Thirty years ago, when we were still using typewriters and fewer than 25 per cent of households invested in the stock market, economists conjectured that employees would work harder and make better decisions under a “pay-for-performance” system. This theory became popular in boardrooms – especially since it was an influential argument for increasing the pay of the chief executive and top officers. Bonuses tied to performance became standard practice in US companies and on Wall Street in particular.

But economics has not stood still, and we now know there are at least four reasons why bonuses and pay-for-performance are a risky business. First, it can be hard to see whether employees make the right decisions; superiors do not hold the same information, and the results of decisions play out years later. Second, performance pay will attract exactly those who are willing to take on more risk. People interested in high but steady income will choose other careers. Third, to get their pay, employees may manipulate the system, against the interests of those who set up the incentives: like teachers who are threatened with losing their jobs and teach to the test. Finally, and most perniciously, performance pay can crowd out intrinsic rewards, as when children, having received gold stars for drawing pictures, later draw less than before in their own time. Why draw without getting paid?

But if monetary incentives do not work, what does? Identity economics – a new way of thinking about motivation – gives an answer. In organisations that work well, employees identify with their work and their organisations. People want to do a good job because they think they should and because it is the right thing to do. In organisations that function effectively, the goals of the workers and of the organisation are aligned. There is little conflict of interest and little need for performance pay.