- What kind of value do humans have?
- Do people with slower (cognitive) processing have a right to exist?
- Should we get rid of people with disabilities?
I got chills from reading this letter. It sends the message people are just human resources.
If someone is not performing that well, can you help them? provide training? If someone does not meet the bar of widget per minute, even after lots of trying, but is a fine team mate who finds their happiness doing their best they can, aren't you happy to help someone with a stable income and a meaningful job in society? Wouldn't that be a great company? Wouldn't make that YOU a real human?
As a tangent, power does not just corrupt people, corrupt people will seek power first. At least, that is what one would think reading stuff like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43757827
Even the military, where there are actually life-or-death stakes, isn’t this cutthroat about talent management.
Yup. I've found the the core material in the curricula for most business schools and MBA programs is a excellent resource on what not to do while working in business, or really anywhere for that matter. It's almost as if they've decided to round up all the worst ideas and put them in one place, so you know to avoid them.
Now it would be interesting to know what bodies sets the curricula, what language gets selected. There is some feedback loop here.
An other thought exercise: would be it be possible to change narratives in these strata, or did the Overton Window shift too much already?
Makes sense at face value, lots of fish in the sea and all that.
AI conversational training tools make sense too. Many managers are too conflict adverse to even give negative feedback, let alone confront people for not doing their job.
The solution to bad management isn't to badly manage by bureaucracy and AI.
The same person can perform badly in one team or company, and be exceptional in another.
This just sounds really ominious to me. It's like they're training empathy out of their management team by letting them practice on an AI that begs for it's life just like a real human.....
sixhobbits•9mo ago
QUOTE
Y.T.’s mom pulls up the new memo, checks the time, and starts reading it. The estimated reading time is 15.62 minutes. Later, when Marietta [her boss] does her end-of-day statistical roundup, sitting in her private office at 9:00 P.M., she will see the name of each employee and next to it, the amount of time spent reading this memo, and her reaction, based on the time spent, will go something like this:
• Less than 10 min.: Time for an employee conference and possible attitude counseling.
• 10-14 min.: Keep an eye on this employee; may be developing slipshod attitude.
• 14-15.61 min.: Employee is an efficient worker, may sometimes miss important details.
• Exactly 15.62 min.: Smartass. Needs attitude counseling.
• 15.63-16 min.: Asswipe. Not to be trusted.
• 16-18 min.: Employee is a methodical worker, may sometimes get hung up on minor details.
• More than 18 min.: Check the security videotape, see just what this employee was up to (e.g., possible unauthorized restroom break).
Y.T.’s mom decides to spend between fourteen and fifteen minutes reading the memo. It’s better for younger workers to spend too long, to show that they’re careful, not cocky. It’s better for older workers to go a little fast, to show good management potential. She’s pushing forty. She scans through the memo, hitting the Page Down button at reasonably regular intervals, occasionally paging back up to pretend to reread some earlier section. The computer is going to notice all this. It approves of rereading. It’s a small thing, but over a decade or so this stuff really shows up on your work-habits summary.
ChrisArchitect•9mo ago