Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zuzanna Alondra]

I view every capsuleer as sort of a "head of division", assuming they have lots and lots of non-capsuleer support staff: crew, hangar maintenance, admin assistants, personal bodyguards when stationside, etc.

Bingo - this was the first thing that came to mind.I figure we have crew and accountants doing the chicken little for us and when our wallet flashes, that's our cut after the crew has been paid.

[Kazzzi]

Technically even NPC military groups like The Amarr Navy are considered to be 'corporations'. A better generic term for most corps would probably be 'organization' or 'unit' or something like that.

If you wanna take the term 'corp' literally, the hardest part would be to make your corp fun enough to keep your members. People don't always enjoy it when fun turns into work.

[Lillith Blackheart]

I don't like wage-based IRL because I'm fundamentally opposed to "pay for time" in most contexts, though I suppose it makes sense in some limited circumstances.

It's a service exchange. It's still the barter system. When you go to a store to buy something, you are offering something you have (money) for something they have that you want (for instance, pears). The value of that object is based on demand and supply.

Alternatively, when you go to work, the company is offering something they have (money) for something you have that they want (man hours).

Money for Time is an excellent thing, imo. If there is anything wrong at all, it's that people undervalue their time, and I don't mean the companies, they're obviously going to offer the least amount of money they can and barter up.

[Casiella]

No, fundamentally, I don't measure my output based on time. Time is an input; what I get done is my output. My employer, ultimately, doesn't care about time. It cares about results. And for those of us working on salary, that difference becomes even starker.

The problem there is that you get issues with folks who skate by, doing just enough not to get fired while still pulling down salary.

IRL, all sorts of complexities lead to the situations commonly seen today, and I expect that that model will evolve. IG, I see no reason to continue that same model.

[Dex_Kivuli]

This is a really interesting discussion.

As Lillith said, people give up time for money. As Cas said, the employer will hopefully be able to convert that time in to a valued output, it's not the time, per se, that they care about.

As soon as you pay a person based on time - rather than output - there is a decreased incentive for them to work hard. This is even worse if you pay your employees on an annual basis. People don't want to work hard (since it's an imposition on them), and as long as the remuneration isn't tied to output, there is an incentive-outcome mismatch.

So employers try and structure performance monitoring systems/rewards so that incentives (or disincentives) are attached to outcomes (or lack thereof).

No one approach is best, and different industries will call for different approaches.

How does this relate to Eve Corps? The most successful corps, in my opinion, have an alignment between their members' desires and the corp's objectives. In fact, in a lot of cases, the corp's objective arises because of the members desires. If a corp is worried about achieving a certain outcome, it can increase the chances of getting it by rewarding that outcome (e.g. paying ISK per confirmed pod kill). In some cases though, it's the time that is important and the incentive should reflect that (e.g. pay pilots an hourly reward for camping a gate to an important system).

I think a really good example of incentives in action in Eve is Hulkageddon. Sure, Helicity could just announce on the forums "let's all kill hulks" (without any incentives). Some pirates would still go ganking, but much fewer hulks would die. However, because there are prizes and less tangible rewards (e.g. forum recognition), the objective (dead hulks) is achieved much more strongly.

I think output linked incentives are underused in Eve. Corps with clear output-tied reward structures (that are reliable and unlikely to change) can do quite well.

[Casiella]

I think a really good example of incentives in action in Eve is Hulkageddon. Sure, Helicity could just announce on the forums "let's all kill hulks" (without any incentives). Some pirates would still go ganking, but much fewer hulks would die. However, because there are prizes and less tangible rewards (e.g. forum recognition), the objective (dead hulks) is achieved much more strongly.

I think output linked incentives are underused in Eve. Corps with clear output-tied reward structures (that are reliable and unlikely to change) can do quite well.

Ding ding ding! And I love your example. Not only does it highlight one of my favorite things about EVE (the implications of the sandbox). So what can RP-ish corps do to follow this sort of model? Industrial-type corps have a fairly obvious model, or at least class of models -- if, say, you want members inventing BPCs, then pay them per BPC produced. If you want them building ships, same thing. Maybe you do some creative things to get people to move up to more profitable activities (training T2 construction skills higher, etc.)

What about non-industrial corps? One of the great attractions of FW, I think, is the structure and obvious activities it provides pilots: you get game-provided ranks, tangible outputs (system occupancy, even if it's meaningless >.<), and easily-understood hooks into the larger backstory. Similarly, U'K and CVA have done a good job rolling with their areas of the backstory.

I need to go chew on this some more for the areas I want to develop: maybe tying incentives to producing Cartel factional equipment, or importing exotic dancers, or....?

[Lillith Blackheart]

No, fundamentally, I don't measure my output based on time.

You don't measure a purchase of a commodity based on output. When you go to buy fuel for your car or a bunch of strawberries (fuel for you! ) you're not buying the output performance of the strawberries being delicious. You're buying a resource, such as the strawberries, which may or may not be as delicious as you want them to be.

This is what companies are paying for. They're paying for a resource (man hours) that you supply to them. If the performance is not up to standard then they will replace you with someone else that can supply them the same resource (which is harder if it is a skilled job, obviously, which is why the pay for skilled jobs is higher, same demand, lesser supply).

You're looking at the equation from the wrong direction, as paying for results is why people achieve bonuses, and companies that apply rational and realistic bonuses generally have more productive workers. Results are incentivized, but they are not what the majority of companies are paying for, nor should they be.

Trust me, as one who has worked in commission based industries, working for a company that pays you only on performance sucks ass.

Time is an input; what I get done is my output. My employer, ultimately, doesn't care about time. It cares about results. And for those of us working on salary, that difference becomes even starker.

The thing is you're not entirely correct. Your company cares a lot about time. Time is of the utmost factor of any CEO's priority list. They want results, yes, but they want results quickly. This is why they pay for time.

The problem there is that you get issues with folks who skate by, doing just enough not to get fired while still pulling down salary.

And this is why many companies incentivize performance with some sort of profit-sharing structure. Because you have to pay for the resource (aka time), and that only gets someone to come in and work. You then incentivize performance, and that makes them work better.

But simply paying based on results is bad, it's very bad, because it opens up an entire can of worms where the company can really abuse the worker, and vice versa. It also tends to foster illegal and semi-legal activities on the part of the employee, attempting to milk more money out of the system.

IRL, all sorts of complexities lead to the situations commonly seen today, and I expect that that model will evolve. IG, I see no reason to continue that same model.

Because it's functional, and could be interesting.

[Zag]

I think the real question people need to ask themselves for running corps in Eve is whether or not a chosen organizational model is suitable for the amount of investment in both time and energy of the leadership/management team and the member-base itself. Not much point implementing an organizational structure no one is willing to carry through or oversee.

For myself however, I think the organizational model of a corporation is less important than ensuring buy-in into the corporation by the grunts and having a dedicated and effective top level leadership cadre able to act with intelligence and initiative on behalf of the corporation. Then again I've always placed corporate morale, esprit de corps, camaraderie and effective leadership as more important than organizational structure.

I think what I'm trying to say is that a corporation is its people. If you get the right people, and are able to inculcate in them your vision you can achieve a lot regardless of what structure you use. Get the wrong people, or find yourself unable to provide them with a shared vision then it does not matter how you organize the corp really, you're still liable to hit a brick wall.

[Isobel Mitar]

I think what I'm trying to say is that a corporation is its people.

Yes. I'd personally use the word corporate identity instead of vision for an Eve corp, but I believe we are talking of the same thing. And I agree ultimately organization exists to serve the corp.