domingo, setembro 26, 2004

Aula de Organização Industrial para economistas

O artigo abaixo é um bom complemento (ou contraponto, conforme seu professor) para um aula sobre OI (Organização Industrial). Afinal, o que o mundo dos negócios nos ensina sobre as alterações em estratégias de mercado? Há uma lição aqui e, claro, um bom debate. Abaixo, o link e um trecho.

Link: Decentralized Intelligence - What Toyota can teach the 9/11 commission about intelligence gathering. By Duncan Watts

The most publicized recommendation of the 9/11 commission—and one President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have raced to endorse—is that the United States create a national director of intelligence. Centralizing is an understandable response to the pre-9/11 intelligence fiasco. But as organizational science and history show, it's also a misguided one.

When organizations fail, our first reaction is typically to fall into "control mode": One person, or at most a small, coherent group of people, should decide what the current goals of the organization are, and everyone else should then efficiently and effectively execute those goals. Intuitively, control mode sounds like nothing so much as common sense. It fits perfectly with our deeply rooted notions of cause and effect ("I order, you deliver"), so it feels good philosophically. It also satisfies our desire to have someone made accountable for everything that happens, so it feels good morally as well.

But when a failure is one of imagination, creativity, or coordination—all major shortcomings of the various intelligence branches in recent years—introducing additional control, whether by tightening protocols or adding new layers of oversight, can serve only to make the problem worse.