83,461
edits
The future of office work: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
There are two ways of looking at a corporate organisation: the vertical one — the [[org chart]] — which depicts the firm as a kind of root system whose ley-lines radiate out from the centre and the top, and the lateral one, which starts from any node on the network, and traces where, when and how often that node interacts with all the others. The first is the firm’s ''formal'' structure — how it might looks if in a portrait, framed, and at rest — the second its ''informal'' structure — how it looks ''when in action''. | There are two ways of looking at a corporate organisation: the vertical one — the [[org chart]] — which depicts the firm as a kind of root system whose ley-lines radiate out from the centre and the top, and the lateral one, which starts from any node on the network, and traces where, when and how often that node interacts with all the others. The first is the firm’s ''formal'' structure — how it might looks if in a portrait, framed, and at rest — the second its ''informal'' structure — how it looks ''when in action''. | ||
The formal structure is the bird’s eye view one gets from the executive suite. But | The formal structure is the bird’s eye view one gets from the executive suite. But up close — from the worker’s perspective — the workplace looks very different. We see what is in front of us, we help out, we keep eyes peeled, we go beyond our remit, we ignore or truncate obviously inappropriate procedures, and take a view on marginally relevant policies. These are informal actions: well meant, fundamentally benign, constructive to the organisation but they are totally invisible to central management. We deal with them ''because'' we can see them, and the CEO can’t. Where we contravene established rules we do so with the best of intentions — it is inevitable that some rules are out of date, misconceived, badly framed or ineffective. This is why employees are better than machines. They can take a view. | ||
These interventions are necessarily ''[[ad hoc]].'' They depend on us being there, in the right place, able to act — seeing what’s going on. This informal, buzzy, analogue communication channel needs to be wide open. It is the same channel of the mythical watercooler moments, where sudden flashes of inspiration, or fast thinking that averts disaster — a disaster averted is one the CEO will never know about — or accidentally discovers penicillin, Velcro, post-it notes, Teflon, vulcanising rubber or potato crisps.<ref>[https://bestlifeonline.com/accidental-inventions/ All true].</ref> | |||
Now it is not to say that these serendipities ''can’t'' happen in a remote environment, but they are necessarily harder. | |||
But a firm working purely according to its formal communication lines, strictly according to its documented policies and procedures is, literally, in a “[[work-to-rule]]” — once a popular form of industrial action, shy of an outright strike. To work-to-rule was to refrain from doing anything or exercising any judgment, effort, energy, time or discretion beyond what is officially required — to obey ''only'' the formal lines of the org chart — as a means of choking productivity and pressuring management into better working conditions. | |||
This kind of | |||
==== Bullshit jobs ==== | ==== Bullshit jobs ==== | ||