19. Occasionally an organization can successfully lower its maze level and change its culture, but this is expensive and rare heroic behavior. Usually this requires a bold leader and getting rid of a lot of people, and the old organization is effectively replaced with a new one, even if the name does not change. A similar house cleaning happens more naturally in the other direction when and as maze levels rise.
I don't think there has been enough turnover of staff for this to actually be effective. However I would say that the difference between those executives hired before and after his arrival is noticeable. The number of levels has been reduced somewhat (10 -> 8 ish) and the structure simplified. As a result I think its kind of well known who you need to speak to if you actually want anything to get done.
So yeah, I'd say there's been progress but the culture of the organisation is still held back by those who are comfortable in the maze.
I should say that the company isn't nearly as bad as the worst described in the sequence but there are certainly departments within the company which feel very maze-like.
Just to keep this up-to-date, I think V2 of this post addresses my concerns and I consider this an excellent fit for the 2018 review.
This post matches very strongly with my experiences both in a growing company attempting to resist becoming maze-like and in a larger company with a new CEO attempting to reduce maze-structure.
For the points r.e. nations do you have examples or are they just inferences (which, to be fair, seem reasonable)?
Zvi made a reference post to the Kelly Criterion a while back which might be a good starting point.
This is an interesting idea. Essentially you penalise dishonesty by making the pot smaller.
This works provided one player doesn’t predictably have a lower maximum bet and can then increase their maximum bet (and therefore the overall pot) while simultaneously misrepresenting their believed odds.
Did you consider using the Kelly Criterion for the mini-bets instead of using a flat rate? I’m not sure how this would affect the result but I suspect it might have some nice properties.
I recognised the humour and was responding in kind - specifically that if we are destroyed by aliens then I’m unlikely to be in a position to pay you what I owe...
Working perfectly now :)
The right hand side of the interface isn't working for me - the scroll bar looks like its scrolling down but the text doesn't move. I'm using Firefox.
FWIW, I agree that it is good/important for mods to be able to state their own opinions freely. My only worry was that a book form of the review might lose this nuance if this is not stated explicitly.
I just realised my own voting (and I suspect that of most people) was inefficient.
Once I decided on all of my votes I should have decreased all of the votes by 1, including putting a -1 vote on any that I had previously been neutral on (ignoring the off-by-one error thing for the moment).
This wouldn't have changed the net effect of my vote but would have given me extra points to spend (the small cost of paying for negative results would have been more than offset by the large benefit from decreasing the positive votes).
I think most other people made the same mistake (well, it's a mistake if voting effect size was a high priority rather than, say, speed) due to the large number of neutral votes (~71%) and the ratio between positive vs negative votes (4.8 : 1) although both of these might have been effected somewhat by the off-by-one correction.