7 ms·
But I think this is the weakest part of the article : "And since human nature limits the size of group that can work together, the only way I can imagine f
by thewarrior 11y ago
But I think this is the weakest part of the article :
"And since human nature limits the size of group that can work together, the only
way I can imagine for larger groups to avoid tree structure would be to have no
structure: to have each group actually be independent, and to work together the way
components of a market economy do."
There's a reason for that . Ronald Coase in his Theory of the firm explained that the reason we don't have an arrangement like pg describes above is that
"According to Ronald Coase, people begin to organise their production in firms
when the transaction cost of coordinating production through the market exchange,
given imperfect information, is greater than within the firm .."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
Sometimes , I think that the zeitgeist has swung too far in favour towards being an entrepreneur instead of working for someone and making something awesome.
- panarky 11y agoCase study: At Sears, Eddie Lampert's Warring Divisions Model Adds to the Troubles Eddie Lampert’s big idea is that markets and competition rool, so he’s forcing the different parts of Sears to compete for resources just as if they were independent firms, with individual division profitability the only criterion for success. ... If the different divisions of Sears have no common interests, if the best model is competition red in tooth and claw, why should Sears exist at all? Why not just break it up into units that have no reason not to compete? For that matter, why should any large firm exist? Why not just have small firms, or maybe just individuals, who make deals for whatever they need? ... There are some things you don't want to leave up to the market — the market itself is telling us that, by creating islands of planning and hierarchy. More here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/john-galt-and-the-theory-of-the-firm/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/john-galt-and-th... And here: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-eddie-lamperts-warring-divisions-model-adds-to-the-troubles http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-edd...
- thewarrior 11y agoMy own company works this way. It's absolutely ridiculous. Each division hoards good programmers , projects and expertise, and people sometimes get stuck in other divisions without much work , while a few efficiently managed divisions land all the good work , leading to all the good people in the poor divisons leaving because they aren't growing , it's almost like working in a different company if you're in a different division.
- Retra 11y agoI am a bit mystified as to where people get the idea that competition is fundamentally better than cooperation. The only time competition has ever done any good is when it leads to greater cooperation.
- thewarrior 11y agoThat's not always true. Competition always produces better performance , atleast in individual activities.
- deciplex 11y agoIndividual activities are precisely not what we're talking about, and at any rate you're wrong even at the level of an individual.
- Delmania 11y ago> Sometimes , I think that the zeitgeist has swung too far in favour towards being an entrepreneur instead of working for someone and making something awesome. I can agree with this. There's definitely some long term, large scale projects that require more coordination than a bunch of disparate groups working together. I doubt the pyramids, the statue of Liberty, or the Empire State Building could have been built that way.
- j-l- 11y agoThere is huge difference between theory/Theory and practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomáš_Baťa#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomáš_Baťa#Career
- CyberDildonics 11y agoIn theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they are not.