Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
Locked
12
12
Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
 
|
All— A little nudge to you libertarians out there from your favorite Bleeding heart liberal: Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
I particularly liked this part:
> Attributed to the once technical director of Real Madrid, Arrigo Sacchi, is an insightful quote on this recruitment model “Today’s football [soccer] is about managing the characteristics of individuals…The individual has trumped the collective. But it’s a sign of weakness. It’s reactive, not proactive”. It seems that Sacchi saw in soccer the same thing that Muir discovered in his experiments 12 years earlier; teams constructed to function as a collective are the ones that will enhance the qualities of the individuals within it and prosper. On 10/26/2016 12:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > A little nudge to you libertarians out there from your favorite Bleeding > heart liberal: > > https://evolution-institute.org/article/memo-to-jeff-bezos-the-most-producti > ve-workers-are-team-players-not-selfish-individualists/?source=tvol -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
Any organization needs a reason to stay together. Reasons like profit or safety. Many organizations don't have profit sharing or the profit sharing doesn't amount to much, and is not a big motivator. On the other extreme are organizations like nations or gangs that provide protection from the `other'. In the middle is where most of us live, and organizations try to appeal to us by exaggerating the significance of the reward they can offer or the punishment they can impose.
Overall, I think managing individuals is often about undermining individuals. Making the organization robust to perturbation of a given set of employees without asking why it is that employees would be so inclined to cause a perturbation. Also, it is expensive to invest in career development, and I argue the trend toward building teams is in part just a cost saving measure. A `team' is just code for a preference (by management) for particular personality trait -- extraversion. People that feel energized or just reassured by the presence of others as opposed to those people that may find the ongoing needs of others a drain and a distraction on their attention. If one can select such a set of people that don't expect intellectually challenging work, or a greater purpose (intrinsic motivation) for what they do, or ongoing escalations in salary or bonuses, isn't that just perfect for the people at the top? The value of the team for this sort of team member _is_ the team. There's no grand idea that makes them get up in the morning (or fail to), they just want to be around their friends. So long as the members of the team are adequately competent, the work of the organization will continue, if perhaps not in a Elon Musk / Steve Jobs sort of fabulous way and life will go on. -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ?glen? Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:21 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute I particularly liked this part: > Attributed to the once technical director of Real Madrid, Arrigo Sacchi, is an insightful quote on this recruitment model “Today’s football [soccer] is about managing the characteristics of individuals…The individual has trumped the collective. But it’s a sign of weakness. It’s reactive, not proactive”. It seems that Sacchi saw in soccer the same thing that Muir discovered in his experiments 12 years earlier; teams constructed to function as a collective are the ones that will enhance the qualities of the individuals within it and prosper. On 10/26/2016 12:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > A little nudge to you libertarians out there from your favorite > Bleeding heart liberal: > > https://evolution-institute.org/article/memo-to-jeff-bezos-the-most-pr > oducti > ve-workers-are-team-players-not-selfish-individualists/?source=tvol -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
I am fascinated by this general area of consideration... the struggle
between individual and collective. This study doesn't seem to tell us much we didn't already know... for example, that it is easy to craft a flawed experiment where what you thought you were optimizing (metabolic egg production) is only part of the story and a secondary trait (aggression) was being selected for unintentionally. Any of us who have lived or worked in a "collective" environment (or read a Dilbert Cartoon?) have experienced this. I was *once* a raging individualist/Libertarian who wanted to believe that the prime unit of survival was the individual, followed by the nuclear family, followed by the clan, etc.! As I have aged, two things have overcome some of that: 1) I'm getting old and in (more) need of the support of others, there are fewer and fewer things I can (or want to?) do for myself (alone); 2) I've lived a life where I've experienced a range of ways of being and I see how happy some people are *because* they are part of a healthy collective (not as i had imagined in the past, *in spite of* it!) This is naturally pretty anecdotal and roughly a sample of one, but since it is *my* experience, I believe in it's relevance and veracity. While we might have a wide spread of natures, experiences and conditions on this list, I would propose that many here have a bit of both tendencies... high enough, individualistic abilities and interests to become technologists (or choose the technological realm to conduct your work), but also enough social skills/tolerance/preference to function within one kind of institution or another. We all have our stereotypes about academia or government or industry to judge that one kind of institution or the other is "better" or "worse" than the others about this, but my experience is that they are more similar than different by most measures. I raised my daughters to have a strong element of my individuality/loner mentality and I feel (because I'm a doting father) that for the most part I succeeded. I also gave them enough exposure (acute example: Public School