In some jobs, such as a basic researcher, one or two home runs in a lifetime make for a successful career, and the firm is willing to try out a lot of players to find the one home-run hitter in the crowd. In selling big-ticket items, it may take more than one or two home runs to make a career, but a single high-margin sale is worth a lot, and it may be worth losing a lot of potential sales to hold out for the big win. In other jobs, it is the failures that loom large. Aircraft pilots want to get their planes down nice and smooth, and they want to stick to the schedule when possible. But a failure (that is, a crash) is a lot worse for an airline than sticking to a schedule is good. In still other jobs, variations in individual performance don't matter too much; organizational success depends on the aggregated performance of large numbers of individuals, none of whose individual performance is decisive. The observed distribution of outcomes reflects two sets of forces: a. Each worker faces (uncontrollable) environmental uncertainty that makes the outcome of his efforts somewhat random; and b. Different workers in the same job, acting in the same circumstances, may get different outcomes because of variations in skill level, ability, determination, and the like. The issue here is the distribution or range of possible outcomes of a worker's efforts on both these grounds, measured in terms that are meaningful for the firm. leia todo o artigo
a multi-disciplined approach to achieving organisational objectives by making the best use of knowledge
