Post #7 Team Production

It seems that gift-exchange and team production are closely linked. Collaboration seems to make people much more generous towards each other than when players are acting as individuals. This is indicated in the New York Times article, “How to Get the Rich to Share the Marbles.” This distinction between viewing yourself as a teammate or an individual in a group is very important in my experience.

I remember what was my first-ever economics group project back in my first year of college. None of my classmates knew each other, and the teams of about eight or nine were separated at random. I remember that many of my teammates were often missing from class and failed to make any sort of impression on me. In our first meeting as a team, there were only about four of us that attended, and we spent most of the time getting to know one another. In particular, one of my teammates and I happened to sit next to each other in class throughout the semester, so we got to know each other better and became better at working together.

What this did was separated our team into four different kinds of “groups” (1 or 2 people) which I’ll refer to as Groups A, B, C, and D, respectively: there were those that never spoke or showed up to class, those that showed up to class but didn’t participate much, those that showed up to class and stayed relatively connected, and my classmate and I who corresponded on a daily basis.

 By the time we presented our project to the class, these four groups proved to have four distinct and corresponding levels of productivity. Group A played no real part in the assignment. Group B did bare-minimum work that didn’t mesh well with the overall project. Group C had decent work and pulled their weight during the presentation. Group A, my classmate and I, however, ended up contributing about 50-60% of the finished product.

The treatment of the four groups during grading were interesting: Group A, which didn’t show up for presentations at all was singled out. They failed while the rest of us got a grade boost; a fact that none of us argued against. Group B surprisingly didn’t show up either, but the rest of us assured the professor that they did, at very least, what they were supposed to (other than showing up for presentations). Only half of Group B showed up. One of the two were sick, but since he did good work and was sincere about why he couldn’t attend, we insisted that they be given the same grade as those that presented. We shared our grade with him despite having to do more work presenting on his behalf. That leaves just three out eight or nine that actually presented.

The connection between teammates resulted in two things: the connected were much more willing to work hard and were much more willing to defend each other’s actions. The disconnected failed to impress and received no support when it came to grading.

Now this doesn’t necessarily mean that collaboration made certain people more productive. It could very well mean that those who were too lazy to go to class were too lazy to give an effort on the project. There’s just a few reasons that indicate that collaboration may have been a factor. The teammate that I connected most with and I were the two most productive members of the team by far. Also, as time went on, the team as a whole became more and more productive after every time we met. Assuming we all had the same level of motivation to do well, which was the to get a decent grade, a possible reason for the difference in work was collaboration and team productivity.

Post #6 Income Risk

Over this last summer, I experienced a shocking revelation; I had absolutely no idea what I was going to do after I graduate and little time to figure it out. I only have one semester left which we’re already half-way through, and most of my friends have already graduated.

Anyway, while my colleagues were diving into the real world with no more expectations for the future than I had, I decided it was time for a change. I went to my library, grabbed the first couple books I came across, and I got to work.

The first book I picked up was called “Earn What You’re Really Worth” by Brian Tracy. The book covered topics such as self-discipline, time-management, goal-setting, and increasing human capital (he didn’t use the term, but that’s essentially what it was). While I can’t yet attest to how realistic his ideas are, they inspired me, nonetheless. For the rest of the summer, I read everything I could so by the start of the fall semester, I had read over twenty books on economics, business, and finance. Reading obviously takes up time, though, so I was making a very real sacrifice to accommodate it.

What I gave up for my new pursuit of human capital was work. You might be wondering why I found the two mutually exclusive, but this is the best answer I can give: working at a cash register or as a sales clerk would increase my current income, but using those extra hours to increase my human capital would improve my future income. Every moment spent at work, so I thought, would be a moment better utilized for self-education.

I knew when I was making the sacrifice that there were some flaws to my strategy. Work was practical experience. I’d benefit by adding to my resume, and I would grow more accustomed to work-life and organizational structure than I currently am (most of my work-experience is informal). I would also earn money for my efforts which, like any college student will tell you, I never seem to have enough of. While I put some of what I learned into practice, such as organization techniques and goal-setting, I had limited opportunities to use what I learned in the real-world.

So I had to consider the pros and cons of both work and study, and I put them into two distinct categories: does this help me now or does this help me in the future? Once I had everything mentally sorted, I was able to weigh the strategies against each other. Experience or knowledge? Money or knowledge? A strategy of obvious benefits or a strategy that others would find impractical?

One of the things I picked up on from several different authors is how job uncertainty affects my generation more than it has historically. That you can never, and should never, believe you’re set for life. Job certainty is now, more than ever, a fantasy. At the same time, I now see this as an opportunity. As long as I can continue to increase my human capital, I can find and obtain a career when I need to. There’s far less income risk as long as I stay on my toes and keep learning. That way, if the economy heads south or just the company I work for does, I can remain competitive in the job market. This is one of the reasons I chose studying over work.