System) to "systems" that would demand out of and train them for a certain amount of compliance. I didn't do this because I was afraid they would fail or starve if they weren't socialized, I did it because despite some of my own feral tendencies, I believe that we are herd/pack/tribe animals and for the most part ARE happier in one kind of milieu or another. One is a PhD Virologist who is well ensconced in the systems of bioresearch in the US (often to her chagrin) but has the individualism to pursue grants on her own, to work long hours on hard problems virtually nobody else can even talk to her about ,etc. The other has broken out of a string of administrative assistant jobs over 1.5 decades to start her own cross-fit gym and paleo-nutrition consultancy. This requires equal amounts of individual ability/motivation and herd instinct (else she wouldn't have adopted the CrossFit(tm) brand and the Paleo appelation)... I now only work in *very* small teams, roughly 1-3, and usually where I am either in charge of the work scope/strategy or I am the eager support for a singular individual whose abilities I signficantly defer to. At LANL, I lead teams up to 6-8 in contexts of up to 30 or more on the same larger "project" and it was always a stressor for me. I didn't enjoy deciding "what is best" for that many other people, even when their instincts/affect and the organizational model entirely supported me in that. So my tenure in those roles was usually limited and always self-terminated when I got too mired in those feelings (3-7 years). I deeply appreciate those who are good "outliers" on this spectrum... those individualists who really can "pull it off" every time... the protaganists of Robert A. Heinlein's novels, etc. And on the other end, I really respect those who manage to put themselves almost entirely subservient to a system and yet maintain significant personal volition and creativity. If I could live my life again, with what I know, I would probably attempt to apprehend that full spectrum and find ways to engage all the way across it throughout my life. It might seem like a total non-sequitor, but I just listened to Terry Gross interview Leonard Cohen about his new album: "You Want it Darker" and his experience of living as a Monk in a Zen Monastery for years. I think the example he represents in the extrema of writing his own poems/songs quite uniquely and seemingly in isolation to mixing it up both "on Boogie Street" as one song references, but also in the Monastery. Mumble, Ramble off On 10/26/16 1:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Any organization needs a reason to stay together. Reasons like profit or safety. Many organizations don't have profit sharing or the profit sharing doesn't amount to much, and is not a big motivator. On the other extreme are organizations like nations or gangs that provide protection from the `other'. In the middle is where most of us live, and organizations try to appeal to us by exaggerating the significance of the reward they can offer or the punishment they can impose. > > Overall, I think managing individuals is often about undermining individuals. Making the organization robust to perturbation of a given set of employees without asking why it is that employees would be so inclined to cause a perturbation. Also, it is expensive to invest in career development, and I argue the trend toward building teams is in part just a cost saving measure. A `team' is just code for a preference (by management) for particular personality trait -- extraversion. People that feel energized or just reassured by the presence of others as opposed to those people that may find the ongoing needs of others a drain and a distraction on their attention. > > If one can select such a set of people that don't expect intellectually challenging work, or a greater purpose (intrinsic motivation) for what they do, or ongoing escalations in salary or bonuses, isn't that just perfect for the people at the top? The value of the team for this sort of team member _is_ the team. There's no grand idea that makes them get up in the morning (or fail to), they just want to be around their friends. So long as the members of the team are adequately competent, the work of the organization will continue, if perhaps not in a Elon Musk / Steve Jobs sort of fabulous way and life will go on. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ?glen? > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:21 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute > > I particularly liked this part: > >> Attributed to the once technical director of Real Madrid, Arrigo Sacchi, is an insightful quote on this recruitment model “Today’s football [soccer] is about managing the characteristics of individuals…The individual has trumped the collective. But it’s a sign of weakness. It’s reactive, not proactive”. It seems that Sacchi saw in soccer the same thing that Muir discovered in his experiments 12 years earlier; teams constructed to function as a collective are the ones that will enhance the qualities of the individuals within it and prosper. > > > On 10/26/2016 12:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> A little nudge to you libertarians out there from your favorite >> Bleeding heart liberal: >> >> https://evolution-institute.org/article/memo-to-jeff-bezos-the-most-pr >> oducti >> ve-workers-are-team-players-not-selfish-individualists/?source=tvol > > -- > ␦glen? > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
Steve,
I think it is a false dichotomy. A healthy collective improves the lives of its members, not just a few of them. A large collective (like our nation) will have a larger set of objectives to optimize at once. A liberal, like me, will argue for throwing the collective resources at those harder problems. A Libertarian will essentially argue for treating the system as a set of smaller systems and limiting the complexity of the problem, especially if that means no other problems but their own. A conservative will point to historical optimization problems that have local optima and claim the contemporary optimization is already done if people would just get with the program.
