81,695
edits
A World Without Work: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Susskind’s conception of “work” as a succession of definable, atomisable and impliedly dull tasks — a framework, of course, which suits it perfectly to adaptation by machine — is as retrograde and-out-of-touch as you might expect of an academic son of an academic whose closest encounter with paid employment has been as a special policy adviser to government. Perhaps he once had a paper round. This kind of Taylorism is common in management layers of the corporate world, of course, but that hardly makes it any less boneheaded. | Susskind’s conception of “work” as a succession of definable, atomisable and impliedly dull tasks — a framework, of course, which suits it perfectly to adaptation by machine — is as retrograde and-out-of-touch as you might expect of an academic son of an academic whose closest encounter with paid employment has been as a special policy adviser to government. Perhaps he once had a paper round. This kind of Taylorism is common in management layers of the corporate world, of course, but that hardly makes it any less boneheaded. | ||
The better response is to recognise that definable, atomisable and dull tasks do not define what is employment, but it's very inverse: what it should not be. The [[JC]]’s law of worker | The better response is to recognise that definable, atomisable and dull tasks do not define what is employment, but it's very inverse: what it should not be. The [[JC]]’s [[third law of worker entropy]] is exactly that: [[tedium]] is as sure a sign of [[waste]] in an organisation. If your workers are bored, you have a problem. If they’re boring ''each other'', then it’s an exponential problem. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||