So in the office we use a collectivist method of solving the hot beverage allocation problem. In other words, we do brew rounds, or tea rounds. Rather than get your own drink when you want one, we must make a drink for everyone else in the office who wants one, and we take turns on a round robin basis.
I’ve been mulling on this pretty much all year, because I hate it. I really really hate it. I’m told I’m not really a ‘team player’ – which is certainly true in respect of the brew rounds, but I’ve been doing my bit regardless for the sake of a peaceful life.
Today, however, I decided to put this question to the Internet: Is this the best way of solving the beverage allocation problem, or would it be better to switch to an individualist, ‘help yourself when you want one’ approach?
Here’s my argument in favour of the latter: Everyone requires and wants different quantities of tea and coffee through the day. Some will want just one or two cups, others (tea based lifeforms like me) will want one at least once an hour.
Under an individualist system, each person simply makes a drink for themselves when they need one – this means that supply always matches the demand exactly, and everyone’s happy.
My argument against the collectivist approach is nearly the opposite of this – supply does not match with demand, and because making a round of brews is a more onerous task than making a single brew, people tend to be less keen on doing their round when it’s their turn. The result is that supply does not meet the demand, because those with a higher demand for tea either have to do additional brew rounds when it’s not their turn, or wait until the person whose turn it is is ready to make one.
On the face of it, it seems that on economic grounds the individualist approach is the way to go, yet brew rounds are annoying popular in offices.. why?
Now my housemate’s office does brew rounds – they’ve come up with clever ways of deciding who has to make the brews, yet their system is significantly more authoritarian – they spin a wheel, and the person decreed as having the ‘du-tea’ must immediately make a brew round. It’s done in a very friendly and funny way, but it’s still more authoritarian than our system because the decision about when to make a brew is taken away from the person whose turn it is. This means that, in effect, their system creates an over-supply of tea, so is wasteful and inefficient.
Now, what I really hate the most about collectivist tea making is the inability to make a brew for yourself when it’s not your turn, but you just really want a cup of tea. This happens to me more often than I care to think about. This is, perhaps, why I dislike the system. Those who get more tea from the system than they could ever be bothered to make on their own, however, value it immensely.
Right, gasping for a cuppa now. Going to put the kettle on…
Richard Gadsden said...
14 Sep 09 at 8:30 pm
Liberalism and socialism aren’t incompatible.
Liberalism is fundamentally about liberty; the only common thread between the various forms of socialism is “giving a s**t about poor people”. The problem is that Marxists and Fabians (both centralising collectivists) hijacked the word socialism.
Libertarian socialism, anarchism (Bukharinite), anarcho-syndicalism, utopian socialism (Robert Morris), etc – all of these are either liberal or compatible with liberalism.
As for brew rounds, the rule we have is very simple: if you one, you make drinks for anyone else that wants one. If you end up going a lot more than other people, moan a bit and others will go even though they don’t want one themselves.
Laurence Boyce said...
14 Sep 09 at 8:37 pm
But Charlotte, you’ve ignored the question of efficiency. It will always be more efficient for one person to make a number of teas than for each to make his or her own. See Adam Smith, production of pins or whatever.
Ryan Roberts said...
14 Sep 09 at 8:41 pm
We don’t do tea rounds per-se, but we have a coffee machine that needs regular refilling.
Some in the office, let’s call them ‘the lefties’ will loudly announce the preparation of coffee and go around collecting mugs and asking what everybody wants. This appears to be some sort of gaudy prisoners dilemma signalling game rather than an actual efficient attempt at beverage distribution. Similar behaviour is also evident in their non brew making work activities.
Another in the office, lets call him ‘the swivel eyed libertarian’ just gets up and makes the coffee when its run out and he fancies one. As he is a chronic caffeine addict this usually means about 2 refills a day. He occasionally feels a slight twinge of misplaced guilt about not joining in the signalling ritual but it soon disappears after going out for a pipe.
BenS said...
14 Sep 09 at 8:42 pm
Efficiency is probably the main reason for doing rounds… in the office and in the pub.
To stretch this analogy to breaking point, I think that doing rounds of drinks is not particularly collectivist when you’re placing an individual order… for it to be genuinely collectivist, each round would have to be milk and one sugar for everyone. Or you get no tea.
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Sep 09 at 8:51 pm
If efficiency of production is the concern then the solution is a vending machine, where the labour of making drinks is delegated to a ’specialised worker’ who happens to be a robot.
Excluding this question though, efficiency in tea making is a product of meeting demand exactly. Only the individualist approach delivers this. You cannot store surplus of tea, because its lifespan is very short.
In addition, a brew round is a more time consuming activity than making a single brew (as evidenced by the reluctant to make a full round when all you want is a single cup of tea). Many people will actually stop drinking tea altogether without tea rounds, others will have only one or two drinks at most, and only a tiny minority will want the same or higher volume – they do the work.
Finally, economic considerations (or as it to prove that you cannot separate economic and personal freedom) the only way that these tea rounds can operate is through coercion, bullying (”You’re not a team player!”), and authoritarianism.
The individualist approach maximises liberty and utility.
Nick said...
14 Sep 09 at 8:53 pm
Buy a large flask, fill it with tea and then drink however many cups you want from that during the day without having to make any for anyone else. I’m trying to work out if that’s anarcho-capitalism, or whether it becomes Russian oligarchy as soon as you get a big enough flask of nice enough tea that everyone wants a cup of yours.
BenS said...
14 Sep 09 at 8:56 pm
Well you wouldn’t do rounds if the tea-making machine was a 10 foot walk from the office. Generally you do rounds when the amount of effort involved for everyone to make tea individually exceeds that of a single person making many cups. In a ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’ kind of way (and if you’ve ever jostled for a coffee maker, you know what I mean).
Tell you what, though, I can order any beer I want at the pub safe in the knowledge that only 1 out of X times will I have to fight the bar hangers. If I were buying a single pint I reckon it would barely have taken less time, so it’s a good trade off.
The free market in action eh?
I think I like this tea rounds business too much.
Stu said...
14 Sep 09 at 8:56 pm
I have to say, I bring in a flask most days.
If I’m honest, though, I can see he colec-tea-vist and the individuali-tea arguments. The fact is that for five or more people to individually fill and boil a kettle is wasteful and involves great duplication of effort. What’s more, if one person decides to make some tea just for themselves, fills a kettle with enough water for themselves and puts it on to boil, the kettle and tea-making resources are essentially monopolised for the duration of that person’s tea-making. Were somebody else to find themselves feeling thirsty they would have to either take the kettle off the boil to fill it further or wait until the kettle becomes free again – either is an inconvenience.
I can see two solutions to this problem: the first is a simple opt-out. Those who wish to participate in democra-tea can do so, and spin the tea-wheel to decide on the unlucky one amongst their number who makes the round for the rest. At the same time, those who do not wish to be involved can, without stigma, opt-out of the tea-wheel and make their own tea when they feel like it. This way it seems everyone would be reasonably happy.
The second solution involves streamlining the tea-making process. Rather than a kettle in a kitchen room, the office can invest in an urn (on the grounds of enhanced productivi-tea) and place it as near to the workers as is reasonably possible. Next to the urn is lined up the tea making apparatus, and the process is streamlined to the point where a fresh cup can be made almost as quickly as one can walk past the urn – and, crucially, without boiling a kettle. By bringing the effort, time and duplication of resources involved in the tea making process down, the question of who makes the tea-round becomes a non-issue. Anyone can get a cup individually whenever they feel like it, and making cups for several people is unburdonesome enough that even the sternest individualist would be turned by a cry of “oh, while you’re up!”
Being but a layman on these matters, that’s all I have, unfortunately – but I would suggest that a letter to the Financial Times’ excellent ‘Dear Economist‘ economic agony aunt column as a place to make further office tea based enquiries.
Anyway, I too am now craving a hot mug of English Breakfast, and so I think it’s time to get back to normali-tea.
Constantly Furious said...
14 Sep 09 at 8:58 pm
I’ve been doing some work for a Hedge Fund recently. They don’t do tea ‘n’ coffee rounds.
Instead, an individual (male or female) aged about 20, invariably looking as if they would have been a supermodel if they could afford the pay cut, will be despatched to some exotic coffee bar to bring back beverages so accurately specified that one can request a favourite coffee picker, the day of picking and the family tree of the contributing cow.
Tim Almond said...
14 Sep 09 at 9:04 pm
It’s a question of costs and benefits with collective vs individual action.
While you gain benefits from making a tea (keeping your caffeine level up, getting one when you want), there are costs of individual tea making (time away from working to make it, extra energy).
One of the things that can shift things from collective to individual is technology. When people call for the return of Top of the Pops, it’s driven by nostalgia. Because TOTP is an inefficient way for people to find out about new music, but was, in its time, one of the most efficient ways. Once the internet could deliver audio and then video, why would you want to sit hoping for something to hear when you could immediately get a recommendation from a friend?
Laurence Boyce said...
14 Sep 09 at 9:07 pm
I have never met a vending machine that can make a decent cup of tea. But one thing that definitely helps is a hot water dispenser. It’s so much quicker than boiling up the kettle and might therefore help swing the argument in your favour as far as efficiency is concerned.
Alternatively, why not just declare tea independence day? Team effort is for wimps.
Roger Thornhill said...
14 Sep 09 at 9:10 pm
Before I start, “Vending Machine” is incompatible with “tea”. Hot chocolate? Yes. Blackcurrant? Certainly. Coffee? Ok, sort of.
Charlotte, you have presented a false dichotomy.
It should not be a choice between “must do rounds”* and individualists. You are beginning to believe the crap that Socialists spout. How about the good old Libertarian way of consent, mutualism and voluntary collectivism? People can agree to brew for others when they brew, but should be free to decline to brew for whomsoever they wish. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together will see that this will naturally work itself out with trade-offs even for those who do not brew. This is what happened in my office for ages until H&S banned kettles and basically Tea was eliminated. I was quite happy to brew for certain people but not shits. Collectivism allows shits to thrive.
* with the implication that some Office Fascist decides when.
Roger Thornhill said...
14 Sep 09 at 9:12 pm
By that I mean involuntary collectivism.
Henry North London said...
14 Sep 09 at 9:16 pm
You make an urn of tea and coffee at the beginning of the day and refill as necessary.
Someone takes it in turn to make the urn
Simples….
You add sugar and milk to taste when you take your tea or coffee…
Giles said...
14 Sep 09 at 9:20 pm
I definitely come down on the individualist model:
1. You can make your tea the way you like it.
2. In our office, the collectivist model comes with implications about power. So the two most senior people hardly ever make tea, and those at the bottom make the least. If you’re dying for a cuppa, you find yourself having to make loads for other people, and also feel like you’ve subtly undermined your status.
3. The efficiency is definitely overrated. People wandering around the office trying to remember who wanted what? Classic example of the drawbacks of central planning
Giles
Jo Christie-Smith said...
14 Sep 09 at 9:40 pm
Hmmm…
…and where does community, generosity and altruism come into these models?
Roger Thornhill said...
14 Sep 09 at 9:53 pm
Jo,
You will see my version includes them all…should the individuals choose.
Note: “community”, “generosity”, and “altruism” do not occur when compulsion or coercion is involved!
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Sep 09 at 9:57 pm
I’m not sure it comes into either model, does it?
Everyone taking turns to do everyone else a favour is quickly turned into a duty that is completely taken for granted, and brew rounds always seem to cause arguments and resentments in the end. Generosity and altruism don’t even enter into it because ultimately having to go make a round is being imposed on you by the rest – I do not see is as a wonderful opportunity to do something nice for my colleagues.
As a one off, now and again, sure.. but part of normal day to day routine – and enforced – it’s something else.
The idea that you can bring communities together by having everyone serving everyone else in the group might be technically true, in that you create a ‘group’ but whether that’s actually a good thing, and whether that relationship is really healthy is another!
Jennie said...
14 Sep 09 at 10:08 pm
The only time I ever worked in an office we had the simple system by which a person fancying a hot beverage would announce such loudly and ask if anyone else fancied one. This is surely the happy Doris Stokes between the two extremes mentioned in the original post.
Fausty said...
14 Sep 09 at 10:29 pm
Oh, I do sympathise.
My solution to the problem is to bring take my own brew to work – like green tea, rooibos tea or just water. i.e., something (anything) they do not provide at the workplace.
Or just a bottle of water.
Now that I’m unemployed and living off my wits (happily), that’s not a problem.
Obnoxio The Clown said...
14 Sep 09 at 10:39 pm
It sounds to me like you work with or for a bunch of utter cunts. It’s the stupidest system I’ve ever heard of.
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Sep 09 at 10:49 pm
It’s just a normal brew round thing. You can opt out, but you have to provide your own drinks (not tea or instant coffee though, they’re collectivised)
They’re hardly utter cunts .. bit harsh there
Jock said...
14 Sep 09 at 11:33 pm
Definitely one for a Tim Harford vid-cast I’d say!
But more crucially, who gets the bloody biscuits, eh?
What would Proudhon do? I suspect individual *possession* alone of the means with which to make tea would suffice.
Besides, nobody can make my tea the way I want it. It is a delicate and highly precise operation. I could not reasonably ask someone to go out in all weathers and have a fag between adding the water to the tea bag and removing the bag! Nor does anyone else seem to want twelve mugs a day. Hah! Serves them right – I pay the same four pounds a month into the kitty and end up with about four pounds worth of tea every day…what a bunch of collective mugs!
My one consession to “altruism” (a *bad thing* – I once heard some “Randroid” explaining how altruism ultimately caused the Jewish Holocaust!) is not even that: on those days when the woman who normally brings the milk in on her bike is off, I will take responsibility for going and stocking up. But that is purely self interest and because everyone else in the office is completely blind, ignorant or downright selfish, because it is only her and myself who will fetch whole milk as well as that semi-scum stuff!
Does nobody have a tea-person come round at seventeen minutes to eleven with a trolley with tea, coffee and sticky buns any more?
Jock said...
14 Sep 09 at 11:37 pm
Besides – wouldn’t any decent economist respond to the question “who makes your tea?” with the answer “the SCR butler, of course”!
Marksany said...
15 Sep 09 at 12:24 am
No brew rota in my office. Everyone goes off together to the kitchen for a natter while the kettle boils. There is a milk club, though, which is tyrannical. As you may imagine, I don’t much care for nattering over a kettle or arguing about whose turn it is to buy the milk. My solution: black coffee from a Senseo machine – genius!
Bernard Salmon said...
15 Sep 09 at 1:17 am
Of course, the Green Party response to all this would be that you shouldn’t be using all that power to boil kettles anyway and should be drinking cold water instead.
Mr Eugenides said...
15 Sep 09 at 4:05 am
I, too, was once forced into the collectivist straitjacket, making tea for the whole team when in truth I was chafing at the hassle of it all. But that was in an office with a small kitchen and a kettle; filling the kettle and waiting for it to boil took a bit of time, so it did make some rational sense for one person to go up and do the necessary, and preparing the mugs with teabags or coffee granules while the kettle boiled. It was, strictly speaking, probably the most efficient way.
Shortly afterwards we moved to a larger office with a hot water point that was permanently ‘on’ – so there was no need for this approach. It was very easy to pop a teabag into your own mug, walk up to the tap and pour yourself hot water. The concept of the “tea round” quickly withered away as people revelled in their new-found freedom and autonomy.
I subsequently unilaterally instituted a 3pm tea round of my own, but did so on a market principle; in return for my time and effort I would require reimbursement – a biscuit, a letter added to the outgoing mail, and so on. Initially this was resisted by my team, who had been brainwashed into the collectivist mindset. But they learned quickly enough; soon they were bringing me muffins and cake at 2:55 each afternoon without prompting, like Incas leaving offerings in tribute at the statue of Apu Inti, the god of the Sun. By careful manipulation I was usually able to ensure that the value of goods I received exceeded the two or three minutes of light exertion needed to make the tea.
Collectivism may be defensible when resources are scarce or difficult to acquire; but when there is abundance, then to each according to his choice, from each according to their whim, I say. Don’t believe those who still claim that all proper tea-making is theft.
Tim Carpenter (LPUK) said...
15 Sep 09 at 8:34 am
MrE “Collectivism may be defensible when resources are scarce or difficult to acquire.”
the former tends to bring about the latter.
Tristan said...
15 Sep 09 at 9:17 am
We have a nice spontaneous order at operation in my office.
Accounts and sales seem to do things on a rather ad-hoc basis of making a mug for themselves and asking is anyone else wants anything – it seems to work out okay for them.
Us techies are more complex. Often just a single cup of tea is made when someone wants theirs, especially in the morning when people drag in at different times.
Aside from that – we all sit on IRC all day, so often someone will ask if anyone wants tea and then make a pot if there’s sufficient interest.
Coffee is more complex. There’s two varieties for techies (accounts/sales often drink instant). The cafetiere and coffee machine.
Coffee Machine is ad-hoc- if you want some and its there take a mug, otherwise put it on.
Caffetiere coffee is made when someone wants coffee, they then ask on IRC who wants a mug (saying how many are available) and then people ‘mem’ a mug (type ‘mem’ in IRC). If there’s excess demand then the person who missed out will make another. Some people make more than others – perhaps some take advantage of the caffeine addictions of others to avoid making it, but people don’t seem to mind.
Things are simplified since work pays for coffee, tea and milk although occasionally there’s a revolt and people buy something else – then money is just worked out on a rather ad-hoc basis (person who bought it controls it perhaps, with a pot if the new beans take off).
Occasionally someone will run to a nearby coffee shop, then they’ll take orders and we’ll use our ’shaft’ system to track who owes money (also used for lunches, chocolate and so on)
It all seems to work well, coping with varying demands for caffeine and tastes.
Alix said...
15 Sep 09 at 10:15 am
I have yet another variation. There used to be unofficially designated tea-making times in my office, which used to be first thing, 11am (after the fag break), after lunch and 4pm (after the other fag break).
This was unofficially designated, you understand, by me, because those were the times when I wanted a cup of tea, and after a while everyone else seemed to fall into it. The good thing about collectivist types is they’re so biddable
Roger Thornhill said...
15 Sep 09 at 10:41 am
Alix,
That is not collectivism, but laziness. Part of the reason why we have so much of it about is that the Fabians are just so damn busy at it and so many people do not care. I suspect the Fabians have been busy first to sow the seeds of laziness first, there fore making their enforced collectivism so much easier.
Stu said...
15 Sep 09 at 10:43 am
I haven’t had my coffee this morning, and if I’m honest I’m tempted to blame the Bilderbergers.
Andrew Hickey said...
15 Sep 09 at 11:08 am
The way Jennie described is how it’s always worked when I’ve worked in an office small enough to do that. In my current office they just have two very fast coffee machines (proper coffee, not that instant nonsense), which get filled with beans and water by whoever happens to notice they’re empty and very few people use the kettle anyway…
Adam Hepton said...
15 Sep 09 at 12:03 pm
There is no such thing as an over supply of tea!
Should anyone with to see our *pshaw* Authoritarian system, you can take a test spin at: http://tea-wheel.com/wip.php – double click someone not on the wheel to put them back on
Joe Otten said...
15 Sep 09 at 1:33 pm
Sorry to spoil everybody’s fun, but this political dilemma can be solved with technology.
1. Install a tea-round widget on everybody’s computer. When you want tea, open the widget and press “I want tea”. Or “I want coffee” if you are not very English.
2. The widget signals its counterparts on all the other computers who flash up “tea round. Opt in?”
3. Other people who want tea opt in. One is chosen at random or based on cups made:drunk ratio to make the tea.
You’ll probably have to write the software, but it’s a small price to pay.
This doesn’t of course solve the problem that some people think you can make tea with a bag in a cup instead of using the pot. Upgrade to the pro version of the widget for that.
Bernard Salmon said...
15 Sep 09 at 2:03 pm
Having mentioned the Green Party position above, I think I should mention where other parties and politicians stand on this vital issue:
Conservatives: We live in a broken socie-tea.
Labour: Detailed instructions on how to make tea will be sent to everyone. CCTV will be installed to ensure the correct procedure is followed. And a risk assessment will have to be carried out on the dangers of scalding when making tea. We’re sure people will appreciate the added security these measures provide.
Lib Dems: Everyone has a right to tea, but other means of satisfying thirst such as coffee, fruit juice, Coca-Cola and orange squash are also acceptable.
SNP: It’s Scotland’s Tea!
BNP: Tea will be sent back to India and China.
Scottish Socialist Party: Tea must be drunk in a swingers’ club.
Anarchists: Proper tea is theft!
DUP: Ulster says no tea!
Barack Obama: Yes tea can.
George W Bush: The axis of tea-vil.
Ming Campbell: You’ll have had you tea.
Charles Kennedy: Teacher’s.
Silvio Berlusconi: Teanagers.
Laurence Boyce said...
15 Sep 09 at 2:24 pm
How long did it take you to brew that lot up?
Charlotte Gore said...
15 Sep 09 at 2:26 pm
Bernard, you’re a genius.
Henry North London said...
15 Sep 09 at 6:39 pm
Whats the Libertarian party position?
I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never make tea for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to make tea for mine.
With apologies to Ayn Rand
Gav said...
15 Sep 09 at 7:11 pm
I couldn’t be doing with having to wait for whoever’s round it is before getting a cup of tea, I need at least 10 cups a day!
Why can’t people just get their own tea when they want one, and announce that they are making a cup and ask “does anyone else want one?”. That way, only the people that actually want tea end up with a cup, and they don’t have to wait around because it’s the turn of someone that has one a day.
That would meet demand perfectly and people wouldn’t be going backwards and forwards to make one cup for themselves each time.
It might turn out that people that drink more tea end up making it more often for others, but as long as you’re on an hourly wage then it doesn’t matter to you – you’d only be stuck in front of a computer or phone otherwise.
People that like tea get to skive off while still having a more efficient system – everyone wins. Unless I’m missing something.
Rob101 said...
16 Sep 09 at 1:20 pm
There is clearly deep inequality in beverage enjoyment there. Some greedily drink a cup every hour, others more sparingly have one a day and feel guilty even about that.
You need an Independent Beverage Authority. Budget of £50m, offices on the north bank of the Thames. Each beverage drinker has to fill in a questionnaire about their beverage drinking habits. The IBA dispenses beverages on a schedule determined by Polly Toynbee as the most egalitarian possible way.
Sadly because of mission creep and paranoia the IBA blacklists everyone from drinking beverages and you are driven from your home by a howling anti-beverage mob after an IBA employee leaked your details.
Rob101 said...
16 Sep 09 at 1:24 pm
Bernard:
“Of course, the Green Party response to all this would be that you shouldn’t be using all that power to boil kettles anyway and should be drinking cold water instead.”
Plus all of the “food miles” in shipping the tea and coffee here from South America/India. You should be drinking cold English nettle tea.
Jock said...
16 Sep 09 at 4:07 pm
Toynbee? They couldn’t afford her! Howevre I do think there is clearly a job for Trevor Phillips in getting the racism out of work-day beverage abuse.
Andy Hinton said...
17 Sep 09 at 10:38 pm
I sympathise with you instinctively, Charlotte. Might I suggest my own solution: get yourself an office of which you (and Radio 4) are the only occupant, and do what you like.
Favfly said...
25 Sep 09 at 3:13 pm
All this talk of tea got me thinking: if office desks were kitted out with chamber-pots, would this argument translate to toilet breaks? “I’m just off to the loo… anybody?”
Surely, the efficiency argument would still apply? Perhaps, the coercive-collectivist just hasn’t made the necessary leap of imagination yet.
bob said...
28 Sep 09 at 4:51 pm
what if they haven’t washed their hands?yuk.i’d rather make my own.carrying a tray full of hot mugs is a health and saftey issue!
Jack Hughes said...
8 Dec 09 at 8:09 pm
Saw this on T’Yorkshire Tea website and thought of you…
Jock said...
8 Dec 09 at 9:19 pm
Eeee-eck. I know it can be quite wet in Pickring, but I would not describe Dalby as the “Yorkshire Rainforest Project”.