Folks like Jeff Bezos can just decide they are going to pursue space travel, and do what is necessary to make it happen. There's not friction in each and every decision. An individual may make mistakes, but their internal planning will be relatively fast and coherent.
Two other points:
1) Obviously, groups can be exclusionary. The `greater good' can mean "amongst Amazon shareholders or customers".
2) Productivity is the ratio of output to input cost. If Bezos drives the inputs down through robotics, drones, machine learning, etc. he doesn't have to care about how humans happen to interact with one another. This has always been the appeal of computers to me, really -- a force multiplier. I don't want to delegate to other information workers, I want the computer to do it for me while also being able to understand every nuance if I want to. From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steven A Smith <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 6:31:35 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute I am fascinated by this general area of consideration... the struggle
between individual and collective. This study doesn't seem to tell us much we didn't already know... for example, that it is easy to craft a flawed experiment where what you thought you were optimizing (metabolic egg production) is only part of the story and a secondary trait (aggression) was being selected for unintentionally. Any of us who have lived or worked in a "collective" environment (or read a Dilbert Cartoon?) have experienced this. I was *once* a raging individualist/Libertarian who wanted to believe that the prime unit of survival was the individual, followed by the nuclear family, followed by the clan, etc.! As I have aged, two things have overcome some of that: 1) I'm getting old and in (more) need of the support of others, there are fewer and fewer things I can (or want to?) do for myself (alone); 2) I've lived a life where I've experienced a range of ways of being and I see how happy some people are *because* they are part of a healthy collective (not as i had imagined in the past, *in spite of* it!) This is naturally pretty anecdotal and roughly a sample of one, but since it is *my* experience, I believe in it's relevance and veracity. While we might have a wide spread of natures, experiences and conditions on this list, I would propose that many here have a bit of both tendencies... high enough, individualistic abilities and interests to become technologists (or choose the technological realm to conduct your work), but also enough social skills/tolerance/preference to function within one kind of institution or another. We all have our stereotypes about academia or government or industry to judge that one kind of institution or the other is "better" or "worse" than the others about this, but my experience is that they are more similar than different by most measures. I raised my daughters to have a strong element of my individuality/loner mentality and I feel (because I'm a doting father) that for the most part I succeeded. I also gave them enough exposure (acute example: Public School System) to "systems" that would demand out of and train them for a certain amount of compliance. I didn't do this because I was afraid they would fail or starve if they weren't socialized, I did it because despite some of my own feral tendencies, I believe that we are herd/pack/tribe animals and for the most part ARE happier in one kind of milieu or another. One is a PhD Virologist who is well ensconced in the systems of bioresearch in the US (often to her chagrin) but has the individualism to pursue grants on her own, to work long hours on hard problems virtually nobody else can even talk to her about ,etc. The other has broken out of a string of administrative assistant jobs over 1.5 decades to start her own cross-fit gym and paleo-nutrition consultancy. This requires equal amounts of individual ability/motivation and herd instinct (else she wouldn't have adopted the CrossFit(tm) brand and the Paleo appelation)... I now only work in *very* small teams, roughly 1-3, and usually where I am either in charge of the work scope/strategy or I am the eager support for a singular individual whose abilities I signficantly defer to. At LANL, I lead teams up to 6-8 in contexts of up to 30 or more on the same larger "project" and it was always a stressor for me. I didn't enjoy deciding "what is best" for that many other people, even when their instincts/affect and the organizational model entirely supported me in that. So my tenure in those roles was usually limited and always self-terminated when I got too mired in those feelings (3-7 years). I deeply appreciate those who are good "outliers" on this spectrum... those individualists who really can "pull it off" every time... the protaganists of Robert A. Heinlein's novels, etc. And on the other end, I really respect those who manage to put themselves almost entirely subservient to a system and yet maintain significant personal volition and creativity. If I could live my life again, with what I know, I would probably attempt to apprehend that full spectrum and find ways to engage all the way across it throughout my life. It might seem