Comments on: the TRAGEDY of the commons http://eschipul.com/2009/10/the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ Web Marketing, PR, Sociology, Photography Sat, 12 May 2012 06:56:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dan Keeney http://eschipul.com/2009/10/the-tragedy-of-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-9083 Dan Keeney Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:34:22 +0000 http://eschipul.com/?p=2257#comment-9083 This is really about social norms. I love watching Mad Men because it illustrates how different life is today. In one episode, the Draper family goes to the park for a picnic. At the end of their day of relaxation, they fold up the blanket and picnic basket and head back to the car. Leaving all their trash sitting there. It is just the way we lived in 1960. Similarly, your young staff may have different social norms than you and others when it comes to house/office cleaning. If their parents were like mine, the solution was to keep the door to their room closed. In college, they may not have thought twice about making a pot of coffee in a dirty coffee pot. One solution would be to formally rotate responsibility for cleaning -- with a quick overview of your expectations. With 25 or so employees, each would only be responsible for two weeks each year. I think you would find that formally putting this burden on each person would CREATE the social pressure that you've described. These same people who today soil the coffee pot will badger their work mates. This is really about social norms. I love watching Mad Men because it illustrates how different life is today. In one episode, the Draper family goes to the park for a picnic. At the end of their day of relaxation, they fold up the blanket and picnic basket and head back to the car. Leaving all their trash sitting there. It is just the way we lived in 1960. Similarly, your young staff may have different social norms than you and others when it comes to house/office cleaning. If their parents were like mine, the solution was to keep the door to their room closed. In college, they may not have thought twice about making a pot of coffee in a dirty coffee pot. One solution would be to formally rotate responsibility for cleaning — with a quick overview of your expectations. With 25 or so employees, each would only be responsible for two weeks each year. I think you would find that formally putting this burden on each person would CREATE the social pressure that you've described. These same people who today soil the coffee pot will badger their work mates.

]]> By: eschipul http://eschipul.com/2009/10/the-tragedy-of-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-8804 eschipul Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:52:58 +0000 http://eschipul.com/?p=2257#comment-8804 Yes on "Being ticketed is costly and irrational, thus throwing trash out of my window is now irrational." - but in that example there is no fee associated with throwing your trash out. In other companies this --> "And since when do people always act rationally? If someone wants to be irrational and offers to clean the coffee pot, why not just let them?" while quite rude (social), is probably true. However in a company with profit sharing it makes no sense for an experienced coworker being the coffee-martyr because other workers are lazy. The company as a whole is less profitable, which reduces everyone's income. In short, any sub-optimal use of resources hurts everyone. Furthermore, regarding the coffee-cleaning-martyr solution, you could also argue that whoever would offer such a thing was simply trolling to find out the morality of their workers. Would anyone actually say “yes” to such a ridiculous non-scalable non-sustainable solution? Is the leadership so bad that they would not see through it? And if so, should I even work here? … Let’s just say I’d be suspicious of such an offer. It would be irrational. All of that said, the break room and the commons are not exactly the same. But they are similar enough to make my point. Or so I thought… Yes on "Being ticketed is costly and irrational, thus throwing trash out of my window is now irrational." – but in that example there is no fee associated with throwing your trash out.

In other companies this –> "And since when do people always act rationally? If someone wants to be irrational and offers to clean the coffee pot, why not just let them?" while quite rude (social), is probably true. However in a company with profit sharing it makes no sense for an experienced coworker being the coffee-martyr because other workers are lazy. The company as a whole is less profitable, which reduces everyone's income. In short, any sub-optimal use of resources hurts everyone.

Furthermore, regarding the coffee-cleaning-martyr solution, you could also argue that whoever would offer such a thing was simply trolling to find out the morality of their workers. Would anyone actually say “yes” to such a ridiculous non-scalable non-sustainable solution? Is the leadership so bad that they would not see through it? And if so, should I even work here? … Let’s just say I’d be suspicious of such an offer. It would be irrational.

All of that said, the break room and the commons are not exactly the same. But they are similar enough to make my point. Or so I thought…

]]> By: jmoswalt http://eschipul.com/2009/10/the-tragedy-of-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-8801 jmoswalt Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:19:29 +0000 http://eschipul.com/?p=2257#comment-8801 I think Irrational Individual Behavior leads to a Rational Group Result. The three solutions you offer only impose restrictions to create a more rational alternative for the person. Ex: Normally I would throw my trash out of my car window (because it is rational), but the fear of being ticketed, along with societal pressures, make properly disposing of my trash rational. Being ticketed is costly and irrational, thus throwing trash out of my window is now irrational. With these laws in place, a *rational* individual results in a *rational* group result. (Now they match). But if people act irrationally, that will now result in an irrational group result. And since when do people always act rationally? If someone wants to be irrational and offers to clean the coffee pot, why not just let them? I think Irrational Individual Behavior leads to a Rational Group Result. The three solutions you offer only impose restrictions to create a more rational alternative for the person.

Ex: Normally I would throw my trash out of my car window (because it is rational), but the fear of being ticketed, along with societal pressures, make properly disposing of my trash rational. Being ticketed is costly and irrational, thus throwing trash out of my window is now irrational.

With these laws in place, a *rational* individual results in a *rational* group result. (Now they match). But if people act irrationally, that will now result in an irrational group result.

And since when do people always act rationally? If someone wants to be irrational and offers to clean the coffee pot, why not just let them?

]]>