The only thing I ask myself is if using points as a way to motivate (the right word?) work behaviors is assuming that most workers are inherently robotic by nature.?. Will they all follow point structures like sheep to the slaughterhouse? This is a rhetorical question and surely doesn't have a black-and-white answer.

I should probably mention that, as of late, I've taken more interest in outdated Econometrics-based notion that assumes everybody acts independently. With my work at OODA5, we've learned that Adam Smith's worldview of free markets and the under-riding assumption of what 'rationality' is may have been flawed all along. In fact, isn't that what Alan Greenspan admitted here? — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqe0VqIOrFQ

I am more kin to the worldview of Network Theory; that everyone is interdependent and interconnected. At least it allows for an explanation of altruism, which doesn't fit in well with 'rationality'.

So my thought (or question) is . . . can point-systems influence behavior at the system level (systems comprised of multiple human networks, both internal and external to the firm)? I believe they can . . . but this approach would involve reverse-engineering from an 'ideal state' (i.e. value-creation, more rapid innovation, etc.) to the individual network nodes (people) themselves, as opposed with starting at the node and moving outward.

As in military planning, perhaps the approach is to start with both the 'starting point' and 'destination' in mind. When scenario planning with field-expedient terrain maps (made of sticks, rocks, etc.), I remember having to plan from H-Hour (moving forward in time) and then Mission Accomplishment (moving backward in time). Often, the approach of planning through both lenses provided insights and contingency action plans.

Ok, rambling, so I'll run – great article and thanks for getting the synapses firing on this Saturday morning. Time to go bike a few miles and lift some weights