like a total non-sequitor, but I just listened to Terry Gross interview Leonard Cohen about his new album: "You Want it Darker" and his experience of living as a Monk in a Zen Monastery for years. I think the example he represents in the extrema of writing his own poems/songs quite uniquely and seemingly in isolation to mixing it up both "on Boogie Street" as one song references, but also in the Monastery. Mumble, Ramble off On 10/26/16 1:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Any organization needs a reason to stay together. Reasons like profit or safety. Many organizations don't have profit sharing or the profit sharing doesn't amount to much, and is not a big motivator. On the other extreme are organizations like nations or gangs that provide protection from the `other'. In the middle is where most of us live, and organizations try to appeal to us by exaggerating the significance of the reward they can offer or the punishment they can impose. > > Overall, I think managing individuals is often about undermining individuals. Making the organization robust to perturbation of a given set of employees without asking why it is that employees would be so inclined to cause a perturbation. Also, it is expensive to invest in career development, and I argue the trend toward building teams is in part just a cost saving measure. A `team' is just code for a preference (by management) for particular personality trait -- extraversion. People that feel energized or just reassured by the presence of others as opposed to those people that may find the ongoing needs of others a drain and a distraction on their attention. > > If one can select such a set of people that don't expect intellectually challenging work, or a greater purpose (intrinsic motivation) for what they do, or ongoing escalations in salary or bonuses, isn't that just perfect for the people at the top? The value of the team for this sort of team member _is_ the team. There's no grand idea that makes them get up in the morning (or fail to), they just want to be around their friends. So long as the members of the team are adequately competent, the work of the organization will continue, if perhaps not in a Elon Musk / Steve Jobs sort of fabulous way and life will go on. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ?glen? > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:21 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute > > I particularly liked this part: > >> Attributed to the once technical director of Real Madrid, Arrigo Sacchi, is an insightful quote on this recruitment model “Today’s football [soccer] is about managing the characteristics of individuals…The individual has trumped the collective. But it’s a sign of weakness. It’s reactive, not proactive”. It seems that Sacchi saw in soccer the same thing that Muir discovered in his experiments 12 years earlier; teams constructed to function as a collective are the ones that will enhance the qualities of the individuals within it and prosper. > > > On 10/26/2016 12:17 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> A little nudge to you libertarians out there from your favorite >> Bleeding heart liberal: >> >> https://evolution-institute.org/article/memo-to-jeff-bezos-the-most-pr >> oducti >> ve-workers-are-team-players-not-selfish-individualists/?source=tvol > > -- > ␦glen? > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
Slightly relevant, I think: Frank Wimberly On Oct 26, 2016 7:33 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
*Smack my head* we needed a long study to show what kids, parents, the swashbucklers and Nords already new? Comradery and being nice meens a sold and fun place to be at? lol sigh. On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
I'll say yes and no: Yes, a group of people that understand that each is distinct will bother to model one another and politely negotiate over things. That is not a one entity (a team) doing something, it is an N-to-N activity
of many entities. But no, it is foolish to think that the N entities all have the same values or the same degree of investment, and it is foolish in any competitive environment to push people toward the mean. There's a tendency for those with less investment
(or even lower productivity) to want to create norms for those having more. Conversely, the principals need to understand that not everyone wants to sustain 80 hour work weeks. From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:35:23 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute *Smack my head* we needed a long study to show what kids, parents, the swashbucklers and Nords already new? Comradery and being nice meens a sold and fun place to be at?
lol sigh.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Frank Wimberly
<[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
Administrator
|
Synergy. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Reeds law. Yup. On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
The whole is occasionally greater than the sum of the parts. At least as often is some crazy like Gerald bailing water to keep the ship afloat while the rest of the people are up on the dining deck admiring each other and their martinis.
