3 ms·

"People sometimes view gender hierarchies in the workplace as being zero-sum, which can cause them to be more opposed to gender-fair policies." Can someone exp

"People sometimes view gender hierarchies in the workplace as being zero-sum, which can cause them to be more opposed to gender-fair policies." Can someone explain why this isnt zero sum? If the hierarchy moves from being women at the bottom, men at the top to a fair mix, the 'gains' that women make are balanced out by 'losses' for the men. There isn't extra power/prestige/influence introduced to the system by being gender fair. To clarify, I'm pro equal opportunities, this isn't a sexist rant.

godelski 7y ago
You can still have a hierarchy and the sum of the individuals within that hierarchy does not need to add to zero. It can definitely be positive. There's many joking examples about governments/lawyers/insert hated group making tasks more difficult or harder. This would be a negative value person and potentially a negative sum hierarchy. Conversely we can see groups of people working together and forming coalitions that have better payoffs than what the individual members could achieve on their own (like a union coming together and fighting for workers rights. Which can also lead to a more productive business that profits more, thus meaning the boss also profits). Tldr: Just because someone has a positive worth doesn't mean someone has a negative worth.
- benj111 7y ago
  That's just the benefit of working as a group though. Bob, Bill, Jill and Joan are already working as a group when Bob and Bill are the bosses. If we make Bill and Jill the bosses we don't inherently gain anything from that. Yes Jill and Joan might work better because they feel appreciated, equally though Bill and Bob could work worse because they've lost something. Hell Joan could still be annoyed because she didn't get the bosses job.
  - godelski 7y ago
    A hierarchy is a group structure. You could even call this a coalition game. We can also say that everyone provides a positive value to the group. We can also say that certain people in certain positions provide more value to a coalition. None of this is zero sum. Someone being placed in a certain position does not require value being taken from elsewhere. This is not required in a hierarchical job structure. A zero sum game is one in which where one player gains value that results in another player losing value. Coalition-al games are games where members form groups.
    - benj111 7y ago
      "A zero sum game is one in which where one player gains value that results in another player losing value" Yes that's what I'm contending. There can only be one boss, one deputy boss, one assistant deputy boss. Your point about putting the right person in the right role is a fair point, but its from an organisational POV, not from an individual POV. If I'm the deputy manager, and I get demoted because Tina is a better fit, I have lost, and Tina has gained by the same amount. For Tina and I, it is a zero sum game. I am not misinterpreting that situation as a zero sum game, because for me it is a zero sum game.
      - godelski 7y ago
        I understand then. We're talking about two different games. (I believe) You're talking about the game of obtaining positions. Yes, those games are "mostly" zero sum. I am talking about a game which describes how well off everyone in the structure is. This is part of why I say "mostly" above, because if the structure is functioning efficiently it can expand and new allocations can be made, but I'd agree that in that instance it is again a zero sum for obtaining those positions (but now with more allocations than the previous game).

godelski 7y ago

You can still have a hierarchy and the sum of the individuals within that hierarchy does not need to add to zero. It can definitely be positive. There's many joking examples about governments/lawyers/insert hated group making tasks more difficult or harder. This would be a negative value person and potentially a negative sum hierarchy. Conversely we can see groups of people working together and forming coalitions that have better payoffs than what the individual members could achieve on their own (like a union coming together and fighting for workers rights. Which can also lead to a more productive business that profits more, thus meaning the boss also profits). Tldr: Just because someone has a positive worth doesn't mean someone has a negative worth.

benj111 7y ago
That's just the benefit of working as a group though. Bob, Bill, Jill and Joan are already working as a group when Bob and Bill are the bosses. If we make Bill and Jill the bosses we don't inherently gain anything from that. Yes Jill and Joan might work better because they feel appreciated, equally though Bill and Bob could work worse because they've lost something. Hell Joan could still be annoyed because she didn't get the bosses job.
- godelski 7y ago
  A hierarchy is a group structure. You could even call this a coalition game. We can also say that everyone provides a positive value to the group. We can also say that certain people in certain positions provide more value to a coalition. None of this is zero sum. Someone being placed in a certain position does not require value being taken from elsewhere. This is not required in a hierarchical job structure. A zero sum game is one in which where one player gains value that results in another player losing value. Coalition-al games are games where members form groups.
  - benj111 7y ago
    "A zero sum game is one in which where one player gains value that results in another player losing value" Yes that's what I'm contending. There can only be one boss, one deputy boss, one assistant deputy boss. Your point about putting the right person in the right role is a fair point, but its from an organisational POV, not from an individual POV. If I'm the deputy manager, and I get demoted because Tina is a better fit, I have lost, and Tina has gained by the same amount. For Tina and I, it is a zero sum game. I am not misinterpreting that situation as a zero sum game, because for me it is a zero sum game.
    - godelski 7y ago
      I understand then. We're talking about two different games. (I believe) You're talking about the game of obtaining positions. Yes, those games are "mostly" zero sum. I am talking about a game which describes how well off everyone in the structure is. This is part of why I say "mostly" above, because if the structure is functioning efficiently it can expand and new allocations can be made, but I'd agree that in that instance it is again a zero sum for obtaining those positions (but now with more allocations than the previous game).