It's beside the point, but Apple has a low stock price. PE < 17. Frank
Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Mar 15, 2017 6:17 PM, "glen ☣" <[email protected]> wrote: > No, you didn't miss the gist of the thread, which is: > > there seem to be all these unfilled tech jobs, but that polymaths don't > generally get placed/maintained in them unless there's something special > about the organization. > > My claim is that individuals within those organizations _make_ the > environments that facilitate polymaths, not the organizations, themselves. > To run with your "ideology" idea, I would claim any putative org-layer > ideology would reduce entirely to individual-layer ideology. I.e. in order > for an organization to be (somehow) "ideological" distinguishable from a > naive aggregation of the ideologies of its current constituents, we'd have > to identify constituent-independent org structures that implement that > org-layer ideology. To falsify my claim, we need only identify a common > org structure through the orgs we choose to identify (some Xerox, Sun, > Apple, Venice, Redfish, etc.) as facilitating the good experience Owen > described. Then, perhaps provide a mechanistic explanation for why that > org structure is capable of implementing org-layer ideology. > > One part of such an org structure might be "soft money" or "black budgets" > ... a kind of free energy usable by motivated bureaucrats. Typical start > ups don't really have that sort of money. But large organizations like > Intel, Xerox, the CIA, or government general contractors probably do. > Another one might be publicly traded companies with very high stock prices > (like Apple), where they feel comfortable acquiring more debt or have > liquid assets available to provide a robust response to failure. But in > either of those cases, your criticism holds: motivated constituents can > defect and abuse their freedom. So, to falsify my claim, some other org > structures must be in place. What are they? > > On 03/15/2017 03:05 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > I may have missed the gist of the thread. I thought the observation was > that there were exceptional places to work that were able to maintain and > grow a talented and productive staff. What makes them different? Perhaps > it is that they are ideological and are not just concerned about the number > of gold stars that come with each participant. In contrast, there's the > possibility that this kind of technology grows without that deep > motivation, and just for the sake of growing. > > -- > ☣ glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
