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 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.
I do this that technology will give more flexible work hours. I think it is just that changing a social process is hard and is unlikely to happen in an existing structure.
At GitLab we've embraced remote work and work hours are truly flexible. The only exceptions I can think of is that our team call (attendence optional) is at a fixed time. And that we expect service engineers to work 5 days a week on normal weeks to make sure we meet our next business day SLA without bouncing a ticket between many people.
I think remote only http://www.remoteonly.org/ will become more popular but it will take new companies to get there.
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.
It seems like that's the solution to the pension issue. If the company goes bust you still have your retirement savings.
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.
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.
I'm not sure I completely agree, but it does seem to be at least a part of human nature.
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?
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?
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...
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.
It's really not.
It also helps to keep in mind the distinction between logical fallacies, used in a strict logical sense, and strength of argument. The case here is one of "what is the evidence to support a belief?", not "are the argument's predicates and conclusions logically valid in a strict sense?".
The original argument was that the article was "too quick to proclaim". The rejoinder was that this wasn't the article's conclusion, but that of an expert on the subject.
The discussion has been advanced, the initial claim invalidated, and additional relevant information provided.
To reject the conclusions of the article simply because of an appeal to authority, without also presenting a stronger claim that the authority is invalid, doesn't advance the argument.
To persist in that is tiresome.
A key question is whether or not the authority in question is credible. I've engaged in any number of discussions where showing credibility is at issue, and showing a particular source's good faith or record of admitting error (or not relitigating falsehoods) is crucial to qualifying or impeaching a witness. Again, you've not done this.
Paul Graham's "How to Disagree" is popular around here for various reasons. The derived graphic on hierarchy of disagreement is also strongly recommended.
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarc...
You might also want to catch up on your logical fallacies and how/when they're appropriate or not.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority...
Note that key to these is the question of expertise.
There's no condition requiring the subject matter to be outside her area of expertise, in fact it wouldn't make sense there - since she's not an authority on areas not her expertise, it can't be an appeal to authority in that instance.
Sure - trust her to know the data in the space better than some random doofus. That's sensible, and why we have experts.
That doesn't mean you can grant her extra consideration when evaluating the soundness of the argument she makes with that data as support - the logic contained in that argument does NOT depend on her being a domain expert, but on being a good logician. That's what the fallacy points out.
I don't think we're disagreeing, but I wanted to clarify the distinction between her being a field expert and her being an argumentative expert.
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.
The temptation to micromanage every aspect in the field from afar would lead to defeat in this day and age.
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.
I'm sure you could tell when the East India company got to a certain size.
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.
Could you point me to some of these essays? I would like to have a look at them.
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.