Since I can’t know the counterfactual, I’m not entirely sure what decision I should have made, but I’d probably make the same one. Increasing education decreases income risk and tends to increase income as well. So that’s why, when choosing between current benefits and future benefits, I choose the latter.

Post #5 Illinibucks

The allocation of “Illinibucks” would be an interesting, but flawed, solution to the waiting problem that students face on a regular basis. Who wouldn’t want to skip the line during registration or at their favorite restaurant? Nevertheless, there are some issues that might make or break the system.

Before we get to the issues, let’s look at some of the more expected uses of the Illinibuck. The most obvious use would be class registration, but as I’ll get into shortly, this may lead to some of the more complex problems. The Illinibuck could find use with students who are waiting in line at a bar or at a restaurant. Also, during the cold or rainy seasons, the bus has so many riders that you couldn’t push your way on if you tried. Getting on first could be of value. The bookstore might have a line to skip, but even the books themselves could use Illinibucks since there’s not always enough books for everyone during the first couple of weeks. Even the gym doesn’t always have enough equipment for everyone, so I’m sure a priority system could be worked in there as well. There are bound to be plenty more uses of the Illinibuck than what I’ve listed here.

For the nonessentials such as these, the Illinibuck could find success (despite a great deal of frustration and questions of fairness). Students would be free to prioritize their spending and maximize their utility. The university would need to set the prices. Setting them too high would cause students to hesitate on spending. I predict that the Illinibucks would only be used on the essentials and be much less effective on simple bookstore lines. Setting prices too low would be a problem as well. Everyone would be willing to pay. Wanting to skip the line at the grocery store? Sure. Just wait behind the twenty other people who are skipping the line.

These low prices lead into the next and perhaps more serious issue with the Illinibuck: if everyone is trying to get ahead, who really gets ahead? Think about registration. When I was still in the computer science major, it took me until my third semester to get into a particular class. This class was required to take before most other computer science classes. There was a horrible shortage in openings as every student desperately tried to sign up.

If I had Illinibucks during that time, you could bet I’d spend every last one to get into that class, and I’d be happy to do it. First in line for food, the bus, the gym, and so on would be a small sacrifice to graduate in my (at the time) preferred major. If I were the only one with Illinibucks, it all would have worked out great. However, in this hypothetical situation, that’s not the case. So what happens when everyone is willing to make the same sacrifices? In this scenario, we all have the same amount of Illinibucks, and there certainly aren’t enough computer science classes for everyone who wants to take them. The only way this scenario doesn’t end in the same way it started (everyone fighting for priority) is if there’s a secondary priority system, which defeats the purpose, there’s an increase in the supply of openings to accommodate everyone, which defeats the purpose, or there’s an unequal distribution of Illinibucks. And under the possibility of Illinibucks being bought and sold, the entire system would be undermined and a list of new problems would develop.

The Illinibuck system would lead to some interesting situations that would be nice to study, but in reality, the drawbacks would most likely outweigh the benefits. Finding the right price for line-cutting would be essential for the system’s success, and that’s under the assumption that there even is a right price. If the Illinibuck system could work, would it do more harm or good? That’s a question I couldn’t answer.

Post #4: Organizational Structure

Choosing the structure of an organization is an important step in the team’s success and requires plenty of consideration beforehand. The effects of the decision include, but are not limited to, how well the team will be able communicate, how the team makes decisions, and what responsibilities each team member will have. That being said, the structure can make or break a team. To name a few ways that structure impacts results, communication may be easy or broken, decision makers may have too much control or not enough, and members may find themselves overloaded with things to accomplish or they may find themselves under-worked.

As far as movie teams go, few are as currently relevant (and profitable) as “The Avengers.” For those of you who don’t know, The Avengers that I would like to discuss are the movie adaptations of a team of Marvel comic book superheroes. Lately, there have been two Avengers films, but having not yet seen the second, I will not be talking about that one here.

Most members of this team have previously appeared as individual crime fighters in their own movies. They were presented mostly as solitary figures; few of these characters were experienced in teamwork and perhaps even fewer would accept help even when it was offered. Their separate storylines each began with them being extremely stubborn about not accepting help and ended with them being mostly stubborn about not accepting help.

The plot of the movie is all about organizing a team. As I said, none of these members were open to teamwork previously, but when danger shows its face, they’re forced into cooperation regardless of their strong objections. They tended to see each other as inferior relative to themselves, and each of them also believed they knew the right course of action. The first hour or so of the film involves them fighting each other and getting in each other’s way despite all having the same general goals: justice and the safety of mankind.

