Transaction costs has to do with the changes when choosing one form of capitalist organization over another. I am currently a part of CUBE Consulting and although I have not experienced any drastic changes of that sort, I have definitely seen changes in the dynamic of the organization as a whole due to the leadership. When I first joined the organization, I did not necessarily feel like it was the family environment that I had hoped for an RSO of this size. I think part of it was due to the leadership being close to graduation at the time I had gotten into CUBE. The leadership of any organization really sets the tone for the rest of the members and I believe at the time the sense of community was lacking a little and I felt as though everyone had friend groups within CUBE that were already established. This meant that all the new members could be friends, but I was initially hoping to be more integrated into the existing community. However, the following semester, when the leadership changed, I also started to see a change in the overall atmosphere. The executive board was communicating a lot more to the project managers and the consultants and it felt like there was no power difference. The organization structure had minimal changes with the way the leaders and members interacted and the level of contribution the members could have. These structural changes within the organization most likely contributed to the atmosphere and dynamic changes within the community of CUBE. The transaction cost of choosing a more collaborative structure for an organization gave positive results overall.
Transaction costs has to do with the changes when choosing one form of capitalist organization over another. I am currently a part of CUBE Consulting and although I have not experienced any drastic changes of that sort, I have definitely seen changes in the dynamic of the organization as a whole due to the leadership. When I first joined the organization, I did not necessarily feel like it was the family environment that I had hoped for an RSO of this size. I think part of it was due to the leadership being close to graduation at the time I had gotten into CUBE. The leadership of any organization really sets the tone for the rest of the members and I believe at the time the sense of community was lacking a little and I felt as though everyone had friend groups within CUBE that were already established. This meant that all the new members could be friends, but I was initially hoping to be more integrated into the existing community. However, the following semester, when the leadership changed, I also started to see a change in the overall atmosphere. The executive board was communicating a lot more to the project managers and the consultants and it felt like there was no power difference. The organization structure had minimal changes with the way the leaders and members interacted and the level of contribution the members could have. These structural changes within the organization most likely contributed to the atmosphere and dynamic changes within the community of CUBE. The transaction cost of choosing a more collaborative structure for an organization gave positive results overall.
This post is inadequate. You should not assume that I know what Cube Consulting is. (In fact I don't know anything about it.) So you need to provide some context for what you say by explaining its purpose and how it functions. Then you might also add why you joined and what you expected to get from doing that.
ReplyDeleteYou first sentence gives a kind of definition of transaction costs. I wonder where that came from. In class yesterday I said that transaction costs are what is incurred so the transaction doesn't get screwed up. If you used that as a definition, but then talked about how the outgoing leadership didn't integrate in new members, then it seems your illustration actually is talking about a transaction that is not a good outcome.
So, you might have then speculated what it would take that leadership integrates in the newer members and the transition in leadership goes smoothly. You did explain that the new leadership communicated more. Is that all it took, or was it also the nature of what was communicated? And then you might ask whether rules for the organization could be written so that new members are integrated in or if that depends on the personalities of the leaders. Coming up with more effective rules would be an example of transaction costs.