6 ms·

Orwell made some interesting observations in one of his essays in how the increase of technology doesn't lead to greater freedom, but greater scale, bureaucracy

Orwell made some interesting observations in one of his essays in how the increase of technology doesn't lead to greater freedom, but greater scale, bureaucracy, and increased governance at a distance: with the invention of the telegraph, decisions were now made by ministers in whitehall vs english army officers reliant upon a shared belief/culture system and taking the initiative in the field. That being said, while there is an interesting and at least plausible reason to believe there is some connection between such phenomenon and technology, i think the article is a bit too quick to proclaim that its things like "technology", "emailing" and things that have lead to a lack of empathy in the modern workplace. On the contrary, i think organisational size and governance lines (which is in some ways connected to technology, admittedly), globalisation, outsourcing, and just the general economic and social realities of the modern workforce lead to a necessary degeneration of trust and respect between workmates and the organisation. My company, for all its "values", will throw me under the bus to save itself, or for a quick buck. I cannot rely on it to support me into the future: even if it wanted to put money into a pension, i can't rely on that actually remaining solvent. I don't even know if my field/expertise is going to be around for the next 5 years. It is always looking to screw me over, outsource my labour, etc, etc. Its not "too much emails" that does it: its that I know I'm essentially working for a short-term psychopath that couldn't keep its promises to me even if it wanted to (and it doesn't want to). If you raise people in harsh cutthroat conditions, don't be surprised if empathy falls by the wayside, or expect the lamb to lie down with the lion.

