Slightly relevant, I think: http://qz.com/625870/after-years-of-intensive-analysis-google-discovers-the-key-to-good-teamwork-is-being-nice/?utm_source=kwfb&kwp_0=256037
Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Oct 26, 2016 7:33 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: > 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 <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Steven A Smith < > sasm...@swcp.com> > *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 [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com > <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] On Behalf Of ?glen? > > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:21 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > > 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 >
============================================================ 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
