Came across something interesting from a book I was reading this morning…
“Business executives can more easily fire people and – equally important – they can use money to buy talent. Most social sector leaders, on the other hand, must rely on people underpaid relative to the private sector or, in the case of volunteers, paid not at all. Yet a finding from our research is instructive: the key variable is not how (or how much) you pay, but who you have on the bus. The comparison companies on our research – those that failed to become great – placed greater emphasis on using incentives to ‘motivate’ otherwise unmotivated or undisciplined people. The great companies, in contrast, focused on getting and hanging on to the right people in the first place – those who are productively neurotic, those who are self-motivated and self-disciplined, those who wake up every day, compulsively driven to do the best they can because it is a part of their DNA."
Which runs contrary to the way our nation’s leaders are compensated, don’t you think? The powers that be believe, rather fervently I must say, that we must pay top dollar to attract great leaders to lead this little country of ours. So we end up paying an obscene amount of money to these people, because if not, they’d not be motivated enough to leave their cushy jobs to join the public sector (our MP’s allowance is $13,500 a month, and this is apart from the salary he’s getting from his full-time job! Imagine how much our ministers are earning!).
But when you think of it, doesn’t that mean then that we’re attracting the wrong kind of leaders? Who do we want to attract? The kind who pauses a while, weighing the amount of money he’s likely to lose/gain from making that leap? Or the kind who’ll take on the challenge when called upon regardless the compensation because, hey, he strongly believes in making a difference?