"muitas vezes escandalizo-me com a forma como os economistas tratam a economia real"

Como não sou economista, muitas vezes escandalizo-me com a forma como os economistas tratam a economia real. Habituado a lidar com empresas de muitos tamanhos, de muitos sectores, cada uma comandada por diferentes tipos de pessoas, com diferentes modelos mentais, custa-me perceber, uma vez atrás da outra, como os economistas simplificam e tratam a realidade empresarial como um bloco homogéneo. É o velho tema do Sr. dos Perdões e da sua imagem:

Recordar daqui: Recordar o marcador "distribuição de produtividades" e a explicação para o facto de, num mesmo país, haver mais variabilidade no rendimento intra-sectorial do que no rendimento inter-sectorial.
.
Ontem, foi tempo de perceber melhor porque é que os economistas pensam assim. O interessante é que pensam mesmo que as empresas são essa massa homogénea e que a única coisa que conta são as variáveis macro. Tanta tolice!!!
.
Ontem, foi dia de iniciar a leitura de um extenso artigo "The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory", publicado por The Academy of Management Annals, 2015 Vol. 9, No. 1, 575–632, e assinado por Teppo Felin, Nicolai Foss e Robert Ployhart.

"Microfoundations are not a theory, per se, but rather a movement and way of thinking that has spread across a broad array of macro theories.
...
Macro explanations, on the one hand, emphasize the role that history, culture, and structure play in explaining economic outcomes, whereas micro explanations, on the other hand, focus on individual actions and interactions.
...
The subsequent trajectory of strategic management and organization theory was heavily focused on macro factors, at the expense of the micro.
...
The emphasis in this literature, then, has squarely been on homogeneity, rather than an effort to understand organizational heterogeneity, let alone the role of individuals.
...
Thus, not only have individuals played a lesser role in macro management, but also the notion of organization as a social actor has been missing from macro organizational scholarship.
.
The emphasis on collective factors, at the expense of individuals, is perhaps best encapsulated in the published transcript of a 1999 Academy of Management symposium where a number of prominent macro strategy and organizational scholars seemingly agreed that individual-level considerations simply are not relevant for macro scholarship: “if we truly focused on routines, competencies, practices and so on, we would not follow people anymore in our research. Instead we would follow how competencies spread, replicate, and insinuate themselves into organizations”
...
The assumptions in these literatures are that individuals are homogeneous and thus effectively that they are randomly distributed into organizations. [Moi ici: Esta gente não se enxerga? Isto é ainda mais grave que considerar a realidade como estando povoada por econs]
...
This literature places an emphasis on macro factors such as firm-level knowledge and competencies, social capital, networks, and other collective constructs. While including the collective and macro concepts in explanation is not problematic per se, it is of concern when it has come at the exclusion of individual-level considerations that in fact might be driving—or highly consequential for explaining—collective outcomes."