In my experience, there are no rules to govern this decision. My point in introducing the subject with IPD and the Press/Dyson result is to say that it’s misleading to use the now-upended superiority of cooperation’ story as a reason for advocating a Woodstock-oriented pay regime. You may think that pay arrangements which fail to inculcate a strong sense of shared fate within your firm will condemn it to dissent and eventual dissolution. But bear in mind that somewhere nearby there is some other firm which, unlike yours, if subjected to a Woodstock pay regime would wind up with a low-energy bunch of sharers while the core of enterprising individualists has moved off.

What is a leader to do?

My answer is to make sure that your pay system has the potential for creating a balance and moving the balance point in response to changing sentiments over time. A principled compensation program that is transparent in inputs, is, I find, the best way to deal with this. “Principled” means explicit in its intentions about individualism and cooperation – as well as the other dimensions of pay.

“Transparent in inputs” means using metrics that link the mechanics of pay determination to the principles. Thus, members possess an explicit understanding about the determinants of pay outcomes, derived from a set of principles. It also means that members periodically receive information about performance across the dimensions of pay determination so that, without an exchange of envy-inducing pay outcomes, members can know how their pay was derived.

—Richard Rapp


For some extracurricular reading about the prisoner’s dilemma:

William Poundstone, Prisoner’s Dilemma (New York, Anchor Books, 1993)

The Prisoner’s Dilemma, Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Study (Fall 2012)

To the Trickster Go the Spoils, Tom Bartlett, Chronicle of Higher Education (September 2012)

Orley C. Ashenfelter, et al., “Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner’s Dilemma Game: Evidence from Long Run Play” National Bureau of Economic Reseearch Working Paper 18834, February 2013

 

Related Articles

Email Delivery

Get Our Latest Articles Delivered to your inbox +
X

Sign-up for email

Be the first to learn of Adam Smith, Esq. invitation-only events, surveys, and reports.





Get Our Latest Articles Delivered to Your Inbox

Like having coffee with Adam Smith, Esq. in the morning (coffee not included).

Oops, we need this information
Oops, we need this information
Oops, we need this information

Thanks and a hearty virtual handshake from the team at Adam Smith, Esq.; we’re glad you opted to hear from us.

What you can expect from us:

  • an email whenever we publish a new article;
  • respect and affection for our loyal readers. This means we’ll exercise the strictest discretion with your contact info; we will never release it outside our firm under any circumstances, not for love and not for money. And we ourselves will email you about a new article and only about a new article.

Welcome onboard! If you like what you read, tell your friends, and if you don’t, tell us.

PS: You know where to find us so we invite you to make this a two-way conversation; if you have an idea or suggestion for something you’d like us to discuss, drop it in our inbox. No promises that we’ll write about it, but we will faithfully promise to read your thoughts carefully.