forgetfullest 10y ago
> i think the article is a bit too quick to proclaim that its things like "technology", "emailing" and things that have lead to a lack of empathy in the modern workplace No, it's actually quoting "Sherry Turkle, director of the Initiative on Technology and Self at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology", and maybe you're a bit too quick to dismiss the amount of thought she put into such claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherry_Turkle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherry_Turkle
- witty_username 10y ago
  This is irrelevant and an appeal to authority.
  - forgetfullest 10y ago
    It's exactly relevant to the claim that "the article" is "quick to proclaim" anything. The article is quoting the claim of someone who isn't rash at all.
    - _archon_ 10y ago
      We don't know that. The article didn't back up these quotations with reasoning, it just assumed that they were fact. This is pretty much the definition of an appeal to authority. A superior article would lay out how and why such disconnects exist; I have no reason to believe they do other than one person I'm never going to meet having said so.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Argument to authority and argument to expertise are two different things.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    No, an appeal to authority is when you say that because someone is an authority in one area, they should be listened to in another. In this case, this is her focus of study. I'm sorry if you think it's fallacious, but I'm gonna give the person who has studied the subject a little more weight than some rando on the internet.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      > No, an appeal to authority is when you say that because someone is an authority in one area, they should be listened to in another. It's really not.
kiba 10y ago
decisions were now made by ministers in whitehall vs english army officers reliant upon a shared belief/culture system and taking the initiative in the field. The temptation to micromanage every aspect in the field from afar would lead to defeat in this day and age.
- gaius 10y ago
  Incidentally, this is the reason that Companies in the British Army are commanded by Majors rather than mere Captains in the US Army - because the British Army had a longer history of operating in very remote places so you needed a more senior, experienced commander on the ground.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
But it's "psychopaths" all the way down. I like very much that you chose "to save itself". My resume is full of firms that did exactly that. The ones that are still open are muddling along, about where they were before I worked for 'em. They are firms that are "retired". There is little that is "psychopathic" about it; it's just mildly complex mathematics, the sort used in accounting. It's just a reflection of "space does not care". I think it's much, much simpler. The defacto standard for a firm is everyone underfoot, whirring away. Those who deviate from this are blamed when tightening occurs. This is reported as "remote work is on the wane." That becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Likewise, one failure in coordination and remote work is blamed. Wanna know what's worse? Shorting the ability of many, many people to remotely work is probably the right bet.
autokad 10y ago
"On the contrary, i think organisational size and governance lines (which is in some ways connected to technology, admittedly), globalisation, outsourcing, and just the general economic and social realities of the modern workforce lead to a necessary degeneration of trust and respect between workmates and the organisation." your arguments support the article. its very hard to argue that globalization and outsourcing isnt fueled by tech (Voice over IP for example). your skills becoming obsolete also point to the fast pace tech. not sure about the general economy and social realities, although i feel facebook does more to separate people than to connect them.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  The point is that it doesn't have to do with technology itself. The technology is what enables us to have large organizations, and large organizations are almost inevitably alienating. I'm sure you could tell when the East India company got to a certain size.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    > doesn't lead to greater freedom, but greater scale, bureaucracy, and increased governance at a distance Interesting point given the parent comment (quoted). I'd assume the East India Company, regardless of size, still operated in a fairly federated/independent manner. You can't very well micromanage across 4-6 months travel time.
PeterisP 10y ago
In some industries where "the labor force" has more negotiating power, you do get a choice to avoid "working for a short-term psychopath that couldn't keep its promises to me even if it wanted to". I've seen and also participated in an employment model that's a bit "feudal" in nature - where the prime loyalty is between the worker and the team + team leader, not the larger megacorp. This allows the manager to get stuff done well and thus often but not always avoid excessive pressure from outside/above and thus keep any promises made even if they're not legally binding; and if they are thrown under a bus (which happens, sometimes for various unavoidable circumstances e.g. change in ownership) then this simply results in most of the team re-assembling in a company that treats them appropriately.
PakG1 10y ago
My company, for all its "values", will throw me under the bus to save itself, or for a quick buck. I cannot rely on it to support me into the future: even if it wanted to put money into a pension, i can't rely on that actually remaining solvent. I don't even know if my field/expertise is going to be around for the next 5 years. It is always looking to screw me over, outsource my labour, etc, etc. Its not "too much emails" that does it: its that I know I'm essentially working for a short-term psychopath that couldn't keep its promises to me even if it wanted to (and it doesn't want to). Reid Hoffman makes a great point about how companies truly aren't like families. https://hbr.org/2014/06/your-company-is-not-a-family https://hbr.org/2014/06/your-company-is-not-a-family quote: In a real family, parents can’t fire their children. Try to imagine disowning your child for poor performance: “We’re sorry Susie, but your mom and I have decided you’re just not a good fit. Your table-setting effort has been deteriorating for the past 6 months, and your obsession with ponies just isn’t adding any value. We’re going to have to let you go. But don’t take it the wrong way; it’s just family.” I'll take it to another extreme. Loving families (I won't say real families, because there are clearly examples of families that don't do this) will stick with you through thick and thin during your substance abuse, put you through rehab, and still do their best to help you when you fall off the wagon again and again.
- derefr 10y ago
  Re that quote: the author apparently has forgotten the existence of royal/noble families. When there are titles at stake, children certainly do get "disowned" for all sorts of reasons. (This doesn't mean they're kicked onto the street, though—they're not disowned by the parents, but rather by the family. Which just means they're no longer expected/allowed to inherit whatever they were going to inherit, and so they stop being groomed for it, which usually means the parents redirect their attention elsewhere and the child ends up raised by a nanny.)
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Do you have any references / sources / examples / stories of this? Sounds like an interesting area. Thought there's a difference in being disowned / disinherited, and in simply not being the primo genitur -- the offspring who will inherit the title. I'm thinking of Ludwig von Wittgenstein, born to one of the wealthiest families of the Austro-Hungarian empire in the late 19th century. In his case, he chose to leave the family, or at least its wealth, though AFAIR it remained reasonably supportive of him. I'm not sufficiently versed in nobility/royalty to think of other instances offhand.
wuschel 10y ago
Interesting remark, and it in a way can be observed in our daily lives around the world when you compare to what older generations said. Could you point me to some of these essays? I would like to have a look at them.
wuschel 10y ago
Interesting remark, and it in a way can be observed in our daily lives around the world when you compare to what older generations said. Could you point me to some of these essays? I would like to have a look at them.
clifanatic 10y ago
I love how this article (and the hundreds of others like it) points out that companies perform better when workers are happy, and workers are happy when (fill in the blank). There will never, ever, ever come a day when the owners of the companies care if the workers are happy. Even if you can convince them that they make more money when the workers are happy. The people in charge exist for the sole purpose of making people unhappy, even if it leads to non-productivity, even if it leads to loss of revenue, even if it leads to shareholder decline, even if it leads to workplace violence, even if it leads to suicide, even if it leads to armed revolution. The people who rise to the top do not care about any outcome except spreading misery "below" them as a means of asserting their dominance.
- redbergy 10y ago
  I'm not sure how to respond but I feel compelled to do so. I've never seen your assertions in practice anywhere I've worked in the past 15 years. Sure, at some places people who rise to the top only care about the outcome of the bottom line but never have I seen executive leadership or even middle management who only cares about spreading misery. I could see this being the case at entry level jobs where you're 16 and have an immature 18-20 year old manager but not in the adult world. Maybe you've had a bad experience or two but I don't think your characterization is accurate here.
  - ulkram 10y ago
    What he's saying is that some people derive happiness from being high status. Thus, their goal is not for everyone to be happy. Their goal is to be above others, even if they have to push others down. I'm not sure I completely agree, but it does seem to be at least a part of human nature.
- zizee 10y ago
  > The people in charge exist for the sole purpose of making people unhappy Are you saying that all business owners (including small businesses) are sadists? Either you have worked in only really bad workplaces or you have a really distorted view on reality. Every business owner I know would prefer for their employees to be enjoying their work. What possible motivation could their be for them to desire the opposite?
wineisfine 10y ago
Seems like youre working in a very toxic environment there. What stops you from changing or starting something yourself?
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  I think the toxic environment the writer is describing is modern capitalism itself.
mindcrime 10y ago
My company, for all its "values", will throw me under the bus to save itself, or for a quick buck. Will you also throw the company under the bus to save yourself, or to make a quick buck? Can the company rely on you for your support through thick and thin in the future, even if they have to, say, quit paying you for a while until finances improve?
- ACow_Adonis 10y ago
  Perfectly valid and interesting points. Obviously (or not so obviously) that depends on the company. If it was my own company, my local or town company, my community, or my family's, I would actually want to support it or fight for it. I'm also at a point of life where I've afforded to buy a house and am actually willing to sacrifice or put in effort to make things better in my community. I'm actually looking for a job nearby that I can sit in for the next few years. Does such a job exist anymore at any scale? I realise that many people can't afford to even buy where I live or into their local community any more. But my current employer is a giant organisation. Some of my bosses aren't from the same nation, let alone the same community, they have an off-shoring agenda. I've been through 2 restructures recently and lost two bosses and several workmates. I'm not looking to apportion blame, I know who I'm working for and why. But I do think it's more of a logical outcome of our modern society and economics, even though I have a strong urge to contribute locally, and I actually want to settle down somewhere long term...that's really hard/risky...
tn13 10y ago
I am not sure what to make of Orwell's essay. I think it is a fight between people v/s government and who is a winner is not clear. In USA government has massively expanded in last 100 year under so many pretexts, Americans are significantly less free and most of it seems to be achieved by government using sheer propaganda and fear mongering. But when I look at my home country technology has helped us escape the government propaganda, understand our own history better, realize the scam of the ruling party that virtually rules all the years post independence and feel far more hopeful about future. Indians are better informed, more free and are able to exercise their choices because of technology.
WalterBright 10y ago
I'm curious if you think this is new, or companies have always been that way. Is there any evidence that government bureaucracies are any better?
- fr0sty 10y ago
  Forgive the random comment here, but I just ran into an ancient comment of yours[0] mentioning you searching for a Leader LBO-514a Oscilloscope. Was your search ever successful? I just got my hands on the same model and have been searching for a manual without much luck. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10078026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10078026
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    I managed to get one for a nice price on Ebay, and have been very pleased with it.

