Wed Nov 04 17:51:40 1998
Subject: Re: Idiosyncratic Business Practices



> > conformance to an arbitrary standard is a sign of common mindset,
> > which results in an effect called 'syntony'.   that's a precursor to
> > friendship, and is also crucial in gelling a team.   whatever other
> > differences there are among the players, there's a home base of
> > commonality.
> 
>    Yes, a demonstration of respect and willingness to partake in the
> common effort.

willingness has very little to do with syntony per se.   all it means
is that a group of individuals have shared a common experience, and
know it.   it's similar to conditioning.. it just happens.   whether
you want it to or not is irrelevant.

clothing is a visual cue that identifies others who are likely to be
having the same reaction.   you can get syntony if you put a group of
people in a room, half of whom are dressed in red, half in blue, and
give all the blues a vibrating pager.   buzz the pagers at random times,
and the blues will develop syntony. afterwards, the color blue will be
symbolically associated with that experience.   if you take away the
visual cue, and keep people from knowing who else has a pager, you can
provide exactly the same stimulii, but won't generate syntony.

that kind of syntony has little or no emotional association with
mutual respect or shared goals, but it forms a primitive we/they
mapping in the subjects' minds.   it's easy to leverage that into
esprit de corps, but they're different things.



> "Get away"... But what is the opportunity cost of that "getting
> away"?

valid question..   

in my case, the opportunity cost is limited stability, and a harder
sell up front.   i accept both of those, because they fit the kind of
work i've chosen to do.   i generally focus on building new systems,
not on maintenance, upgrade, or repair.

design and setup are inherently closed activities, because you have to
hand the system over to the maintenance team eventually.   therefore,
ongoing projects aren't a desirable goal for me.   instead, i focus on
repeat work.   that's awarded largely on the quality of previous work,
at which point social factors like wardrobe are less important.

having to work to get a contract doesn't bother me, for two reasons.
first, i have faith in my ability to deliver good quality.   second,
startup projects are inherently risky, and far too many are doomed
from day one.   when i interview with an employer, they're
interviewing with me.   they don't have all the power, and i learn a
lot watching people deal with that concept.



> > land-owners want their paid assasins to *look*
> > like paid assasins, so a certain difference of appearance is expected,
> > and accepted.
> 
> Um... I suppose where they want a hired gun type solution...  which
> usually means the lower echelons, and as of late, they have to grovel
> before a lot more people to get approval to hire the gun.

i think we're using different myth patterns.   the archetype i'm
talking about doesn't deal with subordinates.   the contract
originates at the top of the heirarchy, precisely because the person
on top doesn't want to give an underling that kind of power.

if the person i report to doesn't have the authority to defend my
project and my decisions within the organization, i won't take the
contract.   i have better things to do with my time than prop up a
lost cause.



> With a get up like that... if your reputation and work didn't precede
> you...

*grin*

they don't see the combat boots until one is wedged firmly in the
door.

at that point, the fact that i challenge expectations is both an
assessment tool and a bargaining point for me.   if an interviewer
writes me off because i don't look right, i probably don't want to
work for that company.   if they choke at bad hair, they'll freak out
completely at the thought of doing something which is: A) unexpected,
B) time consuming, and C) expensive, but necessary.   besides, who
wants an innovator who doesn't challenge any assumptions?

i'm also partial to doing pro-bono work.   most organizations are
willing to accept free labor, even if it comes from the scruffy man.
good arganizations want to keep good people when they find them, so if
my work is valuable to them, they'll pay just to keep me on hand.. i'm
a busy guy, after all, what with all those /other/ free projects i
do..  ;-)




free labor is a lot like free software.   it's a gift culture rather
than an exchange culture.   most of the power is vested in the party
that does the giving.   exchange cultures are dominated by whoever has
the generic unit of exchange, aka: money.   

running a gift economy in paralell with the exchange economy balances
things out a bit.   you have to offer money to coax a giver into
playing by the rules of the exchange economy at all.   exchange
cultures take the concept of private property, and all the rights that
implies, for granted.   in a paralell gift/exchange culture, money is
no longer exchanged for work, it's exchanged for the rights of
property themselves.   that gives producers a lot more power, because
money is no longer the only mechanism of compensation in town.



hmm.. interesting thought.. gift economies invalidate the concept of
property, so i can see them playing hell with derivative concepts like
taxation.   governments can nail you for tax-evasion, but i can't see
them doing anything about property-evasion.   methinks the person who 
learns how to play the conversions between gifting and exchange will 
make out like a bandit.