Managing Your

Who opposes efficiency?  No one – it largely determines our standard of living. But when efficiency displaces effectiveness, risks increase rapidly.  We must also consider if this efficiency is to be achieved through humans or machines.

 The best efficiencies can be achieved without degrading measures of effectiveness like safety, durability, comfort or satisfaction.  This is not easily done. It is much easier to double the miles you drive before changing oil. Yet false economies, like this one, are often a prelude to a major, if not catastrophic loss.

 Nor is it wise to expect too many efficiencies from humans.  We are designed to be more effective than efficient. We need to be engaged, amused and even distracted from time to time.  Most of us find satisfaction only when the job is done right, not just quickly or inexpensively. Machines willingly submit to greater efficiency without boredom, frustration or complaint. Does this mean humans are incapable of improved efficiency?   Hardly - but there is a limit, beyond which risk increases sharply. Drudgery is for machines, not people.

Is Rational Choice Under the Gun, too?

Along with the quest for efficiency, rational choice theory has been a mainstay of our economic philosophy for decades.  Surely, no one dares assail the notion of maximizing personal utility?  Well, for the past 25 years, numerous scholars, citizens and even economists have.  Why else do people wait at red lights, even if no one is around?  Why do some refuse to accept welfare?  People often show an arrational  (not irrational) preference for economic intangibles like family, religion, community, duty, honor, dignity, charity and justice.  Theories, like rational choice, work only if assumptions hold true.  All theories, even accepted ones, lack the certainty of scientific law and are changeable. Unquestioning acceptance of theories is risky business, indeed.