3 ms·

The problem is that the "stakeholder" is (more often than not) Bob, the manager from the neighbouring department. So, "producing value for the stakeholders" is

by m000 3y ago

The problem is that the "stakeholder" is (more often than not) Bob, the manager from the neighbouring department. So, "producing value for the stakeholders" is essentially "doing what Bob perceives as useful", so Bob can in turn appear as useful to upper management. So yes, it's a charade.

jdm2212 3y ago
If you're doing something useful for Bob, and he's doing something useful for upper management, and upper management is doing something useful for shareholders... then transitively you're probably doing something useful for shareholders. Or at least to reject that hypothesis you'd need a lot of visibility into what Bob is doing, and what the upper management is doing, and what their respective goals/priorities/strategies are.
- mordae 3y ago
  You could still be doing a bullshit job, though. Shareholders are institutional nowadays and what they ask for can very easily not be aligned to their needs. Not to speak of needs of the wider society. Pension fund manager wants bonus, not to ensure livable conditions for the next couple of generations whose funds he's managing.
  - jdm2212 3y ago
    There are lots of jobs that make the world less livable but are clearly not bullshit jobs. Like if you work in marketing at a cigarette company you are probably a bad person, and you are advancing bad goals, but you are doing real, non-bullshit work every day. The bullshit job concept is not "this is making the world worse off", it's "no one would notice if this job ceased to exist". There is a real theory out there that index funds are making companies less cutthroat and competitive, but there's pretty limited evidence to support the theory. And if you can identify any companies with a notably high amount of fat to cut, there's a lot of money to be made working for an activist investor trying to get those companies to fire all their bullshit workers. If you can't identify such companies, you may just be a bullshitter yourself though.

by m000 3y ago

jdm2212 3y ago

If you're doing something useful for Bob, and he's doing something useful for upper management, and upper management is doing something useful for shareholders... then transitively you're probably doing something useful for shareholders. Or at least to reject that hypothesis you'd need a lot of visibility into what Bob is doing, and what the upper management is doing, and what their respective goals/priorities/strategies are.

mordae 3y ago
You could still be doing a bullshit job, though. Shareholders are institutional nowadays and what they ask for can very easily not be aligned to their needs. Not to speak of needs of the wider society. Pension fund manager wants bonus, not to ensure livable conditions for the next couple of generations whose funds he's managing.
- jdm2212 3y ago
  There are lots of jobs that make the world less livable but are clearly not bullshit jobs. Like if you work in marketing at a cigarette company you are probably a bad person, and you are advancing bad goals, but you are doing real, non-bullshit work every day. The bullshit job concept is not "this is making the world worse off", it's "no one would notice if this job ceased to exist". There is a real theory out there that index funds are making companies less cutthroat and competitive, but there's pretty limited evidence to support the theory. And if you can identify any companies with a notably high amount of fat to cut, there's a lot of money to be made working for an activist investor trying to get those companies to fire all their bullshit workers. If you can't identify such companies, you may just be a bullshitter yourself though.