There is a “boss” in the group: Samuel L. Jackson’s character is responsible for bringing the team together in the first place. He runs the defense organization known as “S.H.I.E.L.D.,” but deciding he needed something more than that, he creates this additional division of superheroes. However, his control over these superheroes is minimal at best despite how he’d prefer it to function. This division is very loosely connected to the rest of the S.H.I.E.L.D. organization, and communication is very minimal across that structural gap.

The superhero organization is most akin to Mintzberg’s adhocracy which is described as “a loose, flexible, self-renewing organic form tied together mostly through lateral means” (Bolman and Deal 82). The laterally-organized team very loosely follows procedures or policies, and their organization was created specifically to defeat the film’s antagonist. There’s also plenty of the ambiguity and incoherence that Mintzberg describes this structure with. Upon completion of the mission, the team separates.

The group also resembles the All-Channel Network from “Reframing Organizations,” chapter five. The team doesn’t exhibit much hierarchy. The boss exists but more of a guide than somebody in control. The group members all communicate directly and decisions are made on consensus. It’s also arguably similar to a basketball team since the organization’s success results from mutual understanding and cohesiveness.

The team can also be related to Katzenbach and Smith’s features of high-performance teams. I’ll go down the list to cover them all. The team’s purpose is shaped by the demand of defending the world from the bad guy’s plot for world-domination. Their only real performance goal would be to defeat the antagonist and save as many lives as possible. The team is of nine people if you include support characters and the “boss,” so it’s a manageable size. All the members are diverse and have different skills which all mesh together nicely. A major part of the story involves the characters developing commitment to working relationships. Finally, they all think of themselves as collectively accountable. They blame each other often early on, but gaining this accountability is part of the plot’s progression (108).

Many of the successful qualities in the “Reframing Organizations” are depicted in this team. I’d also like to point out how relevant it is that the team is highly unsuccessful for most of the movie. They all have their own incentives and ways of doing things. They fail to cooperate in almost everything they do, and they are highly resistant to structure. This depicts some realism in the film that successful teams don’t happen immediately. There will be friction and resistance. Sacrifices and compromises may be slow to take place. It takes time to create efficiency in the system, and the perfectly efficient system doesn’t exist.

Bolman, Lee, and Terrence Deal. Reframing Organizations: Fifth Edition. Jossey-Bass, 2013. Print.

Post #3: Opportunism

Opportunism is something that all of us face every day. Sometimes the opportunity is big and sometimes small, but either way, if it is at somebody else’s expense, then it is best to consider the effects with empathy.

This is on ongoing story about opportunism so bear with me. A couple years ago, I needed to borrow a few hundred dollars. This is something I do not make a habit of, but without an income source at the time, I was running low on money. I decided I would have to bite the bullet. I did not have many people who would have given me anything, so naturally I began to stress out quite a bit over my financials. However, my sister was very generous with me. She loaned me the money when she saw that I was struggling. A few weeks later I was able to pay her back half the money I owed, but to this day, that second half needs to be paid back.

Now here is where opportunism comes into play. I do not think she remembers I still owe her. It is not a lot of money, and I don’t think she would miss it. She has always been good with money. As a college student, I’m just always a little short on money, so I will admit that it has not been priority or even possible. Nevertheless, I do intend on paying back the loan very soon.

There are several reasons why I have absolutely no desire to act on opportunity. First, somebody did something nice for me, and I would not take advantage of someone else’s generosity or kindness. Second, something like that sticks with you. I would not want to regret my actions for the rest of my life. Third, I always try to see these kinds of things from the other person’s perspective. If I loaned money, I would be really unhappy with someone if they failed to repay me. Lastly, in the long run, the money is of little value. It would be more detrimental over time to keep it and cause trouble than to give it back and be done with it.

All of these reasons are an issue of ethics and morality. Sure, nobody would know if I just kept the money. Whenever I am faced with such a situation, I like to think of it like this: if everyone made the same choice, would the world be better or worse off? If the answer is worse off, I do not do it. I always think that if I am not part of the solution, I am part of the problem.

I think empathy plays a large role in how people respond to opportunism. Those with more empathy are much less able to take advantage and to harm other people for personal gain. Others who do not have empathy will do just that. Many, but not all, of the “successful” people in the world got that way by acting on opportunism whenever it presented itself. For example, politicians are known to be some of the most corrupt people there are. It brings up constant consideration, whenever a politician makes a decision, if they are acting on opportunism or trying to help. As a result, even the good ones face scrutiny.

Opportunism is something that we see all the time and in all different shapes and forms. Some people will inevitably take advantage of opportunity and some people will not. It is all a matter of incentives. Depending on a person’s values, they may find personal gain to be a better incentive or they may find helping others to be a better incentive. It all just depends on the person. 

Post #2: Experience in Organizations

Back when I was in high school, I volunteered every summer for a camp known as National Youth Leadership Training (NYLT) which was primarily associated with the Boy Scouts of America. This week long course (two weeks for staff) turned complete strangers into an efficient organization so that they may gain experience in team-building and goal-setting for use in future situations. This teaching would come about in the form of both seminar-styled lectures, led by assigned junior and adult staff, and the practical application of the aforementioned lectures.

