research shows that we have a tendency to
overestimate how much satisfaction we will derive from having
more. Have you ever thought you would be happier if you had a
little more, only to find that you were not that much happier
when you got there?
In fact, after a certain level, the
more money you have, the less effective it is in bringing you
happiness. Data in the US shows that as incomes rise from $20,000
to $50,000 (per annum), people's level of happiness doubled.
However, beyond $90,000, increase in happiness becomes
negligible.
Dan Gilbert, a psychology professor at
Harvard University and the author of Stumbling on Happiness,
remarked, "Once you get basic human needs met, a lot more
money doesn't make a lot more happiness."
So back to
the question: What is a reasonable amount of salary for our
ministers? What income can buy a person's basic needs?
In
the Singapore context, I would argue that the median income level
ought to be a reasonable benchmark for that. And to ensure that
our leaders are more than comfortably compensated, let's multiply
it by 4 or 5 times. Would that not be reasonable enough? I
believe so, both from a psychological and a practical
standpoint.
From a psychological standpoint, ministers
should be happy knowing that they are earning quite a few times
more than most others in the country. Practically, they would be
challenged to work to bring up the median income of the country
if they so wish to raise they own salaries.
The current
practice of pegging their salaries to two-third of the median of
the top earners of the country is unhealthy. Ministers are then
inclined to engage in upward comparison, which will make them
feel relatively deprived since they will always be at the
two-third level and never at the top.
Have some
self-respect, ANU Council
John
Tan
5 Apr 07
Despite all
the protestations, the Australian National University (ANU) went
ahead to confer its honorary Doctorate of Law on an autocrat
dictator. For many people, Tthe university council's decision to
ignore glaring and documented facts about Lee Kuan Yew's
anti-human rights record is disturbing, to say the least.
One
cannot help but marvels at their council's incredible ability to
compartmentalize Lee's economic achievement from his political
tyranny repressive ways. In ANU Chancellor Allan Hawke's words,
the conferment is "to honor Mr. Lee's achievements and
further the university's relationship with Singapore."
There
is little doubt about the economic success progress of Singapore
over the last few decades. However, I am amazed at how quickly
and unthoughtfully unthinkly people attribute thise success of a
nation to one a man.
Social psychologists have long
identified a phenomenon they termed illusory correlation. People
often fall into thinking that two occurrences are related when in
fact they are not. For example, some people might think that the
cold medication they consume is responsible for their recovery
from a viral infection when in fact the medication, at best,
provides a temporary relief of its symptoms.
Early in
school, we were taught the simple logic of scientific thinking.
The One story tells of a monkey who stole a backpack from a boy
who was on his way to a football game. The mischievous monkey
then put on his newfound cap and jacket, twirled his rattler,
tooted his horn and jumped from the tree with an umbrella. To his
amazement and all the monkeys around him, instead of a hard fall,
he floated smoothly down to the ground. Suppose a second monkey
were to do the same, save for the tooting of the horn, and found
himself also floating smoothly down to the ground. Would we not
conclude then—I am sure the monkeys would agree too—that
the tooting of the horn were not a factor of the observed
phenomenon?
For Singapore, nature has somehow provided a
second monkey for an excellent comparison. Relatively similar in
size, population and culture, Hong Kong has over the same period
of time achieved an equally phenomenal economic success—without
Lee and without political repression, which Lee often argues is a
necessary tradeoff for economic success.
In
fact there are many indicators that Hong Kong is pulling ahead.
Note how its Chief Executive Donald Tsang rubbished the idea that
Singapore was its competitor:
As an international
financial centre there are only two global benchmarks for Hong
Kong: New York and London. Other places cannot compare with us.
You look at the basic fundamentals to be an international
financial centre. Dubai doesn't come close into the (picture) at
all. Singapore doesn't come into it. It still hasn't got the
freedoms we enjoy. Benchmarks must be above you, ahead of
you.
Given
this juxtaposition, one can only conclude that Lee and his
authoritarian methods are non-factors in the success of
Singapore. In fact, it might even be safe to infer that Singapore
succeeded in spite of, and not because, of Lee Kuan Yew. The
widening income disparity, the uncompetitiveness of the GLCs, and
the exodus of Singaporeans are just a few indicators of how we
are moving backwards. Wasn't there this recent survey that showed
that more than half of young Singaporeans wanted to emigrate?
And this is supposed to be the mark of a successful nation,
one whose citizens cannot wait to get out of?
Since the
ANU Chancellor and its council members are educators and leaders
of educators, one wonders if they were unwittingly engaging in
illusory correlation. Worse, were they blatantly disregarding the
facts and the opinions of their fellow academics, their student
bodies and the concerned public? Perhaps it takes an
authoritarian council to appreciate and honor an authoritarian
ruler.
Then again—the scandalous conferment
aside—things could not have turned out better. The
Australians were once told by Lee once told the Australians they
were destined to become the ‘white thrash of Asia.' By
bestowing honor on the very person who spoke so disdainfully of
them, it was as if they were asking for more scorns.
And
Lee dutifully obliged; he told them this time around in no
uncertain terms how they were so incompetent would be absolutely
incompetent that they couldn't to run a country a tiny fraction
the size of theirs. Double ouch!
Have
some self-respect, ANU Council.
|
|
