> So maximize for worker

Uh, the article explicitly mentions "those who manage the corporation" not "those who work for the corporation".

You're thinking of regular workers, but i would bet 10$ that the author is thinking about upper management (not even team-leaders or middle-managers).

All the way down to the person managing a single grill on the kitchen line, everyone is managing something. Their ability to steer the org toward their own quality of life improvements is dependent upon the scope of their management, but indeed everyone holds the exact same objective.

Surely that was the intended meaning. When one says 'managerial class' it's clearly referring to those managing grills.

Where does the author say managerial class in relation to this statement?

When one says “social system,” as this author actually does, do you think he arbitrarily excludes people below a certain pay grade?

> A corporation that fails to provide an adequate return for their investment to its employees and customers is just as likely to fail as one that does not reward its shareholders adequately.

Author distinguishes corporation from employees in following sentence, so managers likely refers to employers which employ the employees. Employees are those who are employed by employers, the managers are those employers.

Person A is an employee with no managerial responsibility. Person B is the direct manager of Person A and no one else.

Is your interpretation of the author’s argument that Person B and all of her superiors hold the same objective of improving the quality of their work life, but that Person A does not hold this as their objective?

The format of the article was that of a critique. The author described how systems currently operate in a manner he viewed as deficient and then suggested ideas for improvements.

When the author states "the principal function of most corporations is not to maximize shareholder value, but to maximize the standard of living and quality of work life of those who manage the corporation", the author was implying that this is wrong.

They then stated that "Employees have a much larger investment in most corporations than their shareholders. Corporations should be maximizing stakeholder, not shareholder, value to employees, customers, and shareholders."

Thus the author semantically implies that "employees" are a separate group of persons from "those who manage the corporations". If employees and "those who manage the corporation" were the same group of persons or part of the system, then it would not have been necessary for the author to claim that corporations should also maximize value for employees, they would have only mentioned customers as the excluded group of stakeholders.

The objective of a corporation is a distinct concept from the objectives of the people working in the corporation. They may or may not align, depending on which person you're comparing it to.

Huh.

I did reread that part and I was clearly wrong. You are absolutely correct, it refers to a wider category.

Now I kinda want to take person up the comment chain on their bet.

I haven’t read any Ackoff but I’ve read a decent bit that is clearly in the intellectual orbit (e.g. Weick) and you would win that bet.

The entire basis of their analysis is that these arbitrary distinctions people propagate in common parlance are not real.

The basis of systems thinking is considering the relation of parts to the whole, and the relation of the whole to the parts. Classically it was simply referred to as 'geometry'. The author distinguishes 'corporation' from 'employees and customers' in following sentence. This implies that corporate managers, employees, and customers are separate parts of a larger system and that use of term manager likely referred to the employers which employ the employees and not also to the employees which metaphorically employ the equipment.

> companies are a collection of people

Peter Drucker was on top of this. It's so obvious yet so often forgotten (ignored?). An organization is a group of people.

Jumping back to systems thinking. People can respond a number of ways in organizations. Enter 'policy refusal' (see Donella Meadows' systems literature for more). Executive wants A to happen. A is not in employees' best interest. Employees ignore, delay, obfuscate, outright refuse, or actively undermine A.

People are very good at policy refusal. Executives are good at not knowing its happening.

What’s your favorite resource on Drucker? I love re-reading his book “The Effective Executive”.

His 1973 tome Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, The Essential Drucker, and Managing for Results are three I find myself opening regularly.

The Effective Executive is great as well. It's hard to narrow down because he was such a prolific writer. Recommendations are also hard because you've got to meet the reader where they are. I picked up and put down Drucker early in my career. Years later, the same pages burst with insight when I read them.

"You've got to meet the reader where they are....Years later, the same pages burst with insight when I read them. " - Thanks for this, I find it is a great way of phrasing it, and gets to the heart of much about both education and communication.

Only maximizing happiness for the controlling workers. Fungible labor is going to be left out because moving on is no real threat from them.

Yes, because everyone at the level of employee is someone being exploited...

Those of us who actually grew up with nothing and suffered through minimum wage labor and were able to change our class and turn our lives around through labor look at you people like you're from another planet.

Both following statements can be true at the same time:

1) It is possible for many to work their way through the labour ladder and find good life.

2) “The System” can incentivise corporations to maximise transfer of wealth towards the top brass without incentivising it to raise wages any more than only to keep people from leaving.

> 2) “The System” can incentivise corporations to maximise transfer of wealth towards the top brass without incentivising it to raise wages any more than only to keep people from leaving.

And they can do that without being exploitative. People go to their bosses and ask for more money. Some percentage of the time they get it.

If you were in business for yourself you would have to negotiate your own prices. Being employed isn't really different, just the risk is much less. You're trading something away for the security of a regular paycheck.

