> Much within the modern corporation is less about making things or solving problems and more about the political process of gaining control over the flows of resources.
. . .
> From this perspective, maybe we’ve been thinking about the modern business world in completely the wrong way.
I'm not sure who the author means by "we", but down here at the bottom of the food chain we've known this all along.
I sometimes wonder if the people writing stuff like this actually think what they write or they in turn are also acting out a specific role for the benefit of whoever is paying them. And then in reverse, is the person paying them acting out a specific role for the benefit of the people being paid? Is everyone just performing a big theater production at each other because we're terrified everyone else might think we don't deserve to eat otherwise?
Jobs are either deemed useful to increasing revenue by the business owner, or are deemed necessary by the government in the name of safety, fairness, accountability or just vote getting but which don’t necessarily add to revenue in the business. Which ones are meeningless ?
The economy is (or used to be) built on creating value and then exchanging it. So any job that doesn't end up creating value for a person somewhere (as opposed to a "system") is meaningless.
I.e. is the total value of the world higher when you finish your work, or is it not? If I am putting parts together to make a car, yes, the car is worth more than the parts. If I am suing someone by abusing copyright law, then no, I didn't add any value to the world.
There are certainly higher levels of meaning than monetary value. The issue the OP is raising is that many jobs don't even hit that lower bar.
From the perspective of 'creating something people want', a car does belong in that category, and a lawyer doesn't, but there will for sure be some grey areas.
Not all lawyers are bad. I've seen good ones doing good things in courts and telling people frankly what it will cost and what the chances are. And this one particular lawyer cost only 0.2X of his stated first round cost, because other side resigned after first letter. Now there won't be smelly/noisy food factory just right outside my apartment building windows.
What I'm getting at:
> I.e. is the total value of the world higher when you finish your work, or is it not?
TOTAL level of value in world is only correlated with meaning of job. But, there are many jobs which feel meaningful, but have negative effect on world.
Nothing to do with being good or bad. The work they do doesn't add value. It might even be necessary work so that markets can function, but it doesn't add value.
It's something to ponder. For myself, the ultimate absurdity, is the small fact that people have to lie,beg, bribe and steal to get honest work. At this point, I dont think that we as a society have any right to complain about criminality. Currently it's the second largest employer behind the government in many developing nations. It boggles the mind how a state can twiddle thumbs and strut around Davos to proudly tell fellow statesmen that 50% of your countries youth, people in the prime years of their working lives, have absolutely fuck all to do. Woe. Oh woe.
Most jobs are meaningless, and it's hard to tell which ones are unless you think about what literal actions and materials are required to support human life instead of how much money is required to purchase those actions and materials.
Obviously we need the entire supply chain associated with food, shelter, power generation, water purification, clothing creation, medical supplies, border defense, application of the law, and a few others, but beyond those major supply chains- what do we as a society really need in order for everyone to remain alive for another day?
The question: if everyone who does what you do stopped showing up to work tomorrow, would anyone downstream of your job die after the workforce adjusted to your absence? If the answer is no, you almost certainly work a useless job.
"what do we as a society really need in order for everyone to remain alive for another day?"
We need everybody in that supply chain to work a full week to create the surplus that the rest of us live off.
Therefore the biggest problem is the answer to a simple question: "why exactly should those people work beyond Tuesday when they have all supplied themselves?".
As society improves its productivity we grow ever more dependent upon a shrinking set of highly skilled people working far longer than they strictly need to.
What are we actually offering them so they will continue to work longer?
I doubt "produce more adverts and PR" is the answer.
I agree with what you're saying, but why don't instead we all just work for the supply chain, and then we can all work two days per week, instead of worrying about how to incentivize those in the supply chain to work ever longer?
Because we don't have the skills. The necessary tasks are becoming more skilled, not less, as society progresses.
That's what defeats the old 'socially necessary labour' concept. Essentially few of us are good enough to do the jobs that need to be done, nor can we become good enough because we just don't have the talent.
My observation is that big orgs are full of waste due to bureaucracy and smaller orgs waste because they chase too many marketing gimmicks instead of solving real problems. Both types of orgs suffer each of these to a degree, it's just the mix changes with size.
It would be impostor syndrome, if we were excellent, but fearing that we are frauds. But if we are in fact frauds, then "impostor syndrome" is the natural self-diagnosis self-defence protecting us from admitting to ourselves the bitter truth. Maybe it's a better idea to react to the feeling of being an impostor with the will to change something in one's life? I know I feel much happier knowing that I have a plan which I systematically put into life, that lets me do fulfilling stuff, instead of the usual theatre.
. . .
> From this perspective, maybe we’ve been thinking about the modern business world in completely the wrong way.
I'm not sure who the author means by "we", but down here at the bottom of the food chain we've known this all along.