quick thing: 1. one manager is confident, he accepts a higher probability of being fired (implicit), but in exchange for a higher compensation (explicit) q1: why substitutes? 2. one manager is weak, he accepts a higher probability of being fired (implicit), and a low compensation (explicit) q2: i understand he does it… because weak = desperate??? q3: why complements? any comment will be really appreciated, i don´t get this…
my take on it if you are confident - you dont care which incentives you get, or rather if you dont care about being fired then compensation would be the ‘substitute’ whereas if you are sappy - you’ll take everything!
so high compensation is substitute (against) high probability of being fired when you are confident, and low compensation is a complement (when you are weak, goes together) with high probability of being fired? thx
higher probability of being fired --> low implicit compensation