Comments on: Aggregates and the Imbalance of Power http://cwd.dhemery.com/2004/04/aggregation/ Dale Emery on Leadership Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:34:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Steve http://cwd.dhemery.com/2004/04/aggregation/#comment-126 Steve Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://cwd.dhemery.com/2004/04/06/aggregation/#comment-126 Interesting article. Aggregration works best when the individual members are interchangeable. For example, any worker ant is interchangeable with another. But the ant queen is not interchangeable with a worker. My point is that being uniquely qualified to perform a function can offset some of the risks of aggregration. P.S. Is there a typo in the last paragraph? Should it say "... that match those of their employers."? Interesting article. Aggregration works best when the individual members are interchangeable. For example, any worker ant is interchangeable with another. But the ant queen is not interchangeable with a worker. My point is that being uniquely qualified to perform a function can offset some of the risks of aggregration.

P.S. Is there a typo in the last paragraph? Should it say “… that match those of their employers.”?

]]> By: charles kens http://cwd.dhemery.com/2004/04/aggregation/#comment-127 charles kens Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://cwd.dhemery.com/2004/04/06/aggregation/#comment-127 Workers can also balance the division of power by aggregating themselves into unions, which can negotiate with employers from the strength of numbers. Workers can also balance the division of power by aggregating themselves into unions, which can negotiate with employers from the strength of numbers.

]]> By: Laurent Bossavit http://cwd.dhemery.com/2004/04/aggregation/#comment-128 Laurent Bossavit Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://cwd.dhemery.com/2004/04/06/aggregation/#comment-128 So why is it more often the case that employers aggregate employees, rather than employees aggregating employers ? What's the story of *that* asymmetry ? So why is it more often the case that employers aggregate employees, rather than employees aggregating employers ? What’s the story of *that* asymmetry ?

]]>