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 9:05:48 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
Synergy. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Reeds law. Yup.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Marcus Daniels
<[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Your argument would be more defensible if you made it clearer that this is merely one possible abuse of the concept of a team. But I don't think your over-simplification is ever true, even if a manager or organization tried to make it so (consciously or not). The point of the article (and even, to a lesser extent, the research cited) is that teams enlarge the solution space, increase the degrees of freedom. With a team, there are more paths to success than with an individual. And often, those paths are occult. For example, a good team may well include a spectrum of the extro-intro-verted, where the extreme introverts can be shielded from overly social contexts by the moderate extroverts. This might allow the team to exploit the talents of both types. On 10/26/2016 12:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Overall, I think managing individuals is often about undermining individuals. ... A `team' is just code for a preference (by management) for particular personality trait -- extraversion. People that feel energized or just reassured by the presence of others as opposed to those people that may find the ongoing needs of others a drain and a distraction on their attention. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
I tend to think humans are mostly (~70%) defined by context. This implies that the core ideas behind things like personality, IQ, skills, etc. are delusions. Our identities and all the "derived traits" like introvertedness or kindness or sexuality are fluid. If these traits seem robust (obtain across multiple, seemingly different contexts), it is because there are deeper similarities to those contexts that we do/can/have not measured. Part of the magic of complex life forms is our behavioral repertoire. And humans have a huge repertoire, at least compared to the less complex life forms. So, I would agree with you that those on this list have both tendencies, but go much much further and say every human, everywhere, has a large dose of _all_ tendencies. It simply takes the right context to bring out any given tendency. And that's the underlying message of the article. On 10/26/2016 05:31 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > This is naturally pretty anecdotal and roughly a sample of one, but since it is *my* experience, I believe in it's relevance and veracity. While we might have a wide spread of natures, experiences and conditions on this list, I would propose that many here have a bit of both tendencies... high enough, individualistic abilities and interests to become technologists (or choose the technological realm to conduct your work), but also enough social skills/tolerance/preference to function within one kind of institution or another. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
"The point of the article (and even, to a lesser extent, the research cited) is that teams enlarge the solution space, increase the degrees of freedom. With a team, there are more paths to success than with an individual. And often, those paths are occult. "
And there are even more occult paths to success without the team, if a larger solution space is considered to be better, and the same set of people follow their noses as independent agents. Looking around in a solution space isn't free. Each experiment takes some time and energy. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
But you're assuming that being a member of a team, prevents you from operating as an independent agent. That's just not true. Team membership doesn't redesign the individual from the genes up. It simply changes the context in which the individual behaves. And most team contexts are not as zero-sum constraining as you assume. In fact, most team contexts are enabling, not restrictive. For example, because my team has done things like pave 1000 mile long roads, built airplanes, deliver mail, etc, my individually driven agency is way more powerful than it would have otherwise been. Or, to go back to the article, a forward can be, individually, a much better overall soccer player _because_ of the full backs, not in spite of them. On 10/27/2016 07:46 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > And there are even more occult paths to success without the team, if a larger solution space is considered to be better, and the same set of people follow their noses as independent agents. Looking around in a solution space isn't free. Each experiment takes some time and energy. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
"But you're assuming that being a member of a team, prevents you from operating as an independent agent. That's just not true."
Teams have governance and process. Governance implies limitations to autonomy. Process takes time and effort. These things have to be worth it. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. In particular, not any random collection of people with improve another's agency. It has to be just the right kind of complementary people. It may not even improve the group's agency if the governance, process and leadership is poorly thought out. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
No, governance does not imply limitations to autonomy. It biases autonomy. For example, if the team creates roads upon which we can drive, it puts in place rules for what types of behaviors are appropriate for those roads (no DUI). But it simultaneously opens up lots of behaviors the individual could not have previously engaged in (traveling at 55 mph, which is exceedingly difficult without a road). And such new opportunities are not "just so" difficult. The concept of stigmergy (indeed all complex adaptive systems rhetoric) hinges on the idea that new regions of the solution space are made available through such scaffolding. Viewing such biasing as _limiting_ is a fundamental problem. On 10/27/2016 11:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Teams have governance and process. Governance implies limitations to autonomy. Process takes time and effort. These things have to be worth it. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. In particular, not any random collection of people with improve another's agency. It has to be just the right kind of complementary people. It may not even improve the group's agency if the governance, process and leadership is poorly thought out. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
"Viewing such biasing as _limiting_ is a fundamental problem."
