The Future of Work

The debate about the future of work is ongoing. Surely, it manifests itself most clearly in the empty office buildings in New York and other major American cities. Considering how many of these buildings are mortgaged, remote work is about a lot more than more than worker satisfaction.

And yet, many corporate executives have tired of the scattered nature of remote work and are trying to force their staff back into the office. Workers have been resisting, either because they crave work/life balance or because they are incapable of the sustained effort required to interact with other people.

Now,  Wharton professor Adam Grant has argued for more remote work. He proposed that executives should adapt to their new workers, and especially to the new therapeutic mindset, to say nothing of the ingrained habit of sloth.

To which Matthew Andersson responds in the American Thinker (via Maggie’s Farm):

In a recent Wall Street Journal article (“What CEOs Are Getting Wrong About the Future of Work -- and How to Make It Right”), University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business professor Adam Grant advances what he thinks will be the future of work: digital interaction. He also asserts what he thinks future CEOs must do, in order to accommodate his vision: make workers “happy” and let them operate in a more personal, domesticated way.  He’s wrong in both assertions, because most university professors continue to misunderstand the economy and what it actually consists of.  They also misunderstand what a country must do competitively.

Surely, Andersson has raised the salient point. The goal of work is not to produce worker contentment. It is not even, to produce therapeutic benefit. American companies are competing internationally. If you become less effective and less efficient by working from home, then the competitive marketplace will offer an eventual verdict.

And yet, he adds, the foundation of the world economy lies in manufacturing, construction, hospitality and tourism. These cannot be done remotely:

For some types of work, a distance and on-line format can indeed be efficient: many professional services and some retailing are examples.  They make up nearly half of the world GDP economy: But they rely on the other half that is made up of manufacturing; oil, gas and coal extraction; construction; rail, air and sea shipping; and restaurants, apparel and tourism, among others. 

So, Andersson wants to revive the work ethic. One understands that the push toward remote work is a direct attack on the work ethic, the one that built the country and even the world:

Future work, and future effective CEOs, will not be defined by idealism concerning worker happiness, environmental posturing, or even artificial intelligence, but by working hard, solving physical problems, and making reliable profits in a competitive framework that creates national advantage. 

Well said.