First of all, I am sorry for posting this a little late (it is Tuesday). I have spent last week at AECT where I presented twice (with Dr. Jay Harriman and with Dr. Robert Maribe Branch). Unfortunately, I also got sick due to the air conditions in California. I was not able to complete the week reading until today. Sorry if this caused incovenience to someone else. I guess that it still fine to publish my post today (is anyone out there reading it, after all? :-)). I do not like to be late and just wanted to justify. Hopefully, it will be fine - I have contacted the instructor by e-mail on this matter, but did not receive a response so far.
The book that I chose is this: Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm, by Yochai Benkler. I have finished reading this book with an overall good impression about it. It does not bring a dull language (except in rare cases when the discussion gets too much into the realms of business and management) and the author gets straight to the point the he wants to make (pretty much like my own writting style).
The book investigates the phenomenon of large-scalle collaboration systems (peer collaboration) and as the author explains, this endeavour is "intended solely to define the phenomenon and assess its sustainability and welfare effects in general terms." Against all old economical beliefs, this type of collaboration has survived and flourished, reaching sustainability. The author constantly contrasts this new kind of "business" with the traditional commercial types of firms. This new collaborative system has posed challenges to the old organization theory and represents a new cultural production system.
I guess that the open education movement can learn a lot about motivational issues with this book, since it analyzes why people are motivated to collaborate for non-profit reasons. Also, it analyzes why the large-scale collaboration systems can be sustainable. Sustainability here is due to these factors, according to the author: modular work, granularity and low cost integration.
As for motivation, there are social and psychological gains that money does provide. Well, this is not a new concept in this course, but the book analyzes in detail how this occurs in comparison to the traditional types of business. The author states:
"We see similar social-psychological reward structures to reward and motivate participation in other practices that produce high positive externalities that would be difficult fully to compensate in monetary terms, like teaching; military service; or uncorrupt political, cultural, or spiritual leadership. Similarly, to the extent that peer production can harness motivations that do not require monetization of the contribution, the information produced using this model can be released freely, avoiding the inefficiencies associated with the public goods problem of information.
Motivation is also tied to the new cultural approach that has emmerged with peer-collaboration: the decision-making process got decentralized, for instance, what makes individuals free to create and to identify the tasks that they would like to perform. Is there a better thing than not having a boss or a supervisor (who might ultimately know less than you?). In my opinion, this factor is the most attractive one. Also, since you become part of a community, you are instigated to create more and more. Peer-review works in this process works as a means to reach relevance and accreditation. "Pleasure of creation" can be another factor tied to motivation, but this one alone may not be the reality of the majority of the participants. This is hard to believe, since I know that some collaborative projects also attract many young people in the academy who are willing to gain experience which is difficult to reach in more traditional settings. This is vey good, really. Free software production is a good example.
Motivation, however, can suffer "threats". The author points some circumstances in whice the threats can occur: failure of integration and unilateral appropriation. The worst case of unilateral appropriation may be when one makes private monetary profit with the work that has been collaboratively developed. Another scenario is when someone's contribution is not integrated properly into the whole project, changing its quality.
Identification and proper allocation of human creativity are the strong features of large-scalle collaborative systems. I think that it takes more than a business and management analysis to fully understand the growth of this phenomenon.
Motivation is also tied to the new cultural approach that has emmerged with peer-collaboration: the decision-making process got decentralized, for instance, what makes individuals free to create and to identify the tasks that they would like to perform. Is there a better thing than not having a boss or a supervisor (who might ultimately know less than you?). In my opinion, this factor is the most attractive one. Also, since you become part of a community, you are instigated to create more and more. Peer-review works in this process works as a means to reach relevance and accreditation. "Pleasure of creation" can be another factor tied to motivation, but this one alone may not be the reality of the majority of the participants. This is hard to believe, since I know that some collaborative projects also attract many young people in the academy who are willing to gain experience which is difficult to reach in more traditional settings. This is vey good, really. Free software production is a good example.
Motivation, however, can suffer "threats". The author points some circumstances in whice the threats can occur: failure of integration and unilateral appropriation. The worst case of unilateral appropriation may be when one makes private monetary profit with the work that has been collaboratively developed. Another scenario is when someone's contribution is not integrated properly into the whole project, changing its quality.
Identification and proper allocation of human creativity are the strong features of large-scalle collaborative systems. I think that it takes more than a business and management analysis to fully understand the growth of this phenomenon.
3 comentários:
I like this post, and I agree with your points particularly as regards the motivation as it is connected with reward and peer cooperation. However, I think that a sort of reward, a recognition from a boss is of paramount importance too. Normally, in Italy, we are highly individualistic and tend not to cooperate. If we are compelled to do it, we are jealous of one another's success. We should be trained to cooperate since the school years.
Catia - thanks for posting, even if late. I also was thinking of the motivation of doing things. I am a highly motivated Canadian - and at the moment an academic without a boss - and yet, I really appreciate having a boss/mentor above me. I wonder if if the difference in motivation is between being "told what to do", and on the other hand "learning how to do it better from a senior". ?? just some thoughts - and to let you know we're reading.
Megan
Megan's comment is interesting.
In eastern cultures it is possible to find a different kind of relationship between "a boss" and "his people".
I think to buddhism, where the mentor-disciple relationship doesn't rely upon level, being the mentor not "better" or "upon" the disciple, but being they equal and - more important - mutual.
Mutual means, the disciple needs a mentor, and a mentor needs a disciple - what makes them "disciple" and "mentor" is (underlined!) the relationship.
I will develop this in my blog.
Postar um comentário