After more than ten years into corporate credit analysis, without hesitation I can assure I appreciate my job. Despite some drawbacks, particularly the necessity to work overtime more or less often, it continues to offer me learning opportunities, it is not repeatable and far from boredom. I also believe it brings value added to the society and to the economy.
In simple words my job is to assure that money depositors store on bank accounts is safely lent to large companies. I dabble in traditional banking which is about taking deposits and granting loans rather than devising exotic financial instruments detached from real economy to earn money on speculation. Here I recall a scene from Margin Call film, in which one of characters, a quant who has just lost a job in investment banking, compares himself to a civil engineer whose job has tangible outcomes, such as a bridge. Sadly, the author of the book paints traditional and modern banking with the same brush and claims both are totally useless to the society, thus bearing testimony to his economic ignorance.
I have never thought my job can be socially useless, but several times I thought of people whose jobs brings little value added, therefore a few months ago I queued up in my library to borrow Bullshit Jobs – a bestseller book which dwells on a growing problem of people whose occupation seems to make no sense.
The sight of people whose jobs make no sense brings to mind communist economic regime, in which joblessness was voluntary, yet my no means somebody having a job was doing something useful. Pursuit of full employment was, however, characteristic not only to communism, but to Keynesianism worked up in the wake of the Great Depression in 1930s. Back then, when unemployment was a huge drag on the demand side of the economy, employment was increased at all cost in order to kick-start the economy and to trigger a more natural demand from those finally offered a job. Since that time, low unemployment has become one of key goals of economic policymakers, commonly acknowledged by societies, with demerits of such agenda (i.e. the bullshit jobs) being considered less harmful than higher joblessness.
So when the heck is your job a bullshit one? The author comes up with a simple definition – your occupation is senseless if you do something and nobody notices it. Fine, familiar with the definition, I revisit my position and scope of duties, which have evolved over more than a decade.
Keeping in mind the broader sense of what I do, I notice particular mundane
tasks which actually waste my time, such as:
- filling in too many tables to feed the bureaucratic monster of managerial reporting,
- ticking off policy compliance checkpoints – a side effect of regulators’
effort to save the banking industry from subsiding at it did in 2008,
- attending too many meetings, some which are not particularly productive.
While being unable to influence the two former time-consuming activities, I try to take control of meeting into my hands and not let discussions drift into pointless threads. Instead, I ensure that conversations are straight into the point, concise and add value for every participant (I hate it when a meeting is attended by 10 people, but only 3 or 4 open mouths).
I also discern a problem of being supervised by too many managers. If I work on a transaction, it usually needs to be talked over with my team leader, with the head of my department, with the head of my area and with the chief credit officer. One person (me) to do the sheer work, four to supervise me. If I can see excess employment in banking, it is one managerial positions, where array of duties pertaining to supervising, co-ordinating, managing, delegating, facilitating is excessive as well.
I see it eye to eye with the author that companies have focused too much on improving processes and they waste resources on their pursuit to improve something, while benefits are meagre. This happens when you hire people to enhance processes instead of leaving it to ingenuousness of staff for who a process is a daily bread. A perfect example is the implementation of Agile methodology by my current employer. We, normally working people used come to the office, sit at our desks and knuckled down to work. They came to talk about working, design working. As we commented on it, we worked, they talked their heads off about working, their work was to take our work into pieces. Three years into the pursuit of the Agile, I observe the effects of trial-and-error search for improvement, rather than anything which has tangibly streamlined my duties.
The authors aptly notices the recent decades have brought a substantial increase in productivity which firstly ceased (since 1970s) to translate into higher earnings of rank-and-files and secondly did send employment on decline. As machines took over several mundane and physically destructive jobs from people, not only machine operators, designers and maintenance crews had to come into place. The increase in productivity somehow sparked off a lot of administrative functions without which industries had functioned before. My bank last year hired a well-being officer. I have no idea what that person does apart from posting some useless notes on the intranet. If my employer fosters my well-being they should ensure I do not spend too much time working, so that I am not stressed-out and have time to family, friends, to relax, to do sports and keep fit. I will take care of myself if I have enough time and money. I do not need to be looked after by a well-being officer whose salary decreases my bonus (if the bank’s net income is to stay intact)!
Moreover, new industries have emerged which I consider spongers. Over those more than ten years I have singled out two professions which are very costly, but add little value. First are consultants, who get paid for borrowing your watch to tell you the time (14 years after reading that joke for the first time and having seen effects of work of big four companies and the top-class advisors, such as Boston Consulting Group or McKinsey, I am more than sure their contribution is not worth money they are paid), second are (some, but not all) intermediaries, living off commissions from transaction parties, with special focus on estate agents, whose reputation in Poland has been duly and deservedly tainted.
The author in his book fails to dwell on the phenomenon of pretending and deceit, which functions in public and private corporate world. Employees pretend they work, an employer pretends to appreciate their work. This vicious circle keeps turning, because nearly everyone has a vested interest in preserving it. I believe the author wrongfully points out people whose jobs are senseless are genuinely unhappy. I believe lots of people are glad to be paid for doing little and just some percent (including them) need to see the sense and value added in what they do.
Impressions after reading? The book is too leftist. Despite my restraint to joyfully embrace a free-market agenda, I find it hard to hold dear the idea of the basic income, especially as a measure to root out bullshit jobs. The author has probably not had too deep insights into organisations, as some of his observations are right at the first sight, but at second thoughts, doubts whether his straightforward view of the world is accurate begin to appear. And finally, the book is a reminder humans are social creatures and are not cut out for isolation – this ought to be repeated to employers who have cherished cost savings generated by home office and want to stick to such solution after the pandemic is brought under control.
No comments:
Post a Comment