I think about the difference between public and private work a lot. That is, the difference between a public school and a private one, or between an awareness campaign sponsored by an NGO and a music show sponsored by a phone company.
It used to make no sense to me that there had to be a division; that "work" should mean anything that produced some value to mankind, whether it was done in public or in private; and that anything else really ought to be considered non-work, an obstruction.
Of course there is the obvious, well-defined difference of money: While private work is self-funded, public work is oftentimes funded by public finances (taxes, etc.) and in-kind grants.
But there is something deeper, at the core of an institution, that is hinged on how it wants to think about fairness that could be the inevitable division between public and private work.
One observation I made recently is that many differences in decision-making come from the degree to which an institution wants to be fair in its dealings.
A public institution, such as the government itself or a non-governmental, non-profit organization, will usually want to be super fair. For example, when it procures computers for schools, it will want to vet all potential suppliers and then distribute the computers in an equitable manner. The priority is to ensure that the most deserving schools get the best deals. At least, this is how it is done in theory.
A private institution, such as a mobile phone company, will usually prioritize an outcome of some sort over the way in which it will achieve it. For example, it is likely to work with the cheapest-best possible supplier it has in its own phonebook and pick a particular school and deliver the computers much sooner than the public institution. There is no special consideration for other potential suppliers or other potential recipient schools. The priority is getting a school hooked with computers.
These examples might be far-fetched. But fairness is worth considering as the main divisor between public and private work. While public institutions try to be as fair as possible, private institutions admit they cannot afford to think about fairness.
This has other implications: How fast decisions are made, when progress is achieved, who benefits and with what. Whether private work is more efficient than public work or vice versa is hard to tell. But I find that we can never achieve perfect fairness, and we should understand this when we try. It's cool to assume things sometimes.
Claiming perfection - and complete fairness - just does not seem humble enough for our capabilities as human beings. Yet, claiming imperfection - and admitting unfairness - also runs the risk of complacency. Perhaps this is why there is an inevitable division, at least in this day and age, between public and private work.
It used to make no sense to me that there had to be a division; that "work" should mean anything that produced some value to mankind, whether it was done in public or in private; and that anything else really ought to be considered non-work, an obstruction.
Of course there is the obvious, well-defined difference of money: While private work is self-funded, public work is oftentimes funded by public finances (taxes, etc.) and in-kind grants.
But there is something deeper, at the core of an institution, that is hinged on how it wants to think about fairness that could be the inevitable division between public and private work.
One observation I made recently is that many differences in decision-making come from the degree to which an institution wants to be fair in its dealings.
A public institution, such as the government itself or a non-governmental, non-profit organization, will usually want to be super fair. For example, when it procures computers for schools, it will want to vet all potential suppliers and then distribute the computers in an equitable manner. The priority is to ensure that the most deserving schools get the best deals. At least, this is how it is done in theory.
A private institution, such as a mobile phone company, will usually prioritize an outcome of some sort over the way in which it will achieve it. For example, it is likely to work with the cheapest-best possible supplier it has in its own phonebook and pick a particular school and deliver the computers much sooner than the public institution. There is no special consideration for other potential suppliers or other potential recipient schools. The priority is getting a school hooked with computers.
These examples might be far-fetched. But fairness is worth considering as the main divisor between public and private work. While public institutions try to be as fair as possible, private institutions admit they cannot afford to think about fairness.
This has other implications: How fast decisions are made, when progress is achieved, who benefits and with what. Whether private work is more efficient than public work or vice versa is hard to tell. But I find that we can never achieve perfect fairness, and we should understand this when we try. It's cool to assume things sometimes.
Claiming perfection - and complete fairness - just does not seem humble enough for our capabilities as human beings. Yet, claiming imperfection - and admitting unfairness - also runs the risk of complacency. Perhaps this is why there is an inevitable division, at least in this day and age, between public and private work.
Comments
Post a Comment