Fast Talk Response -

Shawn Hadwiger — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:50:42 -0400

Top-down has resources and time. Bottoms-up sometimes has a more realistic vision. I favor top-down, but part of the top-down research should involve consulting those at the bottom for ideas.

Fast Talk Response -

Shawn Hadwiger — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:39:23 -0400

My first job was fastfood. People rose up among the crew and became managers, and people were hired from the outside as managers. Crew members would follow orders from whoever was in charge, but they more "heartily" followed orders from those who rose up among them. However, those inside leaders did not demand as much from the crew as outside leaders did, and they also worked more individually. Outside leaders were more efficient(and disliked). My personal perception: insiders lead better, but outsiders manage better.

Fast Talk Response -

Shawn Hadwiger — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:42:00 -0400

Promote, in my opinion. Consider pharmaceutical companies. They receive property rights on newly developed drugs for a certain amount of years to pay for research costs and reward discovery. If generic brands could hit the market a month after the initial release of the drug, who the heck would waste the money to innovate new drugs? I believe the lack of property laws would hinder innovation.

Fast Talk Response -

Shawn Hadwiger — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:34:34 -0400

I also firmly agree with Martijn Sjoorda's response to the question. International shame is perhaps the best approach.