If all roads lead to Rome, that's where people will end up. Of course, it is very exploitable, and one can get very good at gaming such a system. The agency one gains from doing so can give one the impression they are freer than they were. But really a big part of it is thriving on the fight and not the purpose or the outcome. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Heh, you're piling over-simplificatino on top of over-simplification. If all roads lead to Rome, people would find it trivially easy to "change lanes" and go to any other place in the world by that road that leads _from_ Rome. And it's the very exploitable nature of the more complex structures that make the entire solution space more accessible. A great example is the bundling of mortgages that caused the recent crash ... or the "gaming" of the market with fast algorithms. These things are made possible by the market. Sure, more edge cases will arise along with more medial cases. But you can't deny there are, overall, more cases. Hence, teams definitely do not limit autonomy. Whether individuals are deluded into myopia about the power of their agency or not is also a problem. I admit. The tyranny of choice is real, to which I respond: Better living through chemistry. 8^) We should be enhancing our cognitive abilities with the tools available to us... nootropics, cybernetic implants, more types and modes of education, etc. Such methods are present in effective teams. As for thriving on the fight, increased breadth in our behavioral repertoire necessarily implies that some people will focus on the fight... as well they should. Tort lawyers and MMA champions are valuable members of our team. Even patent trolls have a place on the team, if for no other reason than to find the sharp edges and help us sand them off. On 10/27/2016 12:11 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > If all roads lead to Rome, that's where people will end up. Of course, it is very exploitable, and one can get very good at gaming such a system. The agency one gains from doing so can give one the impression they are freer than they were. But really a big part of it is thriving on the fight and not the purpose or the outcome. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute
|
|
All roads leading to Rome does not imply sufficiency of transportation in general. At some point someone might propose, "I'd like to visit my family in Astana and would like a road so that I don’t have to take a camel from Casablanca", and then they'd look at the map and see that Pisa lacked a road to Rome. Pisa being closer to Rome, that road gets built instead.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ?glen? Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 1:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Memo To Jeff Bezos: The Most Productive Workers Are Team Players, Not Selfish Individualists | The Evolution Institute Heh, you're piling over-simplificatino on top of over-simplification. If all roads lead to Rome, people would find it trivially easy to "change lanes" and go to any other place in the world by that road that leads _from_ Rome. And it's the very exploitable nature of the more complex structures that make the entire solution space more accessible. A great example is the bundling of mortgages that caused the recent crash ... or the "gaming" of the market with fast algorithms. These things are made possible by the market. Sure, more edge cases will arise along with more medial cases. But you can't deny there are, overall, more cases. Hence, teams definitely do not limit autonomy. Whether individuals are deluded into myopia about the power of their agency or not is also a problem. I admit. The tyranny of choice is real, to which I respond: Better living through chemistry. 8^) We should be enhancing our cognitive abilities with the tools available to us... nootropics, cybernetic implants, more types and modes of education, etc. Such methods are present in effective teams. As for thriving on the fight, increased breadth in our behavioral repertoire necessarily implies that some people will focus on the fight... as well they should. Tort lawyers and MMA champions are valuable members of our team. Even patent trolls have a place on the team, if for no other reason than to find the sharp edges and help us sand them off. On 10/27/2016 12:11 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > If all roads lead to Rome, that's where people will end up. Of course, it is very exploitable, and one can get very good at gaming such a system. The agency one gains from doing so can give one the impression they are freer than they were. But really a big part of it is thriving on the fight and not the purpose or the outcome. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
OK. But by making that argument, you've ceded the necessary assumption within your original argument. At this point, we're agreeing on the gist and disagreeing on minor embellishments. Teams, in the overwhelming majority of cases, increase the individual agency/power of the team members. As Steve said, the article didn't really teach us anything new. But one wonders at the persistent false attribution of success and failure to individuals alone, or further, the false dichotomy between the collective and the individual.
On 10/27/2016 12:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > All roads leading to Rome does not imply sufficiency of transportation in general. At some point someone might propose, "I'd like to visit my family in Astana and would like a road so that I don’t have to take a camel from Casablanca", and then they'd look at the map and see that Pisa lacked a road to Rome. Pisa being closer to Rome, that road gets built instead. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |