海盜們的流動力
買了本新推出的周刊，內附一份所謂財經資訊，當中寫了很多上市公司主席們的奮鬥史。
老實說，看了這些奮鬥史成功履歷多，非常厭倦。不是說看穿了他們的成功不外乎什麼秘訣、什麼個人努力，所以拿捏到什麼板斧絕技，而是看得多，開始發現沒有得著過。
太遙遠，不切身，力有不逮... Well，既然一切原因都錯在自己，這些奮鬥史，不看也罷。
碰巧今早竟看到AK與黑人等提及以「物理方式摧毀制度」（嘩，有意思，我鍾意），令我回想起 Pirates of the Caribbean。
那年Sid Meier 的Pirates!教我廢寢忘食。如今時刻都在回味，海盜這份職業，真是何等浪漫自由。
遊戲歸遊戲，我並沒有翻閱文獻仔細印證海盜們的生活和當海盜的動機，不過，既然我喜歡胡思亂想，不如就開開心心猜想一下一個普通人於十六十七世紀當加勒比海海盜的緣由。
嗯，我想海盜中有海島原居民，不少該是歐洲人和逃出來的奴隸。最初可能因為聽說新大陸機會多的是，反正在歐洲過著受壓迫的生活，不如來新大陸闖闖吧。
嗯，我想海盜中有兒女的雖有，但應該不多，估計多是年輕人。他們不知從哪裏聽說某大航海家到了新大陸落地生根奴隸成群好不奢華，又聽說某探險家發現了金礦還帶了貌美的美洲女郎回來，再聽說某赤貧鄰居居然成為大甘蔗園園主，甚至因為自己被貴族趕絕或希望逃避戰亂，於是便來到往新大陸的歐洲港口尋找機會。
嗯，我想很多去尋找機會的人都好夢成空。既然無法衣錦還鄉，況且身無長物，加上年少氣盛，在傷感中決定來個賭命。
嗯，我想作了海盜，要被稱作「成功」，簡單卻又不容易的目標，只是保存自己的性命直到退休為止。
嗯，我想那些年代，海盜們的 Successful Normal Retirement Date 平均大概不夠三十歲吧。
嗯，我想海盜這份職業，唯一可以被海盜們瞻仰的成功楷模，只有 Francis Drake。
嗯，我想很多海盜的首領大副二副們，都是目不識丁，甚至後天殘疾。能上位，皆因有些先天本事，而且，比其他海盜遲死。
嗯，我想很多海盜的首領大副二副們，都很容易需要提早退休的。
嗯，我想既然海盜的首領大副二副們，都退了休，其他海盜便有很多機會上位。
嗯，我想這看到海盜們的流動力。這種流動力，應該很高吧。
海盜之間的環境，是沒有制度約束的。但是無論「任何人」，對於「對方」沒有受到約束是不會感到舒服的。
所以歐洲各國的海軍於是逐漸收編海盜成為 Privateer，除了可以打擊其他海盜和敵對國的殖民地外，還可以必要時收編入正規海軍作保家衛國之用。海軍要約束海盜。
海盜能享受沒有制度的時間，只能存在於主權海域和正規海軍監視以外的地方，或在 pirate's haven，或在茫茫公海。而海盜能享受摧毀制度的樂趣，就當黃金白銀在眼前的時候。海盜不喜歡受約束。
好，且看何時可以退休，不再受約束。Sail Ho!
（我嘗試去感覺，新生代所受的 parental negligence，以及社會資訊的覆蓋度，能對他們作什麼影響。）
15 comments:
ha, do you like to play police or thief more when you were a kid, I wonder?
所有成功CEO既秘技：命！
CM所以俺已經無性趣睇，除左想學英文之外
Nic, the thief for most of the time. Let all the girls play police.
晶晶： 咦？學英文，我都係咁諗架！
（筆記）
1. 以海盜們非常fluid 的social mobility來印證 Incremental Mobility Model 能促進民主或Decentralized 政制的connection 仍屬premature。
2. "Order" is the more preferred for people with vision, as "Order" projects an image of "the choice to control" (people preference to control).
3. 了解新生代與父母的關係及兩者的溝通的模式，以及其對網絡資訊的應用方式，都有助recruiter及manager如何讓新生代增加對工作的熱情。
Do you mean more jelly powder or order will be preferred by most elite? e.g. people can prove themselves by studying harder and then get into a better position of control.
Then I think Jelly powder need to be at the correct proportion - e.g. I think too many graduates from too many U, basically make people undifferentiated and the society pay. New generation (mediocre) think that they have become "graduates" and therefore entitle to the reward of graduates of older generation (cream of the milk of the older generation). So, real elite (current generation) are unable to find the right place efficiently (as recruiters are mediocre as well, often choose mediocre from the bigger pool of graduates), some mediocre will end up controlling the clever. .... Wasting the elite a lot of time to reinvent. The real elite will eventually win but waste a lot of time. There are many elite who lose to mediocre because of situational/circumstantial factors. Hence, many fresh grad wait for public housing - among the applicants, some are those who should not be a graduate when there were limited U grad supply, some are really elites but lost the battle because of the system fault...
i.e. the sieve is losing its function. If a group of elite and mediocre salmons fight at the middle management level, then the mediocre salmon will surely win out of proportion. Reasons being a) chance, b) probability, c) the majority will choose those resemble them ie. mediocre will appreciate mediocre. So generally speaking companies are selecting a group of mediocre in a long run and the companies lose competitive edge. Since everyone are Bachelor degree, companies can't pay too little and there are insufficient supply of diploma/certificate graduates, who in turn ask for Bachelor's wages. So the wages have inflation relative to the quality of employee. In order to survive, companies need to cut the long-term benefits e.g. retirement package (those packages in the past worked well because employee were cheaper, ie. more workman kind of low level work force to support the company's real productivity). Hence, the grievance from "graduates" - who naturally will not admit the "moisture" (inflation) of their "degree".
As a result of a group of mediocre dominating the middle level, real elites have lower chance to find their way to the critical position and the teammates are mediocre (generate less positive chemical reaction) - industry will remain stagnant in terms of evolution - such as focusing on relatively simple strategies e.g. manage by objectives ... sales target alone (as mediocre middle management can't appreciate more abstract things. Consequently, this results in inefficiency of social mobility (both upward model and interaction model) of society.
(please delete the previous two, thanks)
＞＞people can prove themselves by studying harder and then get into a better position of control.
This is one of the perspectives. Not exactly studying harder, but knowing better how to set rules and constraints for subjects (subordinates) and opponents.
＞＞Jelly powder need to be at the correct proportion
Umm... when it comes to be "correct" or not, the question may first need to turn to "why" (objective-wise). In general, yes.
... The Road to Serfdom.
＞＞So generally speaking companies are selecting a group of mediocre in a long run and the companies lose competitive edge.
Yes! If companies base/reply too much on the "visible" (e.g. cert.), they would definitely lose the edge. I was thinking if the whole society is chasing after a very limited set of measures that are too "visible", social mobility would be hampered. 施永青 had once said that the (HK) govt. at this stage should not do any. The more the govt do, the less fluid the mobility. To a certain extent, I agree with him. If the govt (and politician and even you or me alike) tries to promote mobility by setting up more rules, things will go worse. (Therefore I personally distaste the 資歷架構 which has been already in place for a few years)
Elites distinguished themselves by what they do not by what they look (i.e. the qualifications they have). On the contrary, the demands in the society favor unknowingly and collectively towards the visible. The vicious circle starts with their elite parents - wanting more and more control over their children and over the society.
Hm with respect to your and my formulation, I have already come up to a plausible solution. I think elites distinguish themselves by their abilities but not my their "knowledge". We have no way to judge how much "knowledge" an applicant has, so we generally use "資歷" or "qualification" to equate with "the amount of knowledge in one's head". Over supply of degrees is only an inflation of knowledge - one reason could explain why 資歷架構 has been breaking down. The visible certificate =/= invisible capabilities in 2009. To stretch our imagination, we can consider a scenario of building 5 more uni such that 80% of students can have a uni degree. As everyone has a ticket to qualify for a middle management job interview, there will be many pseudo-elites being able to get into the key position by sheer chance or whatever reasons including "birds of the same feather flock together". (assuming interviewers are generally choose by instincts and interviewee have numerous ways of deception)
Not to set more rules, but to rebuild the sieve.
In my eyes, children of helicopter parents are not really elites. There are more chance to be pseudo-elites nowadays under the current societal preference. haha let's stir it up.
FYI, what's meant by 資歷架構 here is actually an initiative by the govt.
http://www.hkqf.gov.hk/
Umm, technically being an idiot of economics, I would say over supply of degrees would likely cause such "inflation" of knowledge. Yet, this inflation causes more damage on expectation rather than on the substance. To me, "inflated" knowledge would slowly pump up the capital of the society but the pace pumping up such capital is far slower than the knowledge content itself, causing a general loss of direction. Tragic. But, I think exporting knowledge is one of the feasible choices that, from the point of view of the society as a whole, helps strengthen the human capital of the place in the long run, by a centripetal (inward) network.
Yes, you are right. We lack imagination. Stir it up!
Hi CM,
Q) what does centripetal network refer to?
Q) the pace pumping up such capital is far slower than the knowledge content itself, causing a general loss of direction? Err... me too my econ is only "intro to econ" level :) , do you mean knowledge capital, i.e. the knowledge has transform to resource?
I tend to think the more tertiary edu opportunity, the more knowledge capital the society will have. Basically, everyone are more "knowledgeable" - that is the good points. However, university level knowledge in the hand of mediocre's mind (abilities) will breed misdirected effort in a confident manner. For example, a nurse knows all the medical terms and is used to see different symptoms and signs. She will be proud in front of a patient. One day, she is in charge. She will automatically assume a decision maker role. In some outreaching settings, nurses often will be the core team player, they will use the medical knowledge to guide the fate of the patients in a negligence manner. They are used to superficial signs and symptoms, so they draw diagnostic impression in one second - for example, see hand shaking, they will boldly say "it is drug side-effects" etc.. So knowledge in the hand of an average brain does not necessarily help.
Oh, I have heard of 資歷架構 but forgotten this initiative. I think there are good and bad, but overall, it will move HK into a high wages low mobility society alike the problems in developed countries. Personally, I am with you, against this because it will increase the barrier of entry, and create the similar problems I have depicted e.g. 10 universities scenario. It will creates many groups that fight for themselves making any change in strategic policies difficult. The supporting systems will enlarge like a monster. Things will be very expensive too. Societal development become stagnant and become very "left". Education system is not doing its job well and then create another system to make things complicated.
see hand shaking--> saw hand-tremor,
Hi Nic,
A1) Centripetal network - the attraction towards the centre and its associated network through export of intellectuals (or professionals and whosoever carries the knowledge)
A2) My econ is at kinder level. =p
Basically, you are right. You may perceive there's a thick rubber bands tied up between a fat boy (who runs slowly) and an athlete. When the athlete runs, the fat boy may tie down the athlete; but on the other hand, the athlete can pull forward the fat boy.
Athlete alone runs very fast, only if he is not carrying the fat boy.
******
Yeah, I also started to witness that some nurses are really powerful sources of authority on medical treatment. Some of my colleagues even believed the obviously unbelieveable crap claimed casually by the nurse (that particular nurse in one case) and didn't realize the nurse was just applying panacea and implying: "go la, don't bother to ask the doctor la".
Perhaps the nature of my colleague's case may not be exactly the same as yours. There may be situations people did not do it on purpose.
Re: 資歷架構
Yes, I agree that there are goods and bads. But I don't like it as it tends to overly focus on govt intervention and standards on the market. Of course, one may argue by standardizing all the certs and degrees, it is for "our good" so that employers can have a easier reference while employees alike may see clearer what career path is in front.
However and however, the "accreditation" has made no contribution to the "physical safety" or "financial health" that requires legislative intervention and limitation. Freedom of choice (information) is misled, mobility is suppressed.
I don't like it.
資歷架構 sounds politically correct and therefore is welcome by everyone. Sadly, you will see a huge growth of "professionalism" - causing a lot of strange phenomena such as powerful groups and poor customer service due to boosted esteem and labour force.
Of course, with regards to certain traditional professions,the professional bodies and peers will have "some" ethical codes and there are trainings in ethical practice during formal education (we've internalized into our beliefs). Whereas for most other jobs, "physical safety" and "financial health" are something that need to (but not yet) build into the education or legislation.
However, I am pessimistic about the feasibility to educate such an abstract idea. Ethical and professional practice requires high level judgement/reasoning and more time-consuming, it is something that can't be talked publicly. People make snap-shot decision or diagnosis was because of - 1) they think what they know is the whole picture, so why not take fast action, 2) they have an self-concept (self-identity) as a profession, 3) unclear concepts but used to teach people ....
I believe in division of labour in a society, egalitarians but not everybody the same (ie. doctor in tailoring is not equal to doctor in business - one should respect both but not trust both the same amount in making a decision)
Post a Comment