Dan Ariely's new book, The Honest Truth About Dishonesty, is on its way out and it is one that all those interested in public policy should consider reading. "Little lies" bombard us from both sides of the political isle, impeding the pursuit of truth, and in turn, progress. Dan Ariely considers why most of us lie- at least just a little. He gives a glimpse into his book in a Wall Street Journal article that is worth a read.
For a few months now, I have developed an interest in the work of Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist from Duke. His work has many applications in the world of teaching. In his this most recent blog post- Ariely talks about the value of the handshake. Union members, on the other hand, often harp on the importance of the contract. We can't work during lunch. We can't be required to come at this time or that time. Or from the other perspective, I can't believe so and so left before the duty day ended. I think we'd all be better off if things were settled with a handshake. I once read that one of the least happiest professionals is the attorney. They bill by the hour- or rather, the 6 minute. Constantly reminded of the market value of their work- their happiness is drained.
I suppose many see the handshake as something straight out of Utopia. But as the Montgomery County Council- and the state of Maryland begin their budget decisions- they will most likely remind all teachers not of the handshake- but of the written contract. I suppose we'll have to wait see what the result will be. From Ariely's post:
All contracts deal with the direct aspects of the expected exchange and with unexpected consequences. Incomplete contracts lay out the general parameters of the exchange (the part that we shake hands over), while the unexpected consequences are covered by social norms governing what is appropriate and what is not. The social norms are what can motivate me to work with you, and what would establish goodwill in resolving problems that might arise.
As for complete contracts, they too specify the parameters of an exchange, but they don’t imply the same adherence to social norms. If something is left out, or if circumstances change, there’s no default to goodwill—it’s happy hunting season for all. When we use complete contracts as a basis for working together, we take away flexibility, reasonableness, and understanding and replace them with a narrow definition of expectations. That can be costly.
I was forwarded this article from the Huffington Post on the value of a good teacher. I've been doing alot of thinking about this lately. What is the value? And does it do us any good to think of teachers in these market based terms?
How much is a good teacher worth? Some would say they're priceless, but recent findings in the National Bureau of Economic Research's The Economic Value of Higher Teacher Quality, is a bit more exact. The report, written by Eric A. Hanushek, suggests that quality teachers with 20 students are worth $400,000 more in the future earnings of their students than an average teacher, annually.
Should teachers think of their value in this way? Should the public? It's nice to think I might impart a little value on my students' lives. However, I've never really considered it to be a pecuniary one.
Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist has spent some time considering these questions in one of his books, Predictably Irrational. In chapter four on social norms, he considers the problem when social norms and market norms cross paths. It's a fascinating read that has me thinking about what I do at work and why I do it. A summary of the chapter is below:
I know that there has been a lot of work put in to change the way society thinks of teachers. Mostly it's been a market based approach. Teachers after all, have long been undervalued in the market. So to attack this inequity it makes sense to demand more compensation. I appreciate that this path has lead to more pay for teachers. I wouldn't be one if that were not the case. However, I think there may also be some negative consequences of this framing. Teachers are not quite revered in American society. Was this different 30 years ago? 100 years ago? I don't know. Would the public think differently about teachers if they weren't constantly asked to think about teachers' salaries? What about teachers? I do not think we want teachers thinking about their hourly or minutely contributions in terms of it's market value. This leads teachers to come late and leave early. But I think these are important questions to consider when thinking about evaluation systems that will create a better work place environment.
