4 ms·

These conclusions seem to be focused on a very 19th century vision of "work", where productivity is just a function of efficiency and not, say, creativity or ri

by ajessup 12y ago

These conclusions seem to be focused on a very 19th century vision of "work", where productivity is just a function of efficiency and not, say, creativity or risk-taking.

pedramnegahdar 12y ago
I disagree, the article did provide examples that may have boxed you into such a narrow conclusion; delve deeper and you can see the fundamental attitude that is still relevant in a modern complex global economy. Creativity and risk-taking can drastically improve production, for this reason many corporations hire experts to create environments that spur and foster such culture. Methodologies might have changed, but the core concept has not.
calibraxis 12y ago
I delved into some papers (and one author's body of work), and they seem quick to slap bizarre ideological interpretations on their results. For example, I happily game-ified tedious BS jobs/classes by introducing elements of danger triggered by poor productivity. I thought the work was utterly pointless, and cheered whenever the corporation got hurt. But I needed some twisted motivation to show up and get through the damn day. And feel that my excellence was recorded somewhere. The Kaur/Kramer/Mullainathan paper seemed to only use a barebones "endline survey," with easily-steered responses. Not in-depth interviews led by the subjects, which might've uncovered inconvenient info. (Or did I miss them?) I also looked at economist Greg Clark's work. It's... weird... but at least his work is refreshingly honest about its political underpinnings. In a way others try to hide. And there's some interesting bits if you squint and remove the weirdnesses. For example, workers may take over a factory. But under a market economy, they may reasonably decide to oppress themselves by hiring a manager who sits in an air-conditioned room and is immune to the worsened workplace he develops.
- ultimape 12y ago
  Tl;DR: Management Anti-Patterns are rife in the industry because they appear to solve problems at first glance - and they do work because they reach a local maxima. See the six-sigma cults that are little more than cargo cultists running around with checklists.

by ajessup 12y ago

These conclusions seem to be focused on a very 19th century vision of "work", where productivity is just a function of efficiency and not, say, creativity or risk-taking.

pedramnegahdar 12y ago

I disagree, the article did provide examples that may have boxed you into such a narrow conclusion; delve deeper and you can see the fundamental attitude that is still relevant in a modern complex global economy. Creativity and risk-taking can drastically improve production, for this reason many corporations hire experts to create environments that spur and foster such culture. Methodologies might have changed, but the core concept has not.

calibraxis 12y ago

I delved into some papers (and one author's body of work), and they seem quick to slap bizarre ideological interpretations on their results. For example, I happily game-ified tedious BS jobs/classes by introducing elements of danger triggered by poor productivity. I thought the work was utterly pointless, and cheered whenever the corporation got hurt. But I needed some twisted motivation to show up and get through the damn day. And feel that my excellence was recorded somewhere. The Kaur/Kramer/Mullainathan paper seemed to only use a barebones "endline survey," with easily-steered responses. Not in-depth interviews led by the subjects, which might've uncovered inconvenient info. (Or did I miss them?) I also looked at economist Greg Clark's work. It's... weird... but at least his work is refreshingly honest about its political underpinnings. In a way others try to hide. And there's some interesting bits if you squint and remove the weirdnesses. For example, workers may take over a factory. But under a market economy, they may reasonably decide to oppress themselves by hiring a manager who sits in an air-conditioned room and is immune to the worsened workplace he develops.

ultimape 12y ago
Tl;DR: Management Anti-Patterns are rife in the industry because they appear to solve problems at first glance - and they do work because they reach a local maxima. See the six-sigma cults that are little more than cargo cultists running around with checklists.