I think a team production with a gift exchange element could be something as follows. Two people are presented with two boxes. Each person gets to choose a box, and each box contains a different amount of cookies. The amount of cookies in the boxes varies, and the two boxes do not necessary contain the same amount of cookies. It would then be up to the two people to decide if they keep the cookies in the box they chose, or if they open the two boxes together and divide the cookies evenly. This is related to the first reading in that two children were pulling a rope and would each receive a certain amount of marbles. It was then up to the children to decide if they keep the unequal destitution of the marbles, or if they decided to equalize the distribution amongst the two of them. This is also related to the idea in the second reading, “When a child thinks life is unfair use game theory”, where the author expresses that people in evolved want things to be fair. However, one individuals perspective on what is fair may be different than what another person perceives as fair in the same given situation. 

 It would be interesting to see if grown adults would portray the same sense of sharing as the little kids with the marbles did in the first article. In this article the author describes how the child who has less than the other child would want to have the same amount as the child who had more, or would at least want the amount each child to have to be even. Suprisingly to me the children were kind in sharing the marbles, and the child with the greater amount would give the child with the lesser amount of marbles some of theirs so they each had an equal distribution of marbles. I'm not sure how the level of sharing would play out with adults, but I do think the circumstances matter and play a role in whether someone is willing to share or evenly distribute their "prize" in a given game. 

 I think that the nature of what is being shared, and how much of it there is, are factors that contribute to a person's willingness to share. For example I think people would be more willing to share their prize of baked good than they would be of sharing a cash prize. In addition I think the amount of a given prize also is a factor in how much a person is willing to share their prize. For example I think a person who won 5 cookies would be less likely to share their cookie prizes than someone who won 500 cookies. The person who won 500 hundred cookies would be more willing to share their prize of the cookies. I think this idea can also be applied to the prize of money as well. For example I think a person who won $500 would be less willing to share their prize with others than a person who won $5,000,000. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

blog post 3

This past summer I had the opportunity to work on a small team of seven. This team was a small group within a company that had many groups. The structure of the groups was determined by function and the company split the functions of the teams based on skills and mission. I was a part of the Business Solutions team, which was a consulting team that worked with both internal and external groups. Other teams within the company included Sales, Marketing, Professional Services, Product Management, Finance, Customer Collections, and various other groups. The management structure of the Business Solutions group, that I was a part of this summer, was most similar to the organizational structure described as “dual authority” from the Chapter 5 reading of the organization of teams.  The Business Solutions Group at the company I worked for this summer, Accuity, had 5 full-time employees who sat as members of the team, one intern, myself, and one rotational position. It is common for com...
Read more

Blog Post 2

On campus I am apart of two student organizations, Tamid and Student Advocacy Coalition, due to the different functions of these organizations they have slightly varried organizational structures comparatively. The Student Advocacy Coalition is a slightly unique as a student organization, because the club works directly with University Alumni Association employees. At the top of the hierarchal organizational structure would be the Alumni Association faculty members who are the sponsors of the organization, and help link our organization with the Alumni Association. Directly below the Alumni Association, in the hierarchal origination structure, would be the executive board members of the organization. The Student Advocacy Coalition usually has between 5-7 executive members depending on the year. There are various positions on the executive board, and at the top of the hierarchal organization of the just the executive board of this organization, would be the president who works most clo...
Read more

blog post 5

Are the themes from one post that tie into other posts? if so, what are those connections? In the second and third post, the connection of various costs can be made. In the second blog post, we focused on transaction costs that occur, while in the third post we focused on working on various teams. I think it is interesting to consider that there may also be transaction costs when working with a team. I think it would be interesting to further work to understand the various transaction costs that are faced by teams, or the various transaction costs within a given team. Both the second and third blog post focuses on teams and organizations and although there may be a distinction between a given team versus an organization, I believe it is relevant to note the similarities between the two functions. In many ways, an organization is just a large team, often made up of various smaller teams. I think it is interesting to think about the structure of an individual team versus an organizati...
Read more