Sometimes, it feels like I'm paying just to find out how bad the service can be. Ew ew ew. But that is the life of one who is curious.
I don't know why people think I don't like corporate work. Maybe I just complain too much about people who are bad at what they do.
since before joining the corporate workforce in 2006, I've professed an interest in corporate dynamics, but basically at the board level of setting objectives that are mapped to motivations and resource constraints. I think readings on the business and culture of management consultants in 2006 increased my appreciation and preference for operational design and implementation also. But I have generally been explicitly disdainful of employees, middle managers, and even CEOs who don't seem to know why they are doing what they are doing - and how it fits into a rational narrative.
Typically when I interact with any new entity (individual or organisation), I start looking for 1) who's in charge - whether its people or thought patterns and 2) why they disagree with me - because disagreement is definitively more informative than agreement.
This tends to lead me to behave in a fashion that says to people, you're not interesting if 1) you're not in charge of what I'm interested in modifying 2) if you agree with me.
This, they find abrasive. Hehehe. But i love people, and companies, really, I do
Now here's what really irks me. Most people who work in corporate roles do it because they fear death, or hunger, or the loss of their social-economic lifestyle practice, not because they like corporate roles."Shareholder value," doesn't refer to next-quarter's profits over the firm's profits 5, 10, or 20 years down the road.
I like corporations as corporations, studying and doing what corporations are meant to do - serve shareholder interests. And often enough, these people are the ones asking me if I really like corporate work. Yes i do. It's these distracted people whom i can't stomach...
Now of course we could broaden the teleology of a corporation to include employee-etc-stakeholder interests as means to the end of shareholder service; or even as a means in itself, if all contributors of capital are viewed equally whether they provide financial or human capital to operations. Butthat'd be a DBA / Philosophy of Commerce thesis, not a FB post hehe
[...] no, that's short-term shareholder value. There are more sustainable approaches that can be employed while still putting shareholder value at the top of a corporation's list of priorities.
But saying that "shareholders matter more than other stakeholders, e.g. employees, neighbours, people affected by the corporation's supply chain," is the old-fashioned approach that I meant to refer to. It's a property-rights approach: an "I bought your time, so I own your time," approach to management.
A more altruistic alternative to that is to look at corporations as "projects," which involve capital contributions in terms of cash, human time, and willing counterparties in a supply-chain. So, "shareholders," would not be prioritised higher than "employees," or "our suppliers," or something like that. Fun stuff to think about if you're into designing and running companies...
While I've always found the Teach for All initiative(s) to be noble and kind, I've always doubted their systematic impact. Today's thought on this:
[The problem that TFA addresses] is what we call "no process control and no quality assurance," it's an ops problem, and throwing smart young people at it is only the beginning of fixing it. Because at this stage you can't systematically fix things - you're essentially first-recon, but once you get back and go into policy making, and policy audits, there's at least some hope for a "permanent" solution sic. LOLWasn't sure where the phrase "first-recon," came from, so I looked it up:
Wikipedia: "The mission of 1st Reconnaissance Battalion is to provide task organized forces in order to conduct amphibious reconnaissance, ground reconnaissance, battlespace shaping operations, raids, and specialized insertion and extraction." - citing NAVMC 3500.55a Reconnaissance Training and Readiness Manual, p 2-2
I skimmed the MBTI book when I was a kid and figured I was an INTP. Lately, it may have appeared to some that I exhibit variations on that... but here's what I've figured out over the last coupla years:
- it's more easy to get paid to be an ESTJ; just fucking do sensible shit --TJ; take the money; move.On trained extroversion:
- it's easier to communicate by behaving like an ISTP; people understand the -ST- thing more easily.
- it's coherent within the MBTI framework for one to be a social butterfly and an INTP (because it just means that you're a social butterfly who starts every other sentence (prior to censorship) with "well, I think...")
Yea, I kinda know what you mean. My dad's an ISTJ organisational leader type, and I was in school/religious leadership development programs for crowd control, public speaking, focus group facilitation, etc. from age 12-15... and was pretty much bored of the "how to work the room," algorithm after a coupla years... then I reverted to looking for harder problems.Now if you open up the framework and look at speech patterns (something I'm guessing that others have done before):
NTsThe thread following a post in the INTP-personality-type networking group is hilariously anti-social. "How did you make your lifetime buddies?"
- Ti Ne Si Fe
- "I think X, because [public concept] Y"
- Ne Ti Fe Si
- "[public concept] Y, so X"
- Ni Te Si Fe
- Te Ni Se Fi
- Fi Ne Si Te
- Ne Fi Te Si
- Ni Fe Ti Se
- Fe Ni Se Ti
- Ti Se Ni Fe
- Se Ti Fe Ni
- Fi Se Ni Te
- Se Fi Te Ni
- Si Te Fi Ne
- Te Si Ne Fi
- Si Fe Ti Ne
- Fe Si Ne Ti