Middle of the Road

I find myself stuck finding a position regarding the government’s introduction of T-Levels¹ and the Chancellor’s recent promise of more maths education.² There are a few things to acknowledge. The first is that we need skilled workers and that young people should have the opportunity to gain skills and pursue their ambitions. The second is, as a lover of mathematics myself, I do not object to a more comprehensive push for maths education.

The reason I find myself stuck is I must ask the question of whether these initiatives are really building an effective future labour force? Goos and Manning (2007) paper ‘Lovely and Lousy Jobs,’³ does a great job of explaining this issue.

The long-held belief is that automation (which doesn’t necessarily mean computers - automation has been happening for years, as we will come to see - but often does mean computers) would first reduce the demand for low-skilled work, as these were (apparently) simple jobs. The result of this automation would be an up-skilling of the workforce, which would be wonderful. This is the sentiment behind the government’s current strategy (which, I reiterate, I don’t condemn), and they have good reason to think this way.

Automation is a very popular topic in business schools, and whenever I am discussing it with my colleagues I raise the point of Adam Smith. Smith spends a respectable portion of The Wealth of Nations discussing the shift from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy.⁴ I proclaim, in said conversations, that all society need do is embrace change and implement the necessary skill-shift to accommodate the new dynamic, in the same vein as Smith, and any automation fears would be set aside (I am simplifying here). In this sense, the government’s policy seems to come from a sensible place (Smith I mean, not me).

Yet Goos and Manning argue that rather than targeting low-skill work, automotive processes target routine work, irrespective of skill requirement. And if we think about it, this makes a lot of sense. Computers can do extremely complicated and time-consuming mathematics almost immediately. In terms of raw cognitive power, computers have humans beat every time. In terms of abstract cognitive power, less so.

A good example of this is accountancy. Services such as Quick Books threaten many of the small accountancy firms.⁵ This is because of automation, yet many people would not classify accountancy as a low-skill profession. However, it is one that can be automated with a certain level of ease, and as such it has become susceptible to our digital overlords.

Whilst the consequence of low-skilled automation should be the up-skilling of the workforce, the consequence of routine automation is that only those roles that are physically and cognitively difficult for computers to perform will see growth in human labour demand. This is the infamous polarisation of work and the hollowing out of the middle class, where low-skilled but physically demanding jobs such as a cleaning see growth, high-skilled and cognitively challenging work such as a CEO remain in demand, and middling jobs fall away.⁶

Returning to the government’s policies, this is where my issue lies. The Chancellor recently stated he would like the British people to have good jobs, which is a noble but mathematically difficult ambition - we can’t all be CEOs. Similarly, mathematical knowledge will always be useful, but it will not be a distinguishing factor for many top jobs in a world where we all have impossibly powerful calculators in our pockets. Technical skills perhaps offer a ray of hope - for the time being trades such as electrician look pretty safe. But again, there is finite demand for all these things.

We already see the problem of over-qualified and under-demanded people in this country, given the number of graduates taking low-paid work.⁷ My fear is that a promise that would have worked previously is now just offering false hope.

I say this as someone who has optimistically espoused the wisdom of Adam Smith. The intention of the government is to train young people in the skills needed for the digital economy, much like Smith advocated for the industrial economy. Yet that wisdom needs to be dragged into the 21^st century. To answer this, I refer to The Second Machine Age by Brynjolfssen and McAfee.⁸

In this book, the authors argue that computers and humans are greater together than as the sum of their parts. Where computers can process data in a way humans never could, humans can apply the data and derive complex social links that a computer would be blind to. Behind every good algorithm is an insightful observation.

I have always been a supporter of a social contract for the digital age. Automation and human work is part of that contract. The solution in terms of up-skilling and re-skilling is to be more radical, and to embrace what we do well which computers do not. T-Levels have merit, but alone they do not tackle the growing polarisation of work. As part of a long-term strategy, the solution is complex, though it almost certainly involves investment in technology, robust institutions to ease the transition in work and a willingness to embrace new ideas about education and skills-training. Our role in work is changing, and so must we.

References

¹ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/education-secretary-announces-first-new-t-levels

² https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/philip-hammond-to-give-schools-cash-for-teaching-more-maths-pupils-n8j7gdc52

³ Goos, M, Manning, A (2007) ‘Lovely and Lousy Jobs’ The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), pp. 118-133

⁴ Smith, A (2012, 1776) ‘The Wealth of Nations’ Wordsworth Editions Limited, St. Ives

⁵ https://www.accountingweb.com/technology/accounting-software/can-software-really-replace-accountants

⁶ Autor, DH, Levy, F, Murname, RJ (2003) ‘The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration’ The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), pp. 1279-1333

⁷ https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/aug/13/quarter-of-graduates-are-low-earners

