Ben,
I'm glad to see you back in this group. You always provide
thought-provoking commentary, and I guess that's one key factor for a
learning organization.
You wrote:
> Why is there is a disparity between the rich and the poor? The basic
> elements are the quality and power of their ideas, their competence, the
> passion with which they work. There are very powerful restraining forces
At the same time as I'm glancing at this thread, I'm reading works by
Arthur, David, et. al. about path dependence and how (at least some)
economists are talking about how ideas win out in the marketplace that
have little to do with their inherent value but a lot to do with the
sequence of a number of very small historical events (perhaps too small to
have been noticed by traditional economists in the past). Many times we
can rationalize after the fact why the idea/product/technology that won
was better, but it doesn't take too much work (at least they're making
arguments which are convincing me) to demonstrate that the likely cause is
not the supposed superiority at all. Some examples (I hestitate, because
I don't want the discussion to move towards the superiority of any one of
these technologies but rather towards the concept) include the QWERTY
keyboard vs. alternatives, internal comubustion engines in cars vs. steam,
VHS vs. Beta in VCRs, the playing of the Bridal Chorus from Wagner's
Lohengrin and/or Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" from A Midsummer Night's
Dream vs. any one of a number of alternatives in the preponderance of US
weddings, ....
So, just to throw a spanner into the argument, are we _really_ sure that
this competition identifies the best in people, when historical economists
are beginning to say that competition may not identify the best in the
market? Is there something different about us people in our competition?
(I know I've simplified a lot in getting this idea out.)
There are a number of references on the subject (and I'm looking for
more). One introduction I've seen is "Path Dependence: Putting the Past
into the Future of Economics" by Paul A. David, Technical Report No. 533,
November, 1988, from the Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social
Sciences at Stanford University.
Regards,
Bill
PS: Oh, yes, I do work at that company about which several have noted we
do relative ranking of employees. I've participated in that process for
years and expect to in the future, as well. In theory, it sounds like
such ranking would encourage cutthroat competition ("you don't want to
kill your colleagues, as that would take them out of the pool; you just
want to wound them so they don't do as well" [tongue firmly in cheek]); in
practice, I've seen _lots_ of cooperation and teamwork in this
environment. I can't really explain it except by the strong set of values
(the HP Way) which permeates the culture. Perhaps that's a key.
-- Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co. R&D Engineering Processes Lake Stevens Division domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330 phone: (425) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road fax: (425) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>