’Twas ever thus. Bob at WidgetCorp says to his boss “You are demanding an unfair amount of labor from me for the wages you offer. You are demanding that I make 20 widgets a day. 15 widgets—or a raise—would be more fair.” Management says “don’t fret Bob! We’ve just installed the new Widgetron™. Making widgets will take half the time! By the way… we now need you to make 40 widgets a day. Hop to it.”
I think you’re giving the bosses here too much credit—or too little, I guess, depending on how you look at it, The main template describes how people may deceive themselves about their motivations for doing X. But surely in your example the employers never believed that reducing workload and stress were why they were getting the new big-ass printer? They got it because it was an investment in a new piece of equipment that would increase their profits by allowing their workers to make more signs in the same amount of time.
I mean, unless your employers are very different to mine, the “they realize” and “instead” parts of your subtemplate don’t apply. There’s no instead. They got the printer to maximize profits and then came up with something to tell their workforce about how it would reduce stress and workload. They lied—though the individuals involved might have described euphemistically it as “positive spin” or whatever.
Now, maybe your employers are nicer than mine—maybe your bosses only realized after they bought the BAP that they could use it to increase profits—but in my experience, top brass don’t sign off on spending a bunch of money on new technology unless it has been thoroughly demonstrated that the new technology will help the bottom line. I would have said that usually it goes:
Employer realizes that technological artifact X can be used to increase productivity and decide to introduce it. In an attempt to maintain workplace morale as an added benefit, they bullshit their workers about how technological artifact X will reduce physical and/or cognitive demands.
Though this strategy can backfire when the workforce realize that T.A. X reduces physical demands while increasing cognitive demands, or reduces cognitive demands while increasing physical demands, or reduces neither, or worst of all, reduces the necessary workforce. Still, by the time they realize this it’s often to late to do anything about it and T.A. X is the new normal.
Nobody ever tells Bob that his new target is, say, 35 widgets—an actual decrease in real workload—unless Bob has some leverage, whether it be labor laws or his union or his ability to take his skills and experience across the road to Widgets’R’Us.
Now that I think of it you’re not entirely wrong either though. There must, at some level, be a certain amount of rationalization in the minds of managers who implement changes that are not going to make anyone’s lives easier, and then lie and say they will—because most people don’t like to think of themselves as cynical bastards. Is it a doublethink thing? Do they tell the board that it’ll increase profits by doubling widget production, and then go out on the floor and say it’ll make life easier, and somehow hold both as true in their minds at the same time?
I’ve been a manager, but I don’t recall ever doing that. I’m pretty sure I always told people “They’re giving us a new widget thing. We’ll be able to make twice as many widgets in a day. You get to spend Wednesday training on it instead of working.” My people were generally fine with that. It made no difference to the X amount of work they were doing per day, and if X was acceptable to all parties and the coffee strong and plentiful, everyone was happy.
Until, of course, Widgetron™ turned out to be an overpriced pile of crap that kept breaking down, but that’s another issue.
You get to spend Wednesday training on it instead of working.
As soon as Widgetron™ becomes the industry standard, there will be no Wednesday trainings anymore. Knowing how to use Widgetron™ will be a job requirement.
And then every job applicant needs a WOC (Widget Operations Certificate) before they’ll even be considered for the role, and then there’s a whole quasi-academic professional body set up to provide training courses and administer the WOC test, and so that provides employment to a bunch of Widget Operations Instructors… Economics is weird.
’Twas ever thus. Bob at WidgetCorp says to his boss “You are demanding an unfair amount of labor from me for the wages you offer. You are demanding that I make 20 widgets a day. 15 widgets—or a raise—would be more fair.” Management says “don’t fret Bob! We’ve just installed the new Widgetron™. Making widgets will take half the time! By the way… we now need you to make 40 widgets a day. Hop to it.”
I think you’re giving the bosses here too much credit—or too little, I guess, depending on how you look at it, The main template describes how people may deceive themselves about their motivations for doing X. But surely in your example the employers never believed that reducing workload and stress were why they were getting the new big-ass printer? They got it because it was an investment in a new piece of equipment that would increase their profits by allowing their workers to make more signs in the same amount of time.
I mean, unless your employers are very different to mine, the “they realize” and “instead” parts of your subtemplate don’t apply. There’s no instead. They got the printer to maximize profits and then came up with something to tell their workforce about how it would reduce stress and workload. They lied—though the individuals involved might have described euphemistically it as “positive spin” or whatever.
Now, maybe your employers are nicer than mine—maybe your bosses only realized after they bought the BAP that they could use it to increase profits—but in my experience, top brass don’t sign off on spending a bunch of money on new technology unless it has been thoroughly demonstrated that the new technology will help the bottom line. I would have said that usually it goes:
Though this strategy can backfire when the workforce realize that T.A. X reduces physical demands while increasing cognitive demands, or reduces cognitive demands while increasing physical demands, or reduces neither, or worst of all, reduces the necessary workforce. Still, by the time they realize this it’s often to late to do anything about it and T.A. X is the new normal.
Nobody ever tells Bob that his new target is, say, 35 widgets—an actual decrease in real workload—unless Bob has some leverage, whether it be labor laws or his union or his ability to take his skills and experience across the road to Widgets’R’Us.
Yeah, post hoc rationalization or deception makes more sense than what I said.
Now that I think of it you’re not entirely wrong either though. There must, at some level, be a certain amount of rationalization in the minds of managers who implement changes that are not going to make anyone’s lives easier, and then lie and say they will—because most people don’t like to think of themselves as cynical bastards. Is it a doublethink thing? Do they tell the board that it’ll increase profits by doubling widget production, and then go out on the floor and say it’ll make life easier, and somehow hold both as true in their minds at the same time?
I’ve been a manager, but I don’t recall ever doing that. I’m pretty sure I always told people “They’re giving us a new widget thing. We’ll be able to make twice as many widgets in a day. You get to spend Wednesday training on it instead of working.” My people were generally fine with that. It made no difference to the X amount of work they were doing per day, and if X was acceptable to all parties and the coffee strong and plentiful, everyone was happy.
Until, of course, Widgetron™ turned out to be an overpriced pile of crap that kept breaking down, but that’s another issue.
As soon as Widgetron™ becomes the industry standard, there will be no Wednesday trainings anymore. Knowing how to use Widgetron™ will be a job requirement.
And then every job applicant needs a WOC (Widget Operations Certificate) before they’ll even be considered for the role, and then there’s a whole quasi-academic professional body set up to provide training courses and administer the WOC test, and so that provides employment to a bunch of Widget Operations Instructors… Economics is weird.