forgetfullest 10y ago

> i think the article is a bit too quick to proclaim that its things like "technology", "emailing" and things that have lead to a lack of empathy in the modern workplace No, it's actually quoting "Sherry Turkle, director of the Initiative on Technology and Self at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology", and maybe you're a bit too quick to dismiss the amount of thought she put into such claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherry_Turkle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherry_Turkle

witty_username 10y ago
This is irrelevant and an appeal to authority.
- forgetfullest 10y ago
  It's exactly relevant to the claim that "the article" is "quick to proclaim" anything. The article is quoting the claim of someone who isn't rash at all.
  - _archon_ 10y ago
    We don't know that. The article didn't back up these quotations with reasoning, it just assumed that they were fact. This is pretty much the definition of an appeal to authority. A superior article would lay out how and why such disconnects exist; I have no reason to believe they do other than one person I'm never going to meet having said so.
- ethbro 10y ago
  Argument to authority and argument to expertise are two different things.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No, an appeal to authority is when you say that because someone is an authority in one area, they should be listened to in another. In this case, this is her focus of study. I'm sorry if you think it's fallacious, but I'm gonna give the person who has studied the subject a little more weight than some rando on the internet.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > No, an appeal to authority is when you say that because someone is an authority in one area, they should be listened to in another. It's really not.

kiba 10y ago

decisions were now made by ministers in whitehall vs english army officers reliant upon a shared belief/culture system and taking the initiative in the field. The temptation to micromanage every aspect in the field from afar would lead to defeat in this day and age.

