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 <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote:
> 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 <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Gillian Densmore < > gil.densm...@gmail.com> > *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 <wimber...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Slightly relevant, I think: >> >> http://qz.com/625870/after-years-of-intensive-analysis-googl >> e-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-t >>> he-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 >> > > > ============================================================ > 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