Of course. Some people can do that and nobody I know of has ever said anything different. But what is also true is that some people can’t do it, sometimes people are trading their lives away for only basic sustenance and no job security.

> sometimes people are trading their lives away for only basic sustenance and no job security.

And they're still not being exploited. You're describing people that cannot fend for themselves. Also not everyone you're describing is only receiving basic sustenance. A lot of people in this situation live reasonably middle class lives.

No one is saying that every single employee at the bottom is being exploited - just that exploitation is rational for those in power, because there's no particular incentive for them to completely avoid it.

They shouldn't do it too much, or then society responds in various ways (unions, legislation, etc.), so in that sense it's much like shareholder value. The company owners cannot write themselves a bonus equal to the entire profits of the company, or the shareholders will get mad. But they can certainly write themselves generous bonuses nonetheless. They don't have to completely maximize shareholder value, or completely minimize exploitation; they just have to do enough.

It’s a subtle distinction between labor and capital. And gets blurred by debt vs equity.

Who owns the company? The people who work there? The person who founded it? The people who the founders sold shares to? Or the people who lent it money?

Legally it’s the people who own shares. And if they miss their debt payments, it’s the lenders.

Companies can inform their shareholders “if you want to invest, here is how we operate differently.” Bezos and Buffet both do that in terms of defining focus and time horizons.

One may want to optimize for worker happiness first, but that’s not legal ownership. (Employee engagement is a predictor of shareholder return, but it’s hard to measure, and different from happiness)

Except the quote isn’t about legal ownership it all. It’s about who has skin in the game, and who actually makes the company function.

The vast majority of shareholders have very little skin in the game, while the employees of the company absolutely have a lot of skin in the game. The employees depend on the company for their livelihood, whereas a shareholder is generally just trying to make money on their money.

I view him as defining value as to accrue to stakeholders, with employees as primary.

One way to frame the question is “If the company gets a million dollar windfall, who should get it?” Employees? Owners? Even the most customer centric company won’t say a cash payment to customers, though they may say improving service or R and D.

> to maximize the standard of living and quality of work life of those who manage the corporation.

Considering that managers compete to climb the hierarchy, I'm surprised to hear this claim from a systems thinker. It'd predict that managers work 40 hours or less per week, for example.

"Corporate behavior is shaped by managers shaped by this competition" seems a more realistic starting point.

Yes. And also acknowledge that “happiness” can mean vastly different things to different groups of people. Thus the culture of one company may be very off-putting to some and highly attractive to others.

Don’t tell we need to adapt your standard culture (e.g. new work) because that’s what makes everyone happy.

I’m not sure who he is thinking of when he says, “those who manage a corporation”. If he means senior executives then he is definitely wrong. Most executives do not have a high quality of work life. They may get money, power, and status, but it often comes at a high cost.

Your comment is being downvoted, but IME working at a few startups where the owner went from making 2M to 10M, then 50 and 100M+ a year I rarely saw founders who had a good work/life balance. Sure, they could afford to pay people to take care of all their domestic needs, their life consisted mostly of working 24/7. Even their vacations were often working vacations.

I think your characterization is accurate.

Thanks, really not sure what people are voting it down for. I know a lot of sr execs at big companies, they definitely aren’t optimizing for their work life balance or their mental health. Most seem obsessed with status and seem generally anxious and unbalanced.

Edit: I’m talking about big co execs, not founders. They are typically two different breeds.

The thing to remember is people are nearly always motivated by selfish impulses, not altruism. (Even the most dedicated communists in the USSR still participated in the black market.)

Any system that relies on people being selfless is doomed to failure.

(Even charity work is selfishly motivated - people like the status they get from donating to charity, praise from their social circle, and feeling good from doing it.)

So a system that relies on people being altruistic can work fine as long as people feel good about being altruistic?

It can work fine if they can find enough people who feel good about being altruistic and don't want more. There are certainly people like that. Are there enough to run an economy? Not remotely. Are there enough to run a largish organization? Nope.

> Are there enough to run a largish organization? Nope.

I'm not convinced this is true. I can think of some small organizations full of employees who could make more money elsewhere but who are dedicated to an altruistic cause.

> small

Sounds like you agree with me.

BTW, the D Language Foundation is an example :-)

I can think of a bunch of small organizations. Together that's enough people to fill a large organization. Maybe there are some other properties of large organizations that make it impossible to compose them out of altruistic people.

I can't think of any large organization that operates without people motivated by their self interest. Can you?

I can't think of any large organizations containing only people who are financially secure, which seems like basically a prerequisite.

I'm not a huge fan of this quote because it's an opinion presented as a fact.

The entire article is basically "conclusions from a lifetime of systems thinking". Of course it is opinion (a conclusion), explicitly so.

It reads like a descriptive statement, not a normative one, because it calls out specifically that the corporation enriches its management, not its employees.