from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235C1440C9
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 05:38:41 -0400 (EDT)
from dogma.slashnull.org [212.17.35.15]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:38:41 +0100 (IST)
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 51FBC2940A5; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 02:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
from ms4.lga2.nytimes.com (ms4.lga2.nytimes.com [64.15.247.148])
    by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8F029409C for <fork@xent.com>;
    Tue, 23 Jul 2002 02:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
from email4.lga2.nytimes.com (email4 [10.0.0.169]) by
    ms4.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7A05A4E2 for
    <fork@xent.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 05:33:48 -0400 (EDT)
by email4.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix, from userid 202) id
    59B20C403; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 05:23:43 -0400 (EDT)
NYTimes.com Article: In the Beginning ...
From fork-admin@xent.com  Tue Jul 23 10:38:49 2002

from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93906440CC
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:07:54 -0400 (EDT)
from dogma.slashnull.org [212.17.35.15]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:07:54 +0100 (IST)
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 7683B2940E0; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 05:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
from sunserver.permafrost.net (u172n16.hfx.eastlink.ca
    [24.222.172.16]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE572940B0 for
    <fork@xent.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 05:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
from [192.168.123.179] (helo=permafrost.net) by
    sunserver.permafrost.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id
    17WzEA-0005hH-00 for <fork@xent.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:57:22 -0300
Re: NYTimes.com Article: Why We're So Nice: We're Wired to Cooperate
From fork-admin@xent.com  Tue Jul 23 14:07:56 2002

>
>
> The question then becomes, why is knowledge sharing such a difficult
> thing in organizations? Is it, perhaps, not as difficult as the
> grousers say? I mistrust the romantic, Rousseauian argument that man
> is basically good but society basically corrupt, and that the later
> stifles the natural altruistic impulses. After all, it's in society
> that we share, as well as hoard.  Is it that we think of "The
> Organization" as a machine, and like the research subjects get less
> neurological pleasure from cooperating with it than we would if it
> were humanized? Or ...?
>
>
>
Well, IMNHO, its because companies do not reward knowledge sharers. When
time comes for evaluation, there isn't a line on the page saying "Helped
others to succeed with their projects." Sharing inevitably cuts into the
time for personal productive work, and generally shows up as a red flag
if your boss has a "management by exception"(1) style.
Owen
1. http://www.xrefer.com/entry/164669
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork