|
meatcleaver -> RE: John Nash/Gaming Theory/Politics (3/21/2007 3:39:43 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: littlesarbonn
It's the reason why one can argue that two hostile countries next door to each other may hate each other for generations, but if there's enough communication going on between them, subsequent generations may not feel the hostilities that the originals did. But if separation continues, hostility grows because there's not ability for continued similarity growth.
You don't need mathmatics to work that one out!
The principle behind game theory in social management is that a management sets a series of targets and rewards to each individual in an organisation for reaching those targets. The idea being that rather than people cooperating in an organisation to make it function for mutual benefit, individuals compete with each other, the result being that the organisation runs more efficiently. According to adherents this same model could be applied to society as a whole so each member in society strategizes in the social market place to get the pay off they want.
Here is where the theory falls down. People set loose as individuals without loyalty to a group, family, colleagues, country, whatever, are subversive. Let's look at a public organisation. An individual is set a target by management (mathmatically worked to be achievable of course), however, management has worked out the target through theory and not practice, it is impossible for management to know all the practicalities of a job. Such as how can a hospital manager know all the practicalities of heart surgury and complications that could interfer with a surgeon's targets? The individual on seeing the target set him, realises that it is unachievable target, if he produces a 100% quality product or service for his target. So he has a dilemma, if he doesn't hit his target he will be penalized, if he hits the target he gets a reward, even if quality isn't 100%. Now the subject thinks, the organisation will show no loyalty towards him if he fails to reach the target so why should he feel any loyalty towards the organisation? The subject is aware he can reach the target if he cuts corners, creatively account his figures and basically fool the management into believing he has reached his target. The management is happy, he's happy and fuck the client, he'll have his bonus and by the time the client complains, hopefully it will be too late and he would have moved on to more fruitful pastures. (This really does happen, the client really does suffer as a consequence. I've seen it and experienced it). Both the management and the worker are fullfilling their targets but the job isn't getting done because no one cares about the client.
In a private company, the targets are commercial so it is all about profit. Let's look at a bus company. A manager has an area and is expected to make $X in that area. The easiest way to make a profit is to cut down on expenditure. That means cut out the low profit routes and lower the wages of staff. (This happens). What is left is an unmotivated driver who is looking for another job who couldn't give a toss about the company's customers and a none existent service for much of the population of that area. However, the manager is returning an increased profit. Follow this logic and you end up with a Thatcher style deregulated bus service as in most British cities, which incidently still requires subsidies for politically sensitive or socially needed areas (so much for the free market providing a service). Or you could have a centrally planned bus service like here that serves the whole community and costs no more in subsidies than British bus services but costs less to use and which people trust. So here, people leave their cars at home and use the buses while in England if you have a car, you wouldn't use a bus. My former brother in law studied public transport management in business studies and used American textbooks and had lectures from an American professor who was supposed to be a leader on such subjects. My brother in law said if they followed the American logic, the way to make a profit is to forget the service, which of course is what happened in Britain and what has not been allowed to happen here.
Just spread this to sort of logic to society as a whole and you have chaos which you have on Britains roads, in its health and education services and generally everywhere where this deseased theory has taken hold. Having lived in France and Germany, there really isn't a substitute for loyalty and no amount of targets and incentives replaces that because it is loyalty that makes one proud of what one provides, greed and individual gain encourages one to subvert the system and gain as much as one can for as little expensditure as possible.
|
|
|
|
