3 ms·

It's not only denial of use. The perpetrator gains the output of the delegated effort. The sale goes through. The business continues to operate. Paychecks get s

by rexpop 3y ago

It's not only denial of use. The perpetrator gains the output of the delegated effort. The sale goes through. The business continues to operate. Paychecks get signed. The home's functionality is maintained. When the "non-promotable work" of a firm, community, or family gets done "the rising tide raises all boats" if that work is necessary for the organization's profitability and/or autopoiesis. I am confused as to how you don't see the profit in delegating. Edit: for example, if I were to borrow your lawn mower with out asking, mow my lawn, and then--crucially--return your lawnmower wouldn't that be theft? Even though you'd only been "denied service" and not lost an entire mower?

jacknews 3y ago
Your example is not what's claimed. In your analogy, it would be more like I'd contacted the housing association to force you to mow your driveway, denying you the time to properly manicure your lawn. I'm not gaining any improvement to my lawn in that case.
- ehnto 3y ago
  I think you are both on the wrong track. The claim is that, instead of you mowing your lawn, you get someone else to do it. What you gain is time, and reduced cognitive load. It's kind of a childish thing to say about your manager since that is just how the cookie crumbles, but still a real exchange. Managers delegate certain tasks so they have time to focus on other tasks. Some managers delegate almost everything and leave you wondering if they do anything at all. The person in the article feels their partner is also delegating to them and so they feel as though they have no executive function by the end of the day. In regards to work though, that is just how some jobs are structured. You get paid to take certain load off of your 2IC or Manager or whoever.
  - rexpop 3y ago
    What you gain is a lawn, mowed.
    - ehnto 3y ago
      Sure. Relevant to this discussion though, you also don't lose the time it takes to mow it yourself, and are now able to focus on other tasks. We aren't talking about the economics of the situation, it's about the impact of meanial tasks on time and mental capacity. Perhaps a better example is when a manager delegates tasks, which is what the article is ultimately complaining about. No money changes hands. The manager gains time and room for focus on other tasks, by delegating menial focus sapping tasks to other people. I think the article is a bit silly, because that is the point of the separation of those roles, but they aren't ultimately wront about what is happening.
      - rexpop 3y ago
        > the article is ultimately complaining about [when a manager delegates tasks] I am sorry, but I re-read the article and still cannot understand why you believe this. The author gives three major examples: 1. Customer EFT: "sitting on hold with the company that manages my health flexible spending account" 2. Workplace EFT: "they see a need to be filled or have been asked or tasked with taking on more" 3. Household EFT: "Having a husband creates an extra seven hours a week of housework for women." You seem to be interpreting the article as primarily about #2, Workplace EFT, and furthermore about one facet of workplace political dynamics, namely command hierarchy. I'll allow that command hierarchies are nominally the principal aspect of a corporation, but one of the author's goals, I believe, is to shed light on the dynamics surrounding and running obliquely to that aspect. She takes pains to emphasize the gendered and allegedly random way "those tasks so often fall to the same group of people". The tasks about which the author complains are explicitly not those within one's job title and/or line of duty but, rather, the surreptitious assignment of service to which the employee did not explicitly consent when taking the job but now "feel they cannot turn down". Long story short, I am a little blown away with your assertion that "the article is ultimately complaining about" something which is at the most tangential to the article's subject and possibly even--as in my interpretation--deliberately not being addressed.

by rexpop 3y ago

jacknews 3y ago

Your example is not what's claimed. In your analogy, it would be more like I'd contacted the housing association to force you to mow your driveway, denying you the time to properly manicure your lawn. I'm not gaining any improvement to my lawn in that case.

ehnto 3y ago
I think you are both on the wrong track. The claim is that, instead of you mowing your lawn, you get someone else to do it. What you gain is time, and reduced cognitive load. It's kind of a childish thing to say about your manager since that is just how the cookie crumbles, but still a real exchange. Managers delegate certain tasks so they have time to focus on other tasks. Some managers delegate almost everything and leave you wondering if they do anything at all. The person in the article feels their partner is also delegating to them and so they feel as though they have no executive function by the end of the day. In regards to work though, that is just how some jobs are structured. You get paid to take certain load off of your 2IC or Manager or whoever.
- rexpop 3y ago
  What you gain is a lawn, mowed.
  - ehnto 3y ago
    Sure. Relevant to this discussion though, you also don't lose the time it takes to mow it yourself, and are now able to focus on other tasks. We aren't talking about the economics of the situation, it's about the impact of meanial tasks on time and mental capacity. Perhaps a better example is when a manager delegates tasks, which is what the article is ultimately complaining about. No money changes hands. The manager gains time and room for focus on other tasks, by delegating menial focus sapping tasks to other people. I think the article is a bit silly, because that is the point of the separation of those roles, but they aren't ultimately wront about what is happening.
    - rexpop 3y ago
      > the article is ultimately complaining about [when a manager delegates tasks] I am sorry, but I re-read the article and still cannot understand why you believe this. The author gives three major examples: 1. Customer EFT: "sitting on hold with the company that manages my health flexible spending account" 2. Workplace EFT: "they see a need to be filled or have been asked or tasked with taking on more" 3. Household EFT: "Having a husband creates an extra seven hours a week of housework for women." You seem to be interpreting the article as primarily about #2, Workplace EFT, and furthermore about one facet of workplace political dynamics, namely command hierarchy. I'll allow that command hierarchies are nominally the principal aspect of a corporation, but one of the author's goals, I believe, is to shed light on the dynamics surrounding and running obliquely to that aspect. She takes pains to emphasize the gendered and allegedly random way "those tasks so often fall to the same group of people". The tasks about which the author complains are explicitly not those within one's job title and/or line of duty but, rather, the surreptitious assignment of service to which the employee did not explicitly consent when taking the job but now "feel they cannot turn down". Long story short, I am a little blown away with your assertion that "the article is ultimately complaining about" something which is at the most tangential to the article's subject and possibly even--as in my interpretation--deliberately not being addressed.