<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Organizational Mediocrity is No Accident</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/organizational-mediocrity-is-no-accident/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/organizational-mediocrity-is-no-accident/</link>
	<description>taking the most charitable view of those who disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2020 16:41:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.32</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ajay</title>
		<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/organizational-mediocrity-is-no-accident/#comment-6133</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ajay]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2013 17:39:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/?p=357#comment-6133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But that raises the question, what is the point of a large corporation in the first place?  I suspect that if one were to do &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a proper Coaseian analysis today&lt;/a&gt;, you could not justify any large firm out there.  This is why I think there will be no more middle managers in a couple decades, as all these large firms will go bust in the coming years.  Perhaps somewhat larger firms made sense in an industrial era, when there was large capital equipment to be owned and serviced, but these firms make almost no sense in the information era that we are transitioning to.  That marks the large corporation as a dinosaur that&#039;s soon approaching its extinction. :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But that raises the question, what is the point of a large corporation in the first place?  I suspect that if one were to do <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm" rel="nofollow">a proper Coaseian analysis today</a>, you could not justify any large firm out there.  This is why I think there will be no more middle managers in a couple decades, as all these large firms will go bust in the coming years.  Perhaps somewhat larger firms made sense in an industrial era, when there was large capital equipment to be owned and serviced, but these firms make almost no sense in the information era that we are transitioning to.  That marks the large corporation as a dinosaur that&#8217;s soon approaching its extinction. <img src="http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guy</title>
		<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/organizational-mediocrity-is-no-accident/#comment-5447</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Guy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:53:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/?p=357#comment-5447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems like every system, as opposed to the public ones in particular, is subject to this mediocrity. Whether or not competition is present, we organize to reduce risk. If we organize to reduce risk, we seem to gain stability, though it sometimes comes at the cost of innovation. At this point, the question becomes one of specific tradeoffs rather than a general statement about public vs private institutions. If finance is a risky endeavor that rewards brilliance, then we should probably pay more respect to the stability that seems to come with mediocrity.

I also question your conclusion that only competition drives improvement. It seems unlikely to me that the military is immune to competition given that it is an industry of war and given that it seems to be fundamentally changing. Further, many competitors lose the motivation to improve over time, even though the level of competition remains high (Kobe Bryant, for example, is celebrated because he seems uniquely motivated to improve after playing basketball for over a decade). Many that do not compete are nevertheless motivated by their own goals.

I&#039;d direct your attention to self determination theory if you are not already aware of it. I&#039;d also direct your attention to the psychology of creativity.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems like every system, as opposed to the public ones in particular, is subject to this mediocrity. Whether or not competition is present, we organize to reduce risk. If we organize to reduce risk, we seem to gain stability, though it sometimes comes at the cost of innovation. At this point, the question becomes one of specific tradeoffs rather than a general statement about public vs private institutions. If finance is a risky endeavor that rewards brilliance, then we should probably pay more respect to the stability that seems to come with mediocrity.</p>
<p>I also question your conclusion that only competition drives improvement. It seems unlikely to me that the military is immune to competition given that it is an industry of war and given that it seems to be fundamentally changing. Further, many competitors lose the motivation to improve over time, even though the level of competition remains high (Kobe Bryant, for example, is celebrated because he seems uniquely motivated to improve after playing basketball for over a decade). Many that do not compete are nevertheless motivated by their own goals.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d direct your attention to self determination theory if you are not already aware of it. I&#8217;d also direct your attention to the psychology of creativity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Floccina</title>
		<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/organizational-mediocrity-is-no-accident/#comment-5433</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Floccina]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:07:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/?p=357#comment-5433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Di you mean to say?:
“I think that mediocrity is not the natural state of organizations. Only the discipline of competition serves to bring about improvement.”]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Di you mean to say?:<br />
“I think that mediocrity is not the natural state of organizations. Only the discipline of competition serves to bring about improvement.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Georg Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/organizational-mediocrity-is-no-accident/#comment-5379</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Georg Thomas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:14:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/?p=357#comment-5379</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I think that mediocrity is the natural state of organizations. Only the discipline of competition serves to bring about improvement.&quot;

Brilliant. 

I couldn&#039;t agree more.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I think that mediocrity is the natural state of organizations. Only the discipline of competition serves to bring about improvement.&#8221;</p>
<p>Brilliant. </p>
<p>I couldn&#8217;t agree more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
