3 ms·

The Superstar Effect

34 points by cwan 17y ago

whatwhatwhat 17y ago
this immediately made me think of 99designs.com ...but of course it applies everywhere
- imp 17y ago
  Does 99designs have superstars like Tiger Woods?
  - ThomPete 17y ago
    99designs is the superstar
sliverstorm 17y ago
It seems pretty clear to me it's about the perceived differences in skill. If I played Bobby Fischer, I might be tempted to give up too- I've played chess maybe 50-100 times in my life. In other words, if we see the opponent as within reach, or even just a little out of reach, we will struggle to get there. However, if we see the opponent as completely unreachable, it would be foolish to expend energy on an impossible task! And as whatwhatwhat said, this effect applies EVERYWHERE. The psychological impact of 'first blood' in a fight, or shock-and-awe campaigns and other morale issues in armed forces also comes to mind.
- kmak 17y ago
  If you play Bobby Fischer, you probably won't need to give up - it might be over before too long! I agree with the perceived skill though. During the Winter Olympics and curling, everyone thought they could do better. Probably not so much, but people feel that they can.
  - sliverstorm 17y ago
    Haha right on, he'd probably beat me in ( n - 1 ) moves, where n is the least number of moves required to win a game of chess. Perhaps even turn 0 :)
chegra84 17y ago
I think superstar effect might be valid if only one person is going to win. Clearly, some people have genetic and experience advantages that would take years for the superstar's competitors to achieve, and why exert the force given the implicit probability that you are going to lose is high? The situation changes where there are number of top spots. Sure there might be one or two superstars, but it is more likely that you would place in a top spot. I am talking about GE competition scheme with 20-70-10. I think, everybody would think that they can reach a top 20% spot. The employees would know some people are a guaranteed for those spots but the others are very much open to someone willing to work hard, so in this sense I don't think it impedes competitiveness.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  I think it is valid for each edge case where the rewards for placing in a certain position significantly jump. if you believe that you can easily take a position, and that you are unlikely to make the jump to the next tier of positions even with significant investment you aren't going to make that investment for such an unsure gain.
  - chegra84 17y ago
    I agree. But given a wider pool of top spots implementing a competitive strategy is in the best interest of the corporation. So, from an individual stand point and you are on the edge it's bad for your own competitiveness but think in terms of a system having a wide edge will aid into profitability of the company.

34 points by cwan 17y ago

whatwhatwhat 17y ago

this immediately made me think of 99designs.com ...but of course it applies everywhere

imp 17y ago
Does 99designs have superstars like Tiger Woods?
- ThomPete 17y ago
  99designs is the superstar

sliverstorm 17y ago

It seems pretty clear to me it's about the perceived differences in skill. If I played Bobby Fischer, I might be tempted to give up too- I've played chess maybe 50-100 times in my life. In other words, if we see the opponent as within reach, or even just a little out of reach, we will struggle to get there. However, if we see the opponent as completely unreachable, it would be foolish to expend energy on an impossible task! And as whatwhatwhat said, this effect applies EVERYWHERE. The psychological impact of 'first blood' in a fight, or shock-and-awe campaigns and other morale issues in armed forces also comes to mind.

kmak 17y ago
If you play Bobby Fischer, you probably won't need to give up - it might be over before too long! I agree with the perceived skill though. During the Winter Olympics and curling, everyone thought they could do better. Probably not so much, but people feel that they can.
- sliverstorm 17y ago
  Haha right on, he'd probably beat me in ( n - 1 ) moves, where n is the least number of moves required to win a game of chess. Perhaps even turn 0 :)

chegra84 17y ago

I think superstar effect might be valid if only one person is going to win. Clearly, some people have genetic and experience advantages that would take years for the superstar's competitors to achieve, and why exert the force given the implicit probability that you are going to lose is high? The situation changes where there are number of top spots. Sure there might be one or two superstars, but it is more likely that you would place in a top spot. I am talking about GE competition scheme with 20-70-10. I think, everybody would think that they can reach a top 20% spot. The employees would know some people are a guaranteed for those spots but the others are very much open to someone willing to work hard, so in this sense I don't think it impedes competitiveness.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
I think it is valid for each edge case where the rewards for placing in a certain position significantly jump. if you believe that you can easily take a position, and that you are unlikely to make the jump to the next tier of positions even with significant investment you aren't going to make that investment for such an unsure gain.
- chegra84 17y ago
  I agree. But given a wider pool of top spots implementing a competitive strategy is in the best interest of the corporation. So, from an individual stand point and you are on the edge it's bad for your own competitiveness but think in terms of a system having a wide edge will aid into profitability of the company.