This distinction between the perspective of an entrepreneur and bureaucracy is essential to problem solving. Bureaucracies look for problems to solve through policy interventions. Alert entrepreneurs grasp for untapped opportunities for profit before others jump ahead of them to seize the day.
Luke Froeb discovered this crisp difference in organisational perspective between entrepreneurs and bureaucrats when his MBA students kept falling asleep when he lectured on market failures and the standard public policy responses. His teaching evaluations were so bad that the Dean of his Business School threatened to fire him if his student evaluations did not improve. This focused his mind.
Froeb repackaged market failures as a business opportunity. His students sat up and paid close attention. Froeb saved his job and later wrote an excellent MBA textbook (Froeb and McCann 2008).
Froeb and McCann (2008) started the problem diagnosing with market failure is an untapped wealth-creating opportunity. Froeb told his students that the first to fill these gaps in the market or be the market maker for the missing market stands to profit. Alert entrepreneurs make money by identifying unconsummated wealth-creating transactions and devise ways to profitably consummate them.
The art of public policy is looking beyond the immediate effect of a policy to trace its consequences not merely for one group but for all. Looking past what is under your nose is not good business. Much of entrepreneurial alertness is seeing what others do not see under their very noses (Kirzner 1997).
The art of business is identifying assets in low-valued uses and devising ways to profitably move them into higher values uses (Froeb and McCann 2008). Wealth is created when entrepreneurs move assets to higher-valued uses. Cost control such as in a mega-project is a standard entrepreneurial challenge.
Froeb and McCann (2008) argued that mistakes – opportunities are missed – for one of two reasons:
A lack of information; or
Bad incentives.
Rational, self-interested actors err because either they do not have enough information to make better decisions, or they lack incentives to make the best use of information they already have.
Froeb and McCann (2008) argued that three questions arise about all business problems:
Who is making the bad decision?
Does the decision maker have enough information to make a good decision?
Does the decision maker have the incentives to make a good decision?
For Froeb and McCann (2008), the answers to these questions immediately suggest ways to fix them:
Source: MSD, Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship, 1982 to 2016; graphic at https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/cJKvY/1/
My only experience with secure email networks is pretty pesky filters stopping you from sending confidential material outside the network. The emails bounced.
I do not understand how a secure email server could communicate with one that is not such as Hillary Clinton’s private email server thin the secure network without a special dispensation.
With hundreds of thousands use secure email servers in the US government, the network administrator would have to have filters that bounce emails with keywords and classifications.
More sensible agencies that handle classified materials do not allowstaff to take work home. If they do, it must be on a secure laptop with no capacity to print or download.
Joe’s Crab Shack tested a no-tip model in 18 of its 130 restaurants. A 12-15% service charge replaced tips. Joe’s Crab capture is the first major restaurant chain to experiment with a tipping policy to experiment with abolishing it. The tipping minimum wage is far less than the federal, state and local minimum wages.
Joe’s Crab Shack had high hopes. The aims were customers would pay less, get a greater value experience, reduce labour costs and increase profits. The reactionary left represented by Salon and Huffington Post have quite strong views on tipping. Salon says
Tipping is a repugnant custom. It’s bad for consumers and terrible for workers. It perpetuates racism. Tipping isn’t even good for restaurants, because the legal morass surrounding gratuities results in scores of expensive lawsuits.
Tipping does not incentivize hard work. The factors that correlate most strongly to tip size have virtually nothing to do with the quality of service. Credit card tips are larger than cash tips. Large parties with sizable bills leave disproportionately small tips.
According to a 2000 study, a customer’s assessment of the server’s work only accounts for between 1 and 5 percent of the variation in tips at a restaurant.
Salon adds that federal and state law requires restaurants to ensure that tips bring employees up to minimum wage, but few diners know that.
Huffington Post managed to marshal 9 reasons why tipping should be abolished arguing that it was in no one’s interests either employers, employees or customers. The old efficiency at wage argument was rolled out arguing that employers gain in terms of diligent motivate employees by paying a straight wage rather than leaving it up to customer judgements of the services tended.
Not surprisingly this sounded like a business opportunity to Joe’s Crab Shack. Better customer service, better motivated employees and lower labour costs were promised by abolishing tips. You wonder why tipping survived in competition against alternative forms of restaurant service formats for all these decades?
Well, Joe’s Crab Shack got more than it bargained for when it abolished tipping. The pilot restaurants lost an average of 8-10% of customers during the test run.
The restaurant’s research showed that around 60% of customers disliked the policy because it took away an incentive for good service and that they don’t necessarily trust that management is passing along the money to workers.
The no tipping structure worked at four restaurants and will continue to work out why it succeeded there but failed at 14 other places.
What is even more interesting that the abolition of tipping lead to some workers quitting. This outcome at Joe’s Crab Shack is inconsistent with the notion that tipping is a by-product of the inequality of bargaining power between workers and employees. Turnover is supposed to reduce when tipping is abolished rather than increase with the employer losing their best workers.
Lazear found in data for Safelite Glass that average productivity will rise and the firm will attract a more able workforce will rise when it shifts to piece rates. The 44% increase in output per worker suggested the firm previously had a suboptimal compensation system. Half of the increase in labour productivity came from workers quitting when piece rates are introduced and being replaced by workers motivated to apply by the lure of piece rates. The average worker received a 10% increase in pay as a result of the switch to piece rates.
The only economic analysis of any value on tipping was written in 1985 by David Sisk at the Federal Trade Commission. He wrote a paper about both tipping and commissions. Sisk approached tipping not as a motivational device but a form of contracting.
Sisk points out that tipping takes the place of reputation as a way of guaranteeing good services are at a restaurant. Many do not plan to return to a restaurant so an alternative form of contracting emerges to ensure good service because the threat of taking future custom elsewhere does not work.
In the case of a tip, the buyer (or customer) is provided with a final means of automatic redress which serves to prevent unsatisfactory performance on the part of the seller.
The possibility of unsatisfactory performance arises when the brand-name, repeat purchase mechanism is not effective or because employees of the seller are too costly to monitor.
An example is tourists. They are protected from inferior service relative to the locals because they pay tips too and are well able to judge good and bad service.
Sisk argues that once a customer sits down at a restaurant, the customer commits ever increasing amounts of time and the restaurant commits ever increasing amounts of physical resources. As one commits more irrevocable resources, the greater is the incentive of the other to renege on the contract.
A tip allows the customer to withhold a portion of the price without further negotiation. The tip serves to protect the customer from bad service and to protect the restaurant from bad service by an errant employee
The system of tipping provides the motivation for the waiter to properly identify and accommodate the individual desires of customers subject to the profit maximizing constraint of the restaurant owner…
The tip protects the buyer from exploitation by a seller (when the brand-name mechanism is insufficient) or from exploitation by the shirking employees of the seller
The worst tippers are single males; the best are couples and groups. The biggest tippers are single males on a date.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments