[cuddlypsycho]

"no motivation among your employees to perform more than the absolute minimum work required to keep their job"

There is a great body of research suggesting quite the opposite actually. Beyond a certain level of compensation, offering more money does not correlate with better productivity or creativity at all.

Those who are satisfied with doing the absolute minimum to keep a 9-5 job are not suddenly turned into great inventors if offered more money. I have often found that the most valuable engineers are their absolute worst critic when it comes to quality of work and work ethics. They would put in their absolute best even if they were doing something for free/opensource.

[barrkel]

A sense of ownership makes a material difference to me, and it must be material ownership for it to count.

Relative compensation is also important - if I'm not being paid well relative to others, that can destroy my motivation.

Great inventors won't stay at a job doing 9-5 work, of course. Treat people as levers, and good people will leave.

[mmt]

> Those who are satisfied with doing the absolute minimum to keep a 9-5 job are not suddenly turned into great inventors if offered more money.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean the converse isn't true, which is what's being alleged here, that a great inventor can be turned into an absolute-minimum employee when given insufficient reward.

More specifically, I think you're conflating the typical "inventives" that employers use (which I what I believe the studies have been about) with credit, respect, and/or an ownership stake. Even the article has a quote about it being not about the money.

> They would put in their absolute best even if they were doing something for free/opensource.

I'm speculating here, but I would expect that would change if they had to do that contribution under someone else's name, especially if that someone else were a manager and not an engineer.

[cuddlypsycho]

> A great inventor can be turned into an absolute-minimum employee when given insufficient reward

Absolutely true.

> Even the article has a quote about it being not about the money.

I don't think that is the case. "Unhappy with what he saw as Toshiba's failure to reward his work, Masuoka quit to become a professor at Tohoku University." He was very well compensated AND given full credit and even allowed to publish his work.

It was ABSOLUTELY about the money! As the article mentions: "He left Toshiba in 1994, before commercial production of the chips got rolling. A decade later, Masuoka filed a lawsuit against Toshiba, demanding 1 billion yen in compensation for his work in developing flash memory."

From a different article: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/31/toshiba_settles_wit...

"Masuoka had told the court in 2004 that he believed ¥1bn ($9.1m) was appropriate compensation for the contribution his inventions had made to Toshiba's profits"

> I would expect that would change if they had to do that contribution under someone else's name ...

Again, absolutely true. But that was not the case here at all. If anything we should recognize that Masuoka was the lead scientist for a team of engineers, that means he had a more managerial role and other junior engineers actually did the work.

I don't think we really disagree on anything. I just hate it when people take out their pitchforks and go after the "big, bad corporations" every time one of these articles hits HN :/. Japanese culture is very different than what we in the west are accustomed to and the situation is a lot more complicated than just blaming all on the evil CEOs.

[mmt]

> It was ABSOLUTELY about the money!

FTA:

  Many called Masuoka greedy at the time.

  He was unfazed by the critics. "Money is not the issue," Masuoka said. "I just want to continue with research and development. Japanese engineers must be rewarded."

It's as though you're trying to make the point that, because money is a factor, it's the (or only) factor. That doesn't jibe with the totality of the story, nor with, more importantly, the research, with which you're obviously aware, since you brought it up in the first place.

It's also pretty easy to point out a money motive in the face of a civil lawsuit, as one can't sue (directly) for respect. That he eventually settled for less than 1/10th the amount he sued for suggests (to me, anyway) that it was more a shaming/publicity exercise than a money-making one.

> If anything we should recognize that Masuoka was the lead scientist for a team of engineers, that means he had a more managerial role and other junior engineers actually did the work.

I didn't see this mentioned anywhere, especially with regard to the invention. As such, I'm not willing to make any such huge leaps of assumption.

> I just hate it when people take out their pitchforks and go after the "big, bad corporations" every time one of these articles hits HN :/.

I'm curious as to why you perceive there being some kind of mob mentality ("pitchforks") and which comments here have name-called corporations.

I find it very relevant to discuss the compensation (monetary and otherwise) of highly productive (or potentially so.. "talented") employees and how they are allocated, usually a question of where/what they choose to work on. Personally, I find it worth the occasional emotion or blame-mongering creeping in.

> Japanese culture is very different than what we in the west are accustomed to and the situation is a lot more complicated than just blaming all on the evil CEOs.

That's as may be, but also somewhat irrelevant to the discussion, since, ultimately, it doesn't matter who/what is to "blame", at least not to the engineers, not if they have a choice. Increasingly, especially with the globalized labor market, they do.

[kittiepryde]

Does research also set c-suite salaries too?