Talk:The future of office work: Difference between revisions

=== Kyla Scanlon’s argument ===

[https://kylascanlon.com/ Kyla Scanlon] is a whip-smart “content creator” whose short-form videos, podcasts and blogs “analysing the economy with a human-focused lens” have earned her hundreds of thousands of subscribers.<ref>Her videos are either next-level, uber-hip, tenth-Dan free-form improvisational genius, or something that just looks like it. [https://x.com/kylascan/status/1704626243402895435? Judge for yourself].</ref> Recently she came to the defence of TikTok Girl who, she says, is ''right''.<ref>https://kyla.substack.com/p/the-tiktok-girl-is-right-modernity</ref>

Scanlon starts her case with some potted anthropology — agrarian societies worked during daylight hours and gave up their circadian rhythms only when forced to by the industrial revolution, and it took Henry Ford (not ''usually'' a Gen Z pin-up, but still) to recognise he would get more out of his workers by paying more and asking less.  

So, Scanlon tells us, was born the nine-to-five. The industrial world has, arbitrarily, stuck with it ever since. But the nature of how we now ''are'' — networked, digital, [[onworld|online]] rather than “in-person” — and what we now ''do'' — delivering services like “B2B SaaS” instead of traditional industries — means [[this time it’s different|it’s different this time]].  

Let’s take this history as read and park questions — such as how TikTok Girl would have liked the average day out in the agrarian fields, or ''who'' stuck with the eight-hour work day, since it definitely wasn’t the financial services industry or their professional advisors<ref>The EU got so worked up about the long hours that it legislated the “Working Time Directive” in 1998, limiting weekly work hours to ''forty-eight''. Professionals have habitually opted out of it ever since.</ref> — but as we do, a bit of tough love: an eight-hour day downtown with a commute each side of it is ''no great imposition''. It might be ''dull'', sure, but that is not the question. You can’t cure boredom by working from home.

So are there other reasons to think things have changed? Scanlon argues that, since we now deliver services rather than making things in a factory, jobs ''can'' be delivered remotely.  

{{quote|

every time you talk about a change in the workforce, it’s a typical response of “I can’t envision a world different than the one I inhabit personally, therefore, nothing is possible” or some variation of that.... The pea-brained nature of those that can’t envision a future different than the present are the problem.}}

But Scanlon’s conception of what her generation, in general, can reasonably expect from working life seems just as informed by the world ''she'' inhabits personally, which to put not too fine a point on it, ''rocks''. Few twenty-five year olds can expect a podcast, a Bloomberg column, guest essays in the New York Times and the best part of half a million followers across five platforms. If they could, they would. So, frankly, would the rest of us.

But fair enough, we should not accept our fate. The questions remains: ''Can'' we change? ''What''? And ''how''?

In a sense Kyla Scanlon is right: if it comes to it, we can, ''en masse'', deliver services remotely. [[COVID-19|Covid]] proved it. But this is a bit like saying we ''can'' eat peas with a knife. The nature of corporate work is inherently collaborative, in the way social media influencing probably isn’t. Is the ''best'' way of delivering services to have staff sequester themselves in their box rooms and interact solely through the medium of Slack, Zoom and Teams?  

Seeing as digital communication constrains us to formal, metered, monitored channels, this should at least not be taken for granted. See last week’s piece on the [[org chart]].

Is there something different, then, about Generation Z? ''Yes'':

The younger generation, notably Gen Z, grapples with an evolving definition of work. Unlike previous generations, they face unprecedented challenges: climate change, an uncertain economy, ballooning student loans, and the struggles of identity and purpose in a digitized world.}}

Scanlon says we mustn’t laugh at the kids, but when they things like this is it hard not to.

Why don’t we change, then? Scanlon attributes this to intransigence, and a little bit, to embittered generations who themselves went through the meatgrinder, and don’t see why the next generation shouldn’t too.

Boomers expect everyone to graft just like they did, as if hard work, and not ''smart'' work, is a kind of religion.

“Every time you talk about a change in the workforce, it’s a typical response of ‘I can’t envision a world different than the one I inhabit personally, therefore, nothing is possible’ or some variation of that. ... [but] to be unable to envision a future different from the present is pea-brained.”}}

And that seems to be it: beyond saying we shouldn’t mock younger generations (I’m not sure why not: they seem happy enough to mock older ones) and we shouldn’t close our minds to new ways of working, which is certainly true, but those new ways of working really need to be different.

None of Scanlon’s reasons are new. Circadian rhythms have been out of whack since threshers collapsed in a heap in front of the fire in the seventeenth century. Max Weber’s “iron cage” of hierarchy, rules, and process has been with us since, well when Weber noticed it, in 1904.

=== Jemima Kelly’s argument ===

Why shouldn’t she be upset that this is what notching up tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of debt securing a college degree gets you? Why shouldn’t she take her happiness and quality of life seriously? Why do we need to keep glorifying the daily grind as if it were an inherently worthy or virtuous way to live?

  }}

Good questions, but again: this time isn’t different. No-one — except maybe Steven Schwartzman — glorifies the daily grind. Like greed, it isn’t actually good: it is inevitable. We have configured the way we work, the complex system that is the grand game of financial services pass the parcel, so that it is this elaborate game of formal hoop-jumping and box ticking. We have between us consented to the flawless execution of form as the highest art, the highest aspiration of professional life.

This, too, may be our fault for giving them false expectations, or a function that, as social conditions improve, incidence of neuroticism necessarily increases.  

We need to work out how to get the balance right between the Zoomer-style coddling and the Boomer-style stiff upper lip — that’s tricky.}}

Or not: the JC is fond of the quotable Nietzsche, but it is no more than seeking out antifragility.  Along that axis, if the choice is between coddling and stiff upper lip, it ''is'' easy: stiff upper lip.

Her video shorts are never earnest: she saturates them with state-of-the-art memery and ''velocity'': everything gallops between with frenetic jump cuts, Burroughs like cut-ups and frame shifts that speak to the easily-distracted multi-channel, hyperlinked, always-on dot-dot-dash attention spans of the digital native but don’t necessarily make sense. Well, not to me, at any rate: they are often far too quick for this old codger to make out, let alone follow, and they’re gone before you get a chance to mull over or analyse for content.  

In any case you can’t help but admire, and maybe be sucked in by, the energy and brio of the delivery. You wonder what it would be like if you got to slow it down and treat it like an old-fashioned, boomer thought piece.

Well, Scanlon lets you do that, too. Her Substack is almost as popular as her TikTok, and definitely a lot more popular than this one! 

Scanlon is unrepresentative of her generation in other ways, too. Her expectation for some

That same lazy, boomer categorisation of millennials as “attention-depleted dilettantes who conduct their self-absorbed lives through social media” isn't generally true even of the metropolitan liberal cohort we have in mind, let alone the rest of the world's twenty-two year olds, of whom the “digital native” stereotype is starkly atypical.  

----

Ambitious kids work like tyros, wherever they are. And are the progeny of the professionally qualified upper middle classes of London, New York and California necessarily as driven and (figuratively) hungry as poor kind in Nairobi, Damascus or Kyiv? The JC has no data, but he doubts it. Who is more likely to complain about burnout after a nine to five?