81,898
edits
A World Without 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 38: | Line 38: | ||
===Employment and Taylorism=== | ===Employment and Taylorism=== | ||
Susskind’s conception of “work” as a succession of definable, atomisable, impliedly ''dull'' tasks — a framework, of course, which suits it perfectly to adaptation by machine — is a kind of Taylorism. It is a common view in management layers of the corporate world, of course — we might almost call it a [[dogma]] — but that hardly makes a case for it. | Susskind’s conception of “work” as a succession of definable, atomisable, impliedly ''dull'' tasks — a framework, of course, which suits it perfectly to adaptation by machine — is a kind of [[Taylorism]]. It is a common view in management layers of the corporate world, of course — we might almost call it a [[dogma]] — but that hardly makes a case for it. | ||
The better response is to recognise that “definable, atomisable and dull tasks” do not define what ''is'' employment, but what it should ''not'' be. The [[JC]]’s [[third law of worker entropy]] is exactly that: [[tedium]] is a sure sign of [[waste|''waste'']] in an organisation. If your workers are bored, you have a problem. If they’re boring ''each other'',<ref>Hello, financial services!</ref> then it’s an exponential problem. | The better response is to recognise that “definable, atomisable and dull tasks” do not define what ''is'' employment, but what it should ''not'' be. The [[JC]]’s [[third law of worker entropy]] is exactly that: [[tedium]] is a sure sign of [[waste|''waste'']] in an organisation. If your workers are bored, you have a problem. If they’re boring ''each other'',<ref>Hello, financial services!</ref> then it’s an exponential problem. | ||