In the article" How to Get the Rich to Share", it shows a character that is long lost in the business would, that is fairness. There are some experiment in the article to demonstrate how the fairness is displayed in a toddlers world. The conclusion is simple enough: Rich people do not want to give up or do any thing for the poor because they already have everything. When there is a first come first serve or privilege scenario, the one who got the first would not want to do anything for the second, in which create a gap between the rich and the poor would only be bigger and bigger.
In the actual world, all people would only do is to look out for their own best interest. With the fast pace of development of the world, people tend to forget about collaboration because all they care is to get stuffs that matters to them as much as possible. Take basketball for example, star athletes are rich because they have the skills that could influence the game that other regular athletes night not. They are rich not just because of what they can do, but also about what they can do to the team. Michael Jordan is no doubt the greatest NBA player in history. Nobody else can play the way he plays on the court. However, if you imagine that there was no Scott Pippen by his side to support him, he might still won the championship ring, but it's not going to be an easy road and he might not achieve what he has achieved in history. Also, Steve Nash is one of the most legendary player in history. He is not known for his dunks, he is not known for his three point shots. What he is known is for his passes. Nash might not won a single championship in his career, but he is already a legend because he knows how to be a team player.
For business man, this team work might not be practical because things get more complicated when it involves profit. If two business man are fighting over for a same client that could bring a lot more profit to their own business, they would not collaborate when they have the same information on the client or has the same offer to the client because they do not want to split the profit. When the scenario is changed into where one man has more information than the other, this man would also not help out the other, because this unfairness is the reason to win the client.
People learn to take chances to get what they wanted, it might seems to be a good approach for individuals. However, when people in a team wanted to be get what they wanted as individuals, it would harm the efficiency of the team. Ted Williams once said the hardest thing to do is to hit a baseball, round ball, round bat and you have to hit it square.You may feel like it's a solitary sport, but the truth is you are one out of nine. It is good to get what you wanted when you helped your team to achieve something, but you have to always keep in mind that you are not just relying on them, they are also relying on you.
It is interesting to me, and a bit sad too, that you didn't get the meaning of the experiment with marbles. Sharing did occur there, but only in certain instances. What instances were those? In your first paragraph, you wrote that the rich would never share. But if the experiment with the marbles shows something basic about human nature, then that is not true. Sometimes, the rich would share. When would that be?
ReplyDeleteYour examples with Michael Jordan may begin to have the elements of what to write about, but instead of considering Scottie Pippen, you might have instead talked about John Paxson and Steve Kerr. Those guys scored off the pass only. They were great outside shooters but otherwise not great players. Michael Jordan often got the assist to one of them as he'd be double teamed, he find the shooter in the corner, unguarded, and trusted the shooter to make the shot. It was a winning formula, one that made the team better than a collection of individuals.
I admit that I did not get the full idea of the different experiment in the article. I know that sharing is not that often because of certain situations. The blog i‘m writing is more based on the nature that is more suited to the world that i known of, so some of the situations I might not included. I believe that rich would share when there is a greater interest in the situation of sharing.
DeleteI must say i'm really impressed that you are so familiar with NBA player, because I believe you like golf and baseball. I agree with your winning formula. I understand that on the court it is better to trust your teammate than just head on and charging.