gaius 10y ago
Incidentally, this is the reason that Companies in the British Army are commanded by Majors rather than mere Captains in the US Army - because the British Army had a longer history of operating in very remote places so you needed a more senior, experienced commander on the ground.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

But it's "psychopaths" all the way down. I like very much that you chose "to save itself". My resume is full of firms that did exactly that. The ones that are still open are muddling along, about where they were before I worked for 'em. They are firms that are "retired". There is little that is "psychopathic" about it; it's just mildly complex mathematics, the sort used in accounting. It's just a reflection of "space does not care". I think it's much, much simpler. The defacto standard for a firm is everyone underfoot, whirring away. Those who deviate from this are blamed when tightening occurs. This is reported as "remote work is on the wane." That becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Likewise, one failure in coordination and remote work is blamed. Wanna know what's worse? Shorting the ability of many, many people to remotely work is probably the right bet.

autokad 10y ago

"On the contrary, i think organisational size and governance lines (which is in some ways connected to technology, admittedly), globalisation, outsourcing, and just the general economic and social realities of the modern workforce lead to a necessary degeneration of trust and respect between workmates and the organisation." your arguments support the article. its very hard to argue that globalization and outsourcing isnt fueled by tech (Voice over IP for example). your skills becoming obsolete also point to the fast pace tech. not sure about the general economy and social realities, although i feel facebook does more to separate people than to connect them.

microcolonel 10y ago
The point is that it doesn't have to do with technology itself. The technology is what enables us to have large organizations, and large organizations are almost inevitably alienating. I'm sure you could tell when the East India company got to a certain size.
- ethbro 10y ago
  > doesn't lead to greater freedom, but greater scale, bureaucracy, and increased governance at a distance Interesting point given the parent comment (quoted). I'd assume the East India Company, regardless of size, still operated in a fairly federated/independent manner. You can't very well micromanage across 4-6 months travel time.

PeterisP 10y ago

In some industries where "the labor force" has more negotiating power, you do get a choice to avoid "working for a short-term psychopath that couldn't keep its promises to me even if it wanted to". I've seen and also participated in an employment model that's a bit "feudal" in nature - where the prime loyalty is between the worker and the team + team leader, not the larger megacorp. This allows the manager to get stuff done well and thus often but not always avoid excessive pressure from outside/above and thus keep any promises made even if they're not legally binding; and if they are thrown under a bus (which happens, sometimes for various unavoidable circumstances e.g. change in ownership) then this simply results in most of the team re-assembling in a company that treats them appropriately.

PakG1 10y ago

My company, for all its "values", will throw me under the bus to save itself, or for a quick buck. I cannot rely on it to support me into the future: even if it wanted to put money into a pension, i can't rely on that actually remaining solvent. I don't even know if my field/expertise is going to be around for the next 5 years. It is always looking to screw me over, outsource my labour, etc, etc. Its not "too much emails" that does it: its that I know I'm essentially working for a short-term psychopath that couldn't keep its promises to me even if it wanted to (and it doesn't want to). Reid Hoffman makes a great point about how companies truly aren't like families. https://hbr.org/2014/06/your-company-is-not-a-family https://hbr.org/2014/06/your-company-is-not-a-family quote: In a real family, parents can’t fire their children. Try to imagine disowning your child for poor performance: “We’re sorry Susie, but your mom and I have decided you’re just not a good fit. Your table-setting effort has been deteriorating for the past 6 months, and your obsession with ponies just isn’t adding any value. We’re going to have to let you go. But don’t take it the wrong way; it’s just family.” I'll take it to another extreme. Loving families (I won't say real families, because there are clearly examples of families that don't do this) will stick with you through thick and thin during your substance abuse, put you through rehab, and still do their best to help you when you fall off the wagon again and again.

derefr 10y ago
Re that quote: the author apparently has forgotten the existence of royal/noble families. When there are titles at stake, children certainly do get "disowned" for all sorts of reasons. (This doesn't mean they're kicked onto the street, though—they're not disowned by the parents, but rather by the family. Which just means they're no longer expected/allowed to inherit whatever they were going to inherit, and so they stop being groomed for it, which usually means the parents redirect their attention elsewhere and the child ends up raised by a nanny.)
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Do you have any references / sources / examples / stories of this? Sounds like an interesting area. Thought there's a difference in being disowned / disinherited, and in simply not being the primo genitur -- the offspring who will inherit the title. I'm thinking of Ludwig von Wittgenstein, born to one of the wealthiest families of the Austro-Hungarian empire in the late 19th century. In his case, he chose to leave the family, or at least its wealth, though AFAIR it remained reasonably supportive of him. I'm not sufficiently versed in nobility/royalty to think of other instances offhand.

wuschel 10y ago

Interesting remark, and it in a way can be observed in our daily lives around the world when you compare to what older generations said. Could you point me to some of these essays? I would like to have a look at them.

wuschel 10y ago

clifanatic 10y ago

I love how this article (and the hundreds of others like it) points out that companies perform better when workers are happy, and workers are happy when (fill in the blank). There will never, ever, ever come a day when the owners of the companies care if the workers are happy. Even if you can convince them that they make more money when the workers are happy. The people in charge exist for the sole purpose of making people unhappy, even if it leads to non-productivity, even if it leads to loss of revenue, even if it leads to shareholder decline, even if it leads to workplace violence, even if it leads to suicide, even if it leads to armed revolution. The people who rise to the top do not care about any outcome except spreading misery "below" them as a means of asserting their dominance.

redbergy 10y ago
I'm not sure how to respond but I feel compelled to do so. I've never seen your assertions in practice anywhere I've worked in the past 15 years. Sure, at some places people who rise to the top only care about the outcome of the bottom line but never have I seen executive leadership or even middle management who only cares about spreading misery. I could see this being the case at entry level jobs where you're 16 and have an immature 18-20 year old manager but not in the adult world. Maybe you've had a bad experience or two but I don't think your characterization is accurate here.
- ulkram 10y ago
  What he's saying is that some people derive happiness from being high status. Thus, their goal is not for everyone to be happy. Their goal is to be above others, even if they have to push others down. I'm not sure I completely agree, but it does seem to be at least a part of human nature.
zizee 10y ago
> The people in charge exist for the sole purpose of making people unhappy Are you saying that all business owners (including small businesses) are sadists? Either you have worked in only really bad workplaces or you have a really distorted view on reality. Every business owner I know would prefer for their employees to be enjoying their work. What possible motivation could their be for them to desire the opposite?

wineisfine 10y ago

Seems like youre working in a very toxic environment there. What stops you from changing or starting something yourself?

Apocryphon 10y ago
I think the toxic environment the writer is describing is modern capitalism itself.

mindcrime 10y ago

My company, for all its "values", will throw me under the bus to save itself, or for a quick buck. Will you also throw the company under the bus to save yourself, or to make a quick buck? Can the company rely on you for your support through thick and thin in the future, even if they have to, say, quit paying you for a while until finances improve?

ACow_Adonis 10y ago
Perfectly valid and interesting points. Obviously (or not so obviously) that depends on the company. If it was my own company, my local or town company, my community, or my family's, I would actually want to support it or fight for it. I'm also at a point of life where I've afforded to buy a house and am actually willing to sacrifice or put in effort to make things better in my community. I'm actually looking for a job nearby that I can sit in for the next few years. Does such a job exist anymore at any scale? I realise that many people can't afford to even buy where I live or into their local community any more. But my current employer is a giant organisation. Some of my bosses aren't from the same nation, let alone the same community, they have an off-shoring agenda. I've been through 2 restructures recently and lost two bosses and several workmates. I'm not looking to apportion blame, I know who I'm working for and why. But I do think it's more of a logical outcome of our modern society and economics, even though I have a strong urge to contribute locally, and I actually want to settle down somewhere long term...that's really hard/risky...

tn13 10y ago

I am not sure what to make of Orwell's essay. I think it is a fight between people v/s government and who is a winner is not clear. In USA government has massively expanded in last 100 year under so many pretexts, Americans are significantly less free and most of it seems to be achieved by government using sheer propaganda and fear mongering. But when I look at my home country technology has helped us escape the government propaganda, understand our own history better, realize the scam of the ruling party that virtually rules all the years post independence and feel far more hopeful about future. Indians are better informed, more free and are able to exercise their choices because of technology.

WalterBright 10y ago

I'm curious if you think this is new, or companies have always been that way. Is there any evidence that government bureaucracies are any better?

fr0sty 10y ago
Forgive the random comment here, but I just ran into an ancient comment of yours[0] mentioning you searching for a Leader LBO-514a Oscilloscope. Was your search ever successful? I just got my hands on the same model and have been searching for a manual without much luck. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10078026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10078026
- WalterBright 10y ago
  I managed to get one for a nice price on Ebay, and have been very pleased with it.