What, you mean you can't increase human productivity without limit in order to increase shareholder value? And here I thought the world could eventually get by with a single super-productive executive.
It worked in Futurama, Hermes got an entire slave-labour mine to be run single handedly by an Australian man. If it works in a cartoon then social convention dictates that it must be true!
Is it just me, or do a lot of the complaints in the article sound quite ungrateful? Take this one for example:
>Just last week, I had a conversation with an HR executive at a leading financial institution. He was calling because two of his firm's most important executives - each paid millions and millions of dollars - had come to him saying they just weren't sure they could keep it up anymore.
>They each listed their challenges: incredibly long hours, relentless travel, 24-7 digital demands, time away from their families and insufficient energy to even take care of themselves.
I read it as, "I'm tired of getting paid big bucks to jet-set around the world on the company's dime." I compare this to the situation faced by the bottom billion of the world - e.g. being unsure of where the next meal is going to come from and I have a very hard time taking any of these executives' complaints seriously.
Top executives are like professional athletes. The pressure to perform is an inherent part of the job, and indeed, it is what justifies the high salaries and other rewards. You can't accept an executive position and then complain about the stresses of the job. Stress comes with the territory, just like the $250,000 a year salary.
>The pressure to perform is an inherent part of the job
This is an inherent part of any person's job. Executives are not unique snowflakes in this regard.
What struck me as really disconnected from reality in the complaints was that everything they complained about are things that also afflict people in the same companies - who make far less money than they do. Perhaps they'd like to add "financial turmoil" to the list and see how they feel then?
Agreed. If the typical executive really is as self-centered as the ones cited in this article, the depressing regularity of financial malfeasance is no surprise. After all, from their perspective, its just them "taking what they're owed."
"Think of it this way: Would you rather have someone working at 60 per cent of capacity for 11 hours a day, or someone who only puts in eight working hours a day, but by taking breaks to renew and recharge, is able to operate at 95 per cent capacity? "
I've always had a slight worry about going into surgery because of this same question. How long has my doctor been awake or how much sleep has he had in the last 24 hours?
I'd like to believe we're hitting a productivity limit, but I'm skeptical. Historically, we still work shorter hours, take more holidays and have more leasure activity than our ancestors.
I guess what is different is that we've automated lots of mechanical/clerical tasks like finding a file, duplicating and delivering a memo or compiling a report. Executives used to need a large staff to do that for them but there are fewer jobs like that now. In a way, we've all become executives. And to operate at that level can be draining, especially if you're not doing something you love because it takes much more emotional investment.
>we still work shorter hours, take more holidays and have more leasure activity than our ancestors
No, we don't. Peruse any study on this subject by a reputable researcher - we actually work far more hours and have much less leisure time than almost any point in prior history (the notable exception perhaps being the end of the 19th century).
But people used to work 6 days a week with no paid vacation time. What about all the slaves who worked 16 hour days. All those children in factories or down mines, are all those hours being factored in?
"Man's Rise to Civilization As Shown by the Indians of North America from Primeval Times to the Coming of the Industrial State"
Or
(and I do not intend this as sarcasm, please understand) just about any introductory anthropology textbook.
Also - and I truly wish I could find the link, but it's buried somewhere in my delicious account - there is an excellent article out there about how workers in agrarian France basically screwed off for six months at a time once the growing season was over and winter came around - the literally spent most of their time just sleeping!
There are a number of issues with the article. Some work - any development of technology - can be second order. The workers output maybe constant but the productivity of the underlying product grows. In this sense comparing national to personal productivity is apples and oranges (or speed and acceleration).
Also I would argue we should not underestimate the bullshit economy and the effects it has on stealing productivity growth. Essentially extra capacity gets largely consumed by an increase to the size of the welfare state - an increase in welfare for both non-productive individuals and non-productive corporations.
