Frank and Cooks’ The Winner-Take-All Society: Why the Few at the Top Get So Much More Than the Rest of Us first introduced me to the notion that competition can be wasteful. Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty has a lovely description of “competition as collusive behaviour.” Firms that slip and provide lower quality products are likely to have their customers “exit” their relationship for a competitor. However, if all firms are of equally low quality, cell phones come to mind, then (p. 26):
Competition in this situation is a considerable convenience to the manufacturers because ti keeps consumers from complaining; it diverts their energy to the hunting for the inexistent improved products that might possibly have been turned out by the competition. Under these circumstances, the manufacturers have a common interest in the maintenance rather than the abridgement of competition – and may conceivable resort to collusive behaviour to that end.
Furthermore, he notes that when quality declines, its those that care most about quality that are most likely to choose the exit option if its easy relative to voicing their concern and causing management change. Consequently, the inefficient firm stumbles on (or public institution such as schools or transportation), not able to expire but unable to reform itself.
Ported/Archived Responses
andreas on 2003-10-26
Senor Reagle,
I remember those first flakes that fell in
cambridge. It was only a few days after the most delicious fall day I
have ever experienced, then Kapow! Winter.
Some recent
things that might be of interest:
www.siliconyogi.com/Dialogos from my recent work with the Consultant
monkeys:
PART-ICIPANT ROLE REMINDER (these are a few of my
personal work processes, the rest are on the link above:scroll down the
page)
1. We are less rewarded for our involvement in
a meeting when we assume that our role has been more central to its
processes than when we are able to question its value to other
participants.
2. We degrade and pollute the meeting
environment more when we assume that any negative impacts of our
initiatives on other participants are of little consequence than when we
have doubts concerning the ability of the meeting to deal with them.
3. We exhibit a greater degree of ignorance in a
meeting when we assume the adequacy of the knowledge we demonstrate than
when we question its validity from the perspectives of other
participants.
4. Our contributions are less
nourishing and enlivening to other participants when we assume that they
are naturally fruitful than when we question their fruitfulness to
others.
The other is on the trouble of forming
transdicisciplinary conferences (I think your field might have similar
issues)
http://www.siliconyogi.com/Dialogos/doc/Dialegos-812.htm
Excerpt:
The above approach makes deliberate
structural use of the features of conventional dialogue which normally
destroy any possibility of transdisciplinarity. In effect it uses dyadic
polarization as a structural element basic to the emergence of a higher
order of consensus. From this perspective, lower order consensus, like
simple harmony in music, is an obstacle to the emergence of higher
orders of consensus that embody various forms of dissonance
characteristic of the non-ideal interactions of real world dialogue. The
emphasis is on the harmonies that it is possible to create from the
apparent imperfections associated with a multiplicity of polarized
dialogues.
Polarization and disagreement are thus
vital symbols of conceptual diversity. But they are only valuable if
they can be integrated into a transcendent structure which respects the
conceptual dilemmas that they represent. Polyhedral structures provide
an important point of departure in any such exploration.
On the practical matter of relating such conceptual links between
meeting themes to the actual communication and feedback processes
between groups discussing such themes, a pragmatic approach is
essential. Whilst it could be relatively easy to organize communication
protocols in e- mail systems in the light of such variable polyhedral
geometries, arranging corresponding communication between theme rooms in
a conference centre is another matter. In the latter case it is useful
to organize any communication or monitoring experiments in parallel with
thematic discussions so that in the event of their failure (as an
experimental possibility) the disruptive effect on the thematic
discussions is minimal. However it is also necessary to ensure that
discussion participants do not neglect the challenge of experimental
breakthroughs in faciliting the emergence of transdisciplinary dialogue
– otherwise the meeting as a whole will decay into a relatively
uninteresting pattern of inter-disciplinary exchanges. Unfortunately
this may meet the expectations of many participants habituated to this
mode.
Comments !