This is a combination of (1) the book, (2) my personal experiences of various places including my attempt at running a business of my own, (3) my observations of what is going on in the world, (4) my interactions with major corporations when attempting to do business and otherwise, (5) talking with others who have been in such situations and (6) building up of models.
Is all of this potentially extrapolated from unusually bad experiences? It is certainly possible, but those experiences seem to have been chosen in ways that would not be likely to maximize their degree of badness beyond the issue of size. The book certainly wasn’t trying to paint as gloomy a picture as it could have.
But of course, the picture is extreme. And no, none of the examples here or the ones I’ve directly experienced were tech as such.
In tech, I would describe the maze structure differently, and the maze would importantly extend beyond the corporation itself, but that’s a complex topic I can’t get into fully here.
In tech, I would describe the maze structure differently, and the maze would importantly extend beyond the corporation itself, but that’s a complex topic I can’t get into fully here.
If you’re making a claim that this model is applicable outside the excessively-toxic specifics in the book, I’d really enjoy seeing how it applies or differs in tech. I’d also be interested in a comparison with Steven Levitt’s work on low- and middle-level drug dealing (briefly discussed in _Freakonomics_, I haven’t read his actual paper on the topic).
Fundamentally, I don’t doubt that these unpleasant equilibria exist, but I question how common they are and how applicable any lessons from them are to more moderate examples. I don’t think we’ve seen enough examples to find common causes/features, let alone recommendations.
My guesses:
Tournament/pyramid structure: unpleasant to horrific for entry-level participants, pretty darned nice at the top, but the vast majority never make it anywhere close to the top. Applies to sports, entertainment, some kinds of retail, and many crime setups.
Very large potential rewards (which, again, most don’t get). Goes hand-in-hand with tournament list.
Participants don’t see attractive alternatives (I think “entry/exit” is a mis-statement of this one). This is often an input to the equilibrium, rather than an attribute of it.
I’m unsure whether objectivity of performance measurement matters. It’s lacking in management, present in sports/entertainment stars, unsure in criminal gangs. There probably does need to be a sense of unfairness by the losers and smugness by the winners, in order to make it really soul-crushing.
This is a combination of (1) the book, (2) my personal experiences of various places including my attempt at running a business of my own, (3) my observations of what is going on in the world, (4) my interactions with major corporations when attempting to do business and otherwise, (5) talking with others who have been in such situations and (6) building up of models.
Is all of this potentially extrapolated from unusually bad experiences? It is certainly possible, but those experiences seem to have been chosen in ways that would not be likely to maximize their degree of badness beyond the issue of size. The book certainly wasn’t trying to paint as gloomy a picture as it could have.
But of course, the picture is extreme. And no, none of the examples here or the ones I’ve directly experienced were tech as such.
In tech, I would describe the maze structure differently, and the maze would importantly extend beyond the corporation itself, but that’s a complex topic I can’t get into fully here.
If you’re making a claim that this model is applicable outside the excessively-toxic specifics in the book, I’d really enjoy seeing how it applies or differs in tech. I’d also be interested in a comparison with Steven Levitt’s work on low- and middle-level drug dealing (briefly discussed in _Freakonomics_, I haven’t read his actual paper on the topic).
Fundamentally, I don’t doubt that these unpleasant equilibria exist, but I question how common they are and how applicable any lessons from them are to more moderate examples. I don’t think we’ve seen enough examples to find common causes/features, let alone recommendations.
My guesses:
Tournament/pyramid structure: unpleasant to horrific for entry-level participants, pretty darned nice at the top, but the vast majority never make it anywhere close to the top. Applies to sports, entertainment, some kinds of retail, and many crime setups.
Very large potential rewards (which, again, most don’t get). Goes hand-in-hand with tournament list.
Participants don’t see attractive alternatives (I think “entry/exit” is a mis-statement of this one). This is often an input to the equilibrium, rather than an attribute of it.
I’m unsure whether objectivity of performance measurement matters. It’s lacking in management, present in sports/entertainment stars, unsure in criminal gangs. There probably does need to be a sense of unfairness by the losers and smugness by the winners, in order to make it really soul-crushing.