Arsehole-jobsworth continuum: Difference between revisions

Arsehole-jobsworth continuum (view source)

Revision as of 19:37, 11 September 2023

521 bytes added , 11 September 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|work|}}An individual’s relative risk, in a given commercial environment, to a single individual the Oxford English Dictionary might describe as “an unpleasant or stupid person” on one hand, and the sheer weight of ''l’ennuyeux'' vouchsafed by the massed practitioners of the [[buttocractic oath]] on the other, is encapsulated by the ''[[arsehole-jobsworth continuum]]''.
-A small, intimate workplace leaves you greatly exposed to a single tosspot, from whom you cannot hide, whom you are obliged to greet wanly in reception each day, and who can wantonly ruin entire days, weeks and years of your professional existence. We like to imagine tech startups (''[[founder and CEO]]''), small restaurants (''chefs''), and hedge funds (*anyone really) are unusually prone to this experience.
+A small, intimate workplace leaves you greatly exposed to a single tosspot, from whom you cannot hide, whom you are obliged to greet wanly in reception each day, and who can wantonly ruin entire days, weeks and years of your professional existence. We like to imagine tech startups (''[[founder and CEO]]''), small restaurants (''chefs''), and [[hedge fund]]s (''anyone really'') are unusually prone to this experience.
-For here, at the “arsehole” end of the continuum, there is absolutely ''no'' [[tedium]]: none whatsoever — and after a short time, the few in the organisation (other than the titular arsehole) rather pine for it.
-At the other is the massive multinational, full service banking organisation — especially one which used to be a sleepy commercial lender, until it bolted on an anemic investment bank in 2003, when that seemed a good idea, and an asset management division in 2009.
+But conversely, here, at the “arsehole” end of the scale, there is absolutely ''no'' [[tedium]]: none whatsoever — and after a short time, the few in the organisation (other than the titular arsehole) rather pine for it.
-{{Otto}}, by way of defending the [[sixteenth law of worker entropy]] (“conservation of tedium)” from the apparently contradictory evidence presented by outsourcing, established the [[seventeenth law of worker entropy]] — namely, “the intrinsic tedium acting on any organisation is proportional to the square of the number of individuals comprising that organisation”
+At the other is the massive multinational, full service banking organisation — especially one which used to be a sleepy commercial lender, until it acquired a credit trading operation in 2003, when that seemed a good idea, rescued a failing investment bank in 2008, when it didn’t, and an asset management division in 2009. Here there are plenty of arseholes, to be sure — but they are generally avoidable, at least in the long run. What is ''not'' avoidable is the sheer, soul-crushing bureaucratic monotony in these organisations, an ear-splitting background [[tedium]] which has survived and, apparently ''thrived'', despite all these punctuations in the organisation’s evolutionary equilibrium.
+{{Otto}}, by way of defending the [[sixteenth law of worker entropy]] (“[[conservation of tedium]]”) from the apparently contradictory evidence presented by [[outsourcing]], established the [[seventeenth law of worker entropy]] describing the rate of growth of tedium in an ''inflating'' system: “the intrinsic tedium acting on any organisation is proportional to the square of the number of individuals comprising that organisation”
 {{sa}}
 *[[Sixteenth law of worker entropy]]