⁸ McAfee, A, Brynjolfssen, E (2014) ‘The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress and Prosperity in a time of Brilliant Technologies’ Norton & Company Ltd., London

Four Hands - Transcript of presentation given for the Hopper Institute for Good Management

The following is the transcript for the presentation 'Four Hands -Building on the story of The Puritan Gift' produced for presentation to the Hopper Institute for Good Management. Accompanying slides can be found here: http://www.slideshare.net/StuartMMills/four-hands-building-upon-the-story-of-the-puritan-gift

Four Hands – Building on the story of The Puritan Gift

When I was asked to give a presentation on The Puritan Gift I didn’t really know what I should say. That’s not because the book isn’t informative, on the contrary; it’s because by the end of the book you’ve been told a very simple and compelling story that really I couldn’t do justice. So instead I’m going to present something a little bit original, drawing off of ideas and quotes presented in The Puritan Gift to build a model that I think can be applied quite broadly.

I call it Four Hands, and I’m going to use it to demonstrate a few things. I’m going to look at individuals and what motivates them as well as innovation and how it can create communities; we’re going to think about the collective purpose of communities, and how the community works with The Individual. Finally, I’m going to bring in some political economy, Adam Smith, and a Founding Father.

So what is Four Hands? Well it’s a model – not a scientific one – of how individuals and organisations interact to achieve goals.

Of course every model needs a starting point, which I tentatively call the hand that feeds. It’s a bit of a forced name, but it articulates the key premise behind the first hand.

The hand that feeds is the starting point of our model and on the most basic level it assumes this – the goal of a person is to survive. It is a criticism of economics that it assumes people are rational, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say desire for continued existence is a reasonable expectation of your average person.

In a ‘trapped on a desert island’ scenario the hand that feeds is literally concerned with survival – there’s no point thinking about how great your future beachside mansion is going to be if you’re dead. In the more realistic scenario it can be about corporate survival or financial survival – are you under threat of losing your job or falling behind on your bills?

It’s helpful to consider the hand that feeds as the ‘struggle’ which inspires enterprise. From a business perspective, the hand that feeds could simply be a gap that an entrepreneur spots in the market.

If the hand that feeds is the starting point of the model, the divine hand is the end. Drawing directly on The Puritan Gift, we’re now considering what the Puritan’s goal – ‘to establish a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.’ – means.

You could take this literally, in which case I think the Puritan’s were setting their sights pretty high, or less literally – to establish a more efficient, possibly pious society? Either way, what we’re looking at here is a long-term communal goal. This is the divine hand at play.

To give you an example; firstly, the Puritan’s establish a community with the intention to survive and colonise the new world. This is the hand that feeds. Provided this is met, their goals then shift to fulfil their debts on Earth – their debts to England – and ultimately to build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. It’s important to note that all of these goals – to survive, to profit, to prosper – could not have been achieved by an individual alone.

If we look at Adam Smith’s line, ‘glow over the horizon’ we can see this sentiment being reinforced – that some goals transcend the individual and only become attainable as a collective.

It’s interesting to consider Eliot’s quote, ‘things are not so ill with you and me… is half owing to those who lived… a hidden life’, essentially saying the community, you and me, benefit from the efforts of those that came before us. This reinforces the idea of the Divine Hand being communal but also, ‘hidden lives’ – this is a long-term goal which is again bigger than the individual.

Here’s another example just to illustrate that this idea. I’m not really into football but sports teams are great examples to look at. In the team there are 11 players who are actually doing the day to day work, making the many short-term decisions that have to be made. We could think of them as the individuals whose enterprise is inspired from their struggle – though I hesitate to say ‘footballer’ and ‘struggle’ in the same sentence. They’re the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the desperate island dwellers.

Then we have the football club. This is the company that is built around the efforts of the individuals. We might want to think of them as the institutions first established by the settling Puritan’s – farmers, fisherman, builders etc. They’re entities that exist with the individuals and have short-term goals, but also set long-term goals, i.e. fulfil contracts, make a profit, win the league.

Finally, we have the football fans – the community – who don’t necessarily play on the football pitch nor work for the football club but they benefit from and contribute towards the long-term goal of the club indirectly. They attend games and provide moral support; similarly think of a carpenter constructing a boat for a fishing company. Though the carpenter doesn’t directly profit from the long-term goal of the fisherman, which may be to make profit, the carpenter indirectly profits from there being an ample, cheap supply of food. Equally, though the fans aren’t actually on the pitch playing the game, they benefit from the long-term success of the team they support.

It is important to remember individuals do exist however. The subtitle of The Puritan Gift is after all ‘reclaiming the American Dream…,’ and there are a lot of parallels to be found between the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth and the American Dream, mainly that they both talk about achieving better things through hard work.

So let’s consider Smiles, who equates the pursuit of heavenly ideals to the self-concerned individual, i.e. the Kingdom of Heaven becomes individualistically the American Dream. This is important because we can kind of consider the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth as the aggregate of individual pursuits, which brings us nicely onto Adam Smith whose famous invisible hand equates the American Dream, i.e. individual pursuit, as having ‘a net benefit for all’, bringing us back to the communal goal, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

Finally, before I move on some questions that are interesting to consider. MacCulloch’s take on pluralism said that capitalism is made up of many things that already existed within society and therefore is a by-product of social structure, the most crucial one he argued is religion. This leads to the question does there have to be a conscious structure in place for a societal goal to exist?

I’ve also asked is the zeitgeist of a community the same/similar to a societal goal, the implication being if it is can we change a societal goal? That maybe has some interesting implications in political theory?

Next we have the aforementioned invisible hand of Adam Smith. This is really where we’re beginning to see the model forming with the hand that feeds being the starting point, the divine hand being the end and the invisible hand linking the two.

This idea comes about from two places; firstly, Smith’s net benefit for all hypothesis, i.e. the end point of individualistic pursuit should benefit everyone somewhat, which is what I earlier talked about with football fans indirectly benefiting from team success.

Secondly we have Cotton with a great quote, ‘it is a disgrace to a good workman not to look at his work,’ saying that good work should receive acknowledgement, i.e. should receive some benefit. Again, individualism moves us towards the divine hand.

Also consider the message upon Benjamin Franklin’s epitaph, saying – in much fancier words – that nothing is perfect and we must always allow others to improve on things. I take this to mean be an individual and certainly be innovative, but do not ignore the contribution of the community.

The final hand is the visible hand; what Chandler described as the ‘substitution of “administrative co-ordination” for “market co-ordination”’, which solves the aforementioned problem by saying individuals who work together operate more efficiently – coordinate the market – and therefore will be more successful in achieving their goals. It’s also debatable this will make their short-term goals more aligned.

Ultimately this coalescence of individuals will distribute resources more efficiently and will work towards the divine hand much more successfully. They will not just be ‘individually coordinated’, they will be communally coordinated.

To conclude, Four Hands demonstrates the importance of allowing individuals to exist within communities. I think this is crucial in a business structure as it should allow greater innovation and communication of ideas throughout the organisation.

Secondly Four Hands allows managers to see the perspective of their staff better, i.e. they can see the survival point their staff occupy and the place their staff want to go. The implication of this is closer and more meaningful management of staff.

Finally, Four Hands illustrates the inefficiency of inter-community fighting and the benefits of community coordination. Therefore, Four Hands should encourage clear communication of long-term goals throughout an organisation. Individuals can then coordinate their efforts and skills rather than pursue individual goals and be less efficient.

These ideas I’ve just discussed relate directly back to key concepts discussed in the Puritan Gift; knowing who is in charge and what the organisation does, respecting and valuing the domain knowledge of individuals; and having effective lines of communication throughout the whole organisation.

How May I Stand Amongst Giants?

Individualism fascinates me.

Any politically aware or socially concerned person will, very early on in their life, come across Marx’s proletariat and Bourgeois. They will look around their society and see, be it subtly or blatantly, that the disparity Marx attempted to qualify is most definitely real. This is the first reason as to why it’s a very compelling idea. The second reason is it’s a very human idea; the Us vs. Them, the Have’s vs. the Have-not’s. The laws of Mathematics tell us most people will be in that latter category – the Have-not’s – and so there is perhaps a third reason why Marx’s simple idea becomes so compelling so quickly; more often than not you benefit. 

Though right now we should stop and consider something – that Marx’s great social equalisation and macro-communalism is powered primarily by divide. First we see our own perspective and those whose wealth is distinguished from ours; next we see our enemy and our allies in the economic game; finally, we see what we The Individual gain out of this conflict. Individualism still plaques Marx’s idea.

Of course Adam Smith would not describe individualism as a plaque but as a force for good. The much discussed invisible hand over the market often generating net benefit for all is proclaimed by many capitalists as a call to individuals to work and to create and to innovate – not for the system, but for themselves. The theory extends that The Individual, be them philanthropic or consumerist or both, will spread the wealth throughout the economy – trickledown economics.

So which is it? Is individualism a force for good or a mark on the mantra of egalitarianism? Well I would think the Marxist would scream at the Smithsonian that their model does not work, that trickledown economics does not work, that the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer. I would then suggest the Smithsonian, riled at the thought that they are the bad guy, would point out that the forces that drive the will of the capitalist entrepreneur are the same forces that drive the riotous factory worker – individualism and self-betterment – and to describe the capitalist as a wolf amongst sheep is to ignore the fact that those sheep are merely wolves in disguise. Indeed, the Smithsonian may suggest that the only difference between the proletariat and the Bourgeois is that the latter built their ivory towers, and the former wish only to tear them down.