The organization was structured as follows:

The participants were randomly separated into groups of six or seven. For training purposes, a new leader was selected each day so that they may experience the position firsthand. With the position came responsibilities such as attending certain daily meetings, reporting on the progress of the team, and delegation to subordinates.

The next level up included the junior staff (which I belonged to) which had a hierarchy within itself. With the exception of the junior staff leader and the assistant junior staff leader, both of which were selected by the adult staff in advance, junior staff members were randomly paired with a team of participants. This person’s responsibility would be to monitor and guide the assigned team very closely at first but to become increasingly indirect as the teams became more effective. They would also act as intermediary between participants and higher-level staff.

The adult staff had limited power. Responsibilities mostly included guiding junior staff members, logistics and communications for the camp as a whole, and assisting in cases of emergency.

What governed all members of the camp was the guidelines set forth by the higher and higher levels of the national program which eventually reported to the Boy Scouts of America somewhere up the chain of command. These guidelines addressed what should be taught and performed by the staff essentially outlining the ideal way to operate.

That being said, the organization of this camp mostly included systems of monitoring and guiding from the staff members. As the week went on, and participants became more confident and competent, the power shifted more and more into their favor.

While we were required to adhere fairly closely to the NYLT guidelines, the success or failure of the program was ultimately based on the participants. The staff had to conduct seminars and activities and otherwise present the tools for success. Occasionally, they had to ensure certain things would get completed. Other than that, success could be defined by the participants. This was something they were unused to, yet they consistently outperformed expectations by the end of the week. Many would choose to come back for the next year and onwards as junior staff.

So why did this work? Governance. Without the hierarchy, policies, and guidelines, the camp would fail. Through monitoring, motivation, and intermediaries, participants stayed focused and on track. In other words, there were transaction costs. In this particular instance, the staff was intrinsically motivated. They volunteered and found joy in fulfilling these responsibilities. Nevertheless, this system required governance and, by extension, transaction costs. The Boy Scouts of America had to monitor the NYLT program. The NYLT program had to monitor each subordinate position within itself down to the level that monitors individual camps. Finally, we reach the hierarchy described above.

The bottom line is that it works in this situation. The transaction costs are enormous, but there is an enormous number of volunteers who find enjoyment in it. Not to say wages have never come up. If the program continues to grow faster than the volunteer count does, additional incentive may be required to fulfill responsibilities. To my knowledge, this is not yet the case.

Glenn Hubbard Biography

Glenn Hubbard is a distinguished economist and current dean and Russell L. Carson Professor of Finance and Economics at Columbia Business School (CBS). His education includes a BA and BS which he obtained from the University of Central Florida in 1979 and an AM and PhD in economics from Harvard University which he earned in 1981 and 1983, respectively. Hubbard is also the co-director for the Richard Paul Richman Center for Business, Law, and Public Policy (2).

In addition, Hubbard has been chairman and co-chairman, both past and presently, of various councils, committees, clubs, and groups including the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors for which he acted as chairman from 2001 to 2003 (1). He has also applied his expertise to the U.S. government, serving as a consultant to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as well as deputy assistant of the U.S. Treasury Department (2).

Hubbard has written and co-written multiple books such as “The Aid Trap: Hard Truths about Ending Poverty,” “Balance: Why do great powers lose it? How can America regain it?” and “Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise: Five Steps to a Better Healthcare System.” He has also written and co-written several textbooks and over 100 articles on finance and economics (1).

Glenn Hubbard’s importance is a direct result of the work he has done in the fields of finance and economics. A combination of academia and government-related experience has allowed Hubbard to cultivate extensive knowledge that has since let him empower both students and government officials to make sound decisions and policies.

I was unaware of Glenn Hubbard before now. However, certain aspects of Hubbard’s career will be relevant to this class. For example, on the back cover of Hubbard and Anthony Patrick O’Brien’s book, titled “Economics,” it’s written that “The book motivates users by demonstrating how real business uses economics to make real decisions on a daily basis” (1). This feels very much aligned with what I expect to learn from the course material. Furthermore, Hubbard’s positions at CBS have him teaching business students and entrepreneurs (2). Regardless of opinions regarding Hubbard’s views on economics, business, and finance, his widespread knowledge and experience should be acknowledged.

As it so happens, rumor circulated that Hubbard had desire to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve. However, the position was given to Ben Bernanke. The following video was posted by MBA students at CBS as a result:

(1) http://glennhubbard.net/

(2) http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/cbs-directory/detail/rgh1

(Image) http://glennhubbard.net/images/stories/hubbard.jpg

(Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipJTqCbETog