An analysis of organizations
CCBR: A project that bloomed from ICRA
After ICRA, Donny reached out to our group chat proposing a project idea over the summer: building a modular, open source humanoid robot.
The CCBR team
Five of us from different schools
- Donny, Ryan - Caltech
- Me - Columbia
- Alex - Berkeley
- Will - Rutgers
came together under the (supposed-to-be) temporary name CCBR, and started building a robot, with the goal of making it walk by the end of summer.
In comparison to CURC?
I’m still leading the Columbia Robotics Club (CURC). So, I wanted to reflect on what I’ve learned about the anatomy of organizations (both internally and externally) in general, and also compare the differences between the two organizations—with the hope that the path forward combines aspects from both.
The anatomy of an organization
The workings of a team
CURC’s leadership team consists of the following broad categories:
- the lead
- the internal team
- finance
- organization
- logistics
- the external team
- marketing / design
- business
- events
with both internal and external working together in tandem with the lead(s) to achieve certain goals in the context of other robotics clubs and the tech industry as a whole.
Competition and cooperation in context
The strata of organizations
The various tiers at which we can analyze the incentives and behaviors of the organization are
- personal
- intra-organization (the team)
- intra-industry (other robotics clubs)
- inter-industry (companies)
And based on the dis/alignment of people’s goals within each strata, we can see competition and cooperation existing within each tier—a complex web of relationships based on functional roles but undercut with the competitive edge of living in a world with finite resources.
1. Personal goals
People may have different goals
- ambition / power-driven motives
- stability chasing motives
- relationship / community motives
- …
as well as different skills
- organizational
- financial
- interpersonal
- …
And these personal goals interface with the various levels of organization to guide competitive and cooperative behaviors.
2. Intra-organization goals
Within the organization,
- ambition/power hungry people want to become president
- stability chasers may crave roles with defined responsibilities and timelines
- community-driven people may enjoy planning social events
But we all align within the broader context of sharing intra/inter-industry goals.
3. Intra-industry goals
Between different robotics clubs, we see a competitive ecosystem emerge, with robotics/engineering clubs being stacked against each other based on
- competition performance
- social media presence
- job placement
- prestige of affiliated school
But with CCBR, I also found inter-club collaboration through the shared personal principles of
- personal learning
- ambition
4. Inter-industry goals
And robotics clubs come together as well as out of the “inter-industry” motives of
- strengthening the greater robotics community
- advancing the state-of-the-art in humanoid robotics
The interplay between functionality and humanity
Robotics clubs play a functional role interfacing with the world as a whole by being a pipeline of talent into certain engineering careers - big tech, auto companies, defense contractors, etc. But we all share a love of building robots and the desire to build better robots.
This summer, we invited Bob Tian, the CEO of Robify to Columbia to discuss a potential CURC/CCBR collaboration. He was super kind, and seemed genuinely happy to talk to us about the robots he made. We ate lunch together at Dun Huang after, and Dr. Tian remarked that he’s from the Sichuan region himself—that it reminds him of home.
CURC vs CCBR: On growth
Through my time with both CCBR and CURC, a new question arose: How much weight we should place on growth versus on technical or intrinsic development?
CURC vs CCBR: Differences in ambition
CURC, to this point, infamously prided ourselves on being “chill,” prioritizing community and acceptance over competition performance and social media ambitions. We subsisted off the money Columbia gave us, not worrying about external sponsorships.
In contrast, CCBR was far more growth oriented. There was a large emphasis in packaging our developmental journey to the outside world—through LinkedIn posts, a website, and even setting goals based on what would help us “go viral.”
A comparison of problems
Prestige and achievement go hand-in-hand, and in attracting “chiller” but less ambitious people, the incentives for rapid growth and media presence are replaced with sustainable yet less impactful achievement in the broader playing field.
The problems with being too chill
At CURC, we were more lenient with delays and kinder in our communication. Still, Columbia is a very prestige-minded place—so this relaxed vibe attracted people who were either:
- prestige-minded and had other larger commitments
- technical, “anti-LinkedIn” folk who just loved building robots
I like the idea of not investing into appearances without substance—but I was starting to feel restless on our slow growth and lackluster competition performance.
The problems with being too ambitious
My friends at CCBR were much more ambitious and growth minded, which came with a set of more demanding and unforgiving expectations.
- meeting for 6hrs every sat/sun to work on CAD/learning RL/the tech stack
- writing LinkedIn posts and detailed GitHub README’s
- handwinding our own motors
- being on call for late night meetings
People were less forgiving here, getting annoyed if others wouldn’t complete their work on time—sometimes dipping into cruelty.
Striking the balance: A personal choice
So how do you strike the balance?
I think it’s difficult to cannibalize an organization into becoming something which is not fundamentally aligned with the people in it. So the answer I came upon is that we look to ourselves, and what kind of pace we prefer in our daily lifestyle, and find friends / existing groups which align with your goals on a personal level.