At this point the Marxist is pissed.

   

The issue is that the concept of The Individual is not straightforward, and at any moment a person may be good or bad, selfish or generous, concerned or nihilistic. And their perspective, from the inside looking out, may be completely different to those on the outside looking in. And that’s the issue both the aforementioned models have – they both try to define what an individual is, intentionally or not, and proclaim to know how they operate. I think this is flawed.

   

For the record, all I would suggest to the warring Marxist and Smithsonian is this; do not forget all coins have two sides.

  

In Stanley Kubrick’s 1987 film Full Metal Jacket the lead protagonist can be seen wearing a peace symbol on his lapel and the words ‘Born to Kill’ on his helmet. When questioned as to the contrary nature of his outfit by a senior officer Kubrick’s protagonist is flustered for a moment before stating, ‘it is meant to say something about the duality of man.’ The colonel seems satisfied with the soldier’s reply.

   

Thematically the film is a critique on hive-mindedness; of the dehumanisation of the individual so as to create a reproducible, indistinguishable killing machine. Consider the words rank and file – to rank and store, to categorise and analysis and quantify. To consolidate an idea – a person – into something tangible and fixed. Kubrick’s ‘duality of man’ line exists, in my opinion, to draw fallacy to the idea that people can exist as a singular; indeed, did I not say before a person may be good or bad, selfish or generous – where is the ‘and’ in this statement? Where is the duality? It seems abstract or merely a mistake to misclassify people as or’s instead of and’s – that we don’t actually mean people are singular – but far too often we place our fellow man into linear identities.

   

Turn on any news channel and observe the divides we place between each other. Right or Left. Domestic or foreign. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian. Listen to the rhetoric of politicians on the subject of immigration or terror. Who are the terrorists that threaten our way of life? Who are the undesirables that are stealing our jobs? Indeed, what is ours, but something that is not someone else’s?

   

Why do we draw these divides? Or perhaps, why do we construct boxes into which we place others? I have offered several suggestions already. Allow me to offer another – because it’s easy. 

   

David Foster Wallace wrote in his speech ‘This is Water’ that “There is no experience you've had that you were not at the absolute centre of.” I think this is important to remember when we consider individualism, not to remind us that we are all innately self-centred and narcissistic – though we are – but instead to remind us that we all have a singular perspective. When you look in the mirror you see a face that you are totally familiar with. It’s yours. It’s the picture you place in your brain, the physical moniker with which you now use to define You. Yet when you look at a photograph of yourself, for the slightest of seconds, the face you see is not yours. It is a haunting similarity that falls into the uncanny valley until your brain pieces it all together and tosses the free falling doppelganger a rope. It is also you. It is what others see that you do not. Reflection vs. reality. You may become uncomfortable seeing something so similar but yet not quite familiar, and for a moment you might realise that the faces you see in the street that you ignore because they’re all so simple and numerous might just be as complex as you, if only you could see how similar you are.

   

It’s all a matter of perspective. It is easy for us to forget that other people, be them our parents or our friends or complete strangers, have a different perspective from us. This perspective can be as subtle as the angle at which they are standing in a room, the way they interpret the word naughty, or the way they vote. Consider that right now there are people you have never met and will never meet being born, dying, or participating in an innumerable number of menial tasks they love or hate or don’t care either way for. Right now there are people falling in love and falling apart, having sex or doing heroin or both, marching against injustice or martyring themselves for their own One True God.

   

We restrict our perception of our world to that which conforms to the rules and borders we cannot escape – those experiences we are at the absolute centre of – whilst allowing ourselves to forget the hidden lives of our fellow man.

   

To appreciate these hidden lives and comparatively abstract perspectives alongside our own is not easy. To consider others to be just as complex as ourselves is to admit to ourselves that we are not complexly special but complexly ordinary. To destroy our own paradigm of self and accept that we are not an island surrounded by an ocean but rather a singular droplet occupying space in a river that flows to the sea is terrifying. It is hard. 

   

What is easy is to ignore this fact. What is easy is to deny your soul the consideration of others’ complexities, to say with an absolute rite that yours is the correct outlook, that you are the protagonist in this tale, whatever the tale may be. What’s easy is to stereotype, to trivialise and demean and certainly to disrespect. To divide and categorise and rank and file. To seek comfort in the blank statement that you are an individual, and everyone else is everyone else. To decide that you are a giant whose shoulders other people occupy.

But of course that statement is only partially true. Yes, you are a giant. But so am I, and so is every human being you will ever or indeed never meet. To decide that others occupy space on our shoulders is to assume the apparent value of another. So do not ask yourself how may I walk with others on my back; instead question how may I stand amongst giants whose size and complexity and individual potential I cannot understand. The answer will be simple – side by side.