LO'ers:
Richard sent this back aying he would not post it until I made it clearer.
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Jesse W. White wrote:
> Isn't it "zero sum" gain as in the means equal the ends, therefore other
> objectives or motivators must be desired?
>
> Jesse White
I don't mean tobe too picky. However, I am reading "zero sum" game, when
I believe the actual term is "zero sum gain." This is in reference to a
balance sheet or income statement and means that what was invested in a
particular venture added no financial value to the "bottom line." In the
context of this thread, and in context of win-lose, competitiveness,
customer relations, etc. the zero sum is in the balance of what means are
employed and o what end.
Okay, now we have the balance of means and ends.
If the end is customer service, what does the organizational motive of
investment return to the organization? Look at how company success is
measured. Increases in income. Increases in stock values. Increases in
innovation. Increases in market share. And so on. These are quantitative
measures that can be "summed."
So, euphemistically, we approach the qualitative side of the business with
a similar context. That somehow learning, customer focus, and perhaps
other "goodwill" such as social responsibility, sacrificing profit for
employee relations, and permastructure are contextually the same as
quantitative measures. Thus means and ends are available to drop on the
same scale as financial measures.
In my short reasponse, I meant that these are not similar measures and
corporate survivability can be mutually beneficial. However, I do not see
this *qualitatively* as a means/end or win/lose equation.
When it comes to customer-defined outcomes, either you can live up to
those expectations or not. But, I do not see the sense in placing these
issues in any other planning area but values.
hence. . .
"Industry without art is brutality" - Coomaraswamy
Jesse W. White
jeswhite@comp.uark.edu
> On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Winfried Dressler wrote:
>
> > Even in a "zero-sum" game, there is a big difference whether you desire to
> > win yourself or whether you desire your competitor to lose. It is a
> > different focus. For example it is difficult to establish a customer focus
> > and to value "customer satisfaction" if you have no focus on "win".
> >
> > Every pricing is a competitive situation in your sense: One dollar for me
> > is one dollar less for you. But it is also a typical "win-win-situation":
> > You pay me for the value I deliver to you.
> >
> > Thus the situation between supplier and customer is typically highly
> > competitive and collaborative.
[Host's Note: Thanks, Jesse, for expanding from the first version of the
msg. ...Rick]
--"Jesse W. White" <jeswhite@comp.uark.edu>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>