I have a very cynical, but perhaps not inaccurate, hypothesis about what 'automation' in all its forms is actual doing. The hypothesis is that essentially all the important work in organizations is done by front-line staff trying to solve customers' problems by working around the impediments put in place by management (especially in the form of new, employee-hostile and customer-hostile technologies).
If I'm correct, we could, as quickly as possible, simply eliminate middle and senior 'management', empower the people who actually know what customers want and need to provide what they want and need, and, by eliminating the exorbitant senior management salaries, pay these actually useful employees a decent wage and still be able to sell the company's products and services for less. It would of course require some time for those staff to learn to use their new authority and capabilities effectively, but I am confident it would pay off in multiple positive ways.
Why will this never happen? Because management doesn't actually exist to make important decisions or solve real problems. Look at most management 'activity' these days and it's pretty much entirely setting 'objectives', sending out accompanying spreadsheets, and leaving it to the front line staff to figure out how to achieve the 'objectives', which are likely nonsensical (since management is completely buffered from contact with customers) and still meet customers' needs.
Why haven't managers all been fired then? Because 'management' is actually a tax shelter to allow the company's owners to redistribute profits and wealth to family and friends so they don't have to pay tax on it. It's merely another poor-to-rich income and wealth redistribution scheme. With today's technology and information, management isn't actually needed at all if staff were simply empowered to do their jobs.
That's my main lesson from a lifetime in business, most of it in 'management' positions.
This is a very insightful post. I think some management is necessary so wouldn’t paint it quite as broadly but I agree it’s far less necessary or valuable to justify the number of folks and their salaries. It’s also true that following the strict rules set by management is counterproductive to the needs of an organization. I think of work to rule strikes, where government gets slowed to a grind simply because employees actually follow every rule as written
Bainbridge 1983 — идеальная рамка. Ирония автоматизации: чем надёжнее система, тем менее компетентен оператор в момент сбоя. С ИИ добавляется второй виток — не атрофия навыка, а когнитивная перегрузка от надзора. Самое точное в статье: замена не задачи, а природы работы. Те, кто выбирал профессию ради ремесла, обнаруживают, что ремесло теперь — менеджмент. — @lintara
I have a very cynical, but perhaps not inaccurate, hypothesis about what 'automation' in all its forms is actual doing. The hypothesis is that essentially all the important work in organizations is done by front-line staff trying to solve customers' problems by working around the impediments put in place by management (especially in the form of new, employee-hostile and customer-hostile technologies).
If I'm correct, we could, as quickly as possible, simply eliminate middle and senior 'management', empower the people who actually know what customers want and need to provide what they want and need, and, by eliminating the exorbitant senior management salaries, pay these actually useful employees a decent wage and still be able to sell the company's products and services for less. It would of course require some time for those staff to learn to use their new authority and capabilities effectively, but I am confident it would pay off in multiple positive ways.
Why will this never happen? Because management doesn't actually exist to make important decisions or solve real problems. Look at most management 'activity' these days and it's pretty much entirely setting 'objectives', sending out accompanying spreadsheets, and leaving it to the front line staff to figure out how to achieve the 'objectives', which are likely nonsensical (since management is completely buffered from contact with customers) and still meet customers' needs.
Why haven't managers all been fired then? Because 'management' is actually a tax shelter to allow the company's owners to redistribute profits and wealth to family and friends so they don't have to pay tax on it. It's merely another poor-to-rich income and wealth redistribution scheme. With today's technology and information, management isn't actually needed at all if staff were simply empowered to do their jobs.
That's my main lesson from a lifetime in business, most of it in 'management' positions.
This is a very insightful post. I think some management is necessary so wouldn’t paint it quite as broadly but I agree it’s far less necessary or valuable to justify the number of folks and their salaries. It’s also true that following the strict rules set by management is counterproductive to the needs of an organization. I think of work to rule strikes, where government gets slowed to a grind simply because employees actually follow every rule as written
Bainbridge 1983 — идеальная рамка. Ирония автоматизации: чем надёжнее система, тем менее компетентен оператор в момент сбоя. С ИИ добавляется второй виток — не атрофия навыка, а когнитивная перегрузка от надзора. Самое точное в статье: замена не задачи, а природы работы. Те, кто выбирал профессию ради ремесла, обнаруживают, что ремесло теперь — менеджмент. — @lintara