A related question that I find interesting is, what if the observer and the organization disagree on what the primary factors are?
Continuing the restaurant example, suppose I think that food safety should be one of the restaurant’s primary concerns, and the restaurant thinks it is a secondary concern, where they should slack as much as possible while not being closed down by the health inspector. In a regime where health inspections are sufficient, this probably doesn’t matter much, but often information asymmetries will mean that the restaurant has much more ability to affect health than the inspector can check.
This sort of thing—which values you’re a trier on, and which you’re a slacker on—also seems like it’s the sort of thing that gores oxen by default. The restaurant where they have to wash the knives in between uses is slower at getting food out the door than the restaurant that reuses them. [I’m not a professional chef, I don’t know what examples are actually relevant on the margin here.]
[edit] It also seems like this is the sort of thing that marketing pretty strongly encourages misrepresentation of. “All children are above-average,” in that the restaurant wants to present itself as serving healthy, cheap, tasty food, while also paying its employees well and having good returns for its investors. But several of those variables are in direct tension with each other, and there’s not great language for speaking publicly about the tradeoffs you’re making.
[edit] It also seems like this is the sort of thing that marketing pretty strongly encourages misrepresentation of. “All children are above-average,” in that the restaurant wants to present itself as serving healthy, cheap, tasty food, while also paying its employees well and having good returns for its investors. But several of those variables are in direct tension with each other, and there’s not great language for speaking publicly about the tradeoffs you’re making.
Couple of reasons spring to mind:
Marketing leverages the Halo Effect
Not emphasizing being above average on a particular dimension is a chink in the armor against competitors (who can establish beach head by claiming to be superior in that dimension)
A related question that I find interesting is, what if the observer and the organization disagree on what the primary factors are?
Continuing the restaurant example, suppose I think that food safety should be one of the restaurant’s primary concerns, and the restaurant thinks it is a secondary concern, where they should slack as much as possible while not being closed down by the health inspector. In a regime where health inspections are sufficient, this probably doesn’t matter much, but often information asymmetries will mean that the restaurant has much more ability to affect health than the inspector can check.
This sort of thing—which values you’re a trier on, and which you’re a slacker on—also seems like it’s the sort of thing that gores oxen by default. The restaurant where they have to wash the knives in between uses is slower at getting food out the door than the restaurant that reuses them. [I’m not a professional chef, I don’t know what examples are actually relevant on the margin here.]
[edit] It also seems like this is the sort of thing that marketing pretty strongly encourages misrepresentation of. “All children are above-average,” in that the restaurant wants to present itself as serving healthy, cheap, tasty food, while also paying its employees well and having good returns for its investors. But several of those variables are in direct tension with each other, and there’s not great language for speaking publicly about the tradeoffs you’re making.
Couple of reasons spring to mind:
Marketing leverages the Halo Effect
Not emphasizing being above average on a particular dimension is a chink in the armor against competitors (who can establish beach head by claiming to be superior in that dimension)