The Wrong Questions
Thomas Pynchon | Hirschman’s Rhetoric of Intransigence, Corporate Peacocking | Elsewhere | Elsewhen
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
| Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow
…
Pynchon is onto something here.
The questions first raised about the future of a company’s operations and principles, for example, could be the wrong questions, which lead to a cul-de-sac instead of a breakthrough in shared understanding and common cause.
Hirschman’s Rhetoric of Intransigence
I re-encountered Albert Hirschman’s Rhetoric of Reaction recently regarding the American political backpedaling on progressive advocacy of various causes (see The World Is Cracked, if you’re so inclined). But his thinking is directly applicable to the pushback in corporations on the ‘progressive’ movement towards a more democratic, employee-centered form of business operations.
Hirschman’s book — The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy — pivots on three theses, as indicated in the title.
Hirschman describes the reactionary narratives thus:
According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy.
The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent."
Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment.
He argues that these are "rhetorics of intransigence", which do not further debate.
via Wikipedia
Businesses are inherently reactionary: they are structured to withstand market turbulence, unanticipated change, and the forces of market competition. But these core functions of business operations also work internally, making effecting change in organizations difficult, if not impossible.
Hirshman’s reactionary theses allow us to parse the arguments leveled against change in general or any specific change being suggested.
Consider the proposition that higher levels of productivity and wellbeing can be achieved by allowing people to split their work time across the office and other-than-office sites. (Other-than-office sites are generally called working from home, but in reality include coworking sites, cafes, and other third places.)
Someone instinctively averse to organizational change would apply the perversity thesis, saying, ‘While working from home statistics may seem to show increased individual productivity, company-wide productivity — over time and across groups — will degrade because face-to-face interaction with peers and management is essential. Therefore, WFH will undermine what it is supposed to accomplish.’
And this is one of many arguments we do, in fact, continue to hear from distributed work naysayers.
Just as common are those positions that employ jeopardy-based arguments, lamenting that working out of the office degrades or destroys nebulous (or scientifically disproven) cultural values or capacities. For example, the water-cooler effect, where chance interactions lead to innovative breakthroughs. Or the supposed benefits of managing by wandering around — which has been demonstrated to be detrimental to productivity (see Paradoxes of Engagement: Remote Isn’t) — or mentoring of younger workers, or the ineffable transmission of cultural norms. In each of these cases, working out-of-office puts those benefits in jeopardy, harming the company.
I maintain that Hirschman’s work is directly applicable to this, and other forms of democratizing the business culture.
Corporate Peacocking
Andy Spence, in The Last Stand of the Corporate Peacock, points out that few senior executives will admit that one of the underlying drivers for return-to-office mandates: corporate peacocking.
Corporate Peacocking — like male peacocks displaying vibrant plumage to attract mates, some managers showcase their status and contributions more effectively when working onsite. The office becomes their stage: holding court at all-hands meetings, buying post-work drinks, holding visible court. By bringing workers back, they can better signal their dominance in the corporate pecking order.
We’ve seen it play out: managers struggling with distributed teams, worried they’re losing grip. They default to what they know — control by proximity.
This mindset can still work — if you're working with people with no better options.
For some leaders, bringing workers back to the office is about reasserting dominance, not improving performance.
Spence cites a study that supports this:
A recent study of S&P 500 firms found that Return-to-Office mandates are often driven by managers seeking to reassert control or deflect blame for poor performance — with no evidence that these mandates improve firm value, and clear evidence they reduce employee satisfaction.
(Source: SSRN, "Return-to-Office Mandates" (2024))
So, you shouldn’t expect corporate management to undermine their theses by saying the quiet part out loud: they spent way too much on their corporate palaces (and now need people in the office to justify all that marble and square footage); some are blaming performance problems on WFH when that’s a smokescreen for strategic mistakes or operational glitches; and some are frightened because, as Warren Buffett said,
Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.
Elsewhere
My other writing projects have been my primary obsession recently. Forgive me. I will try to paint inside the lines in the weeks and months to come.
Democrats and Political Demography
At stoweboyd.io, I’ve been dissecting the arguments and analysis about the future direction of the Democratic Party: in particular, how ‘off left’ will Dems have to become to pull back those that defected in 2024?
Tea Party for the Left? — Don't write off the idea too quickly.
Grassroots Redemption — Ben Rhodes has an off-left inkling about a Democratic resurgence.
The World Is Cracked — The fissuring of the Democrats is becoming more obvious. They must make an end to make a new beginning. The title is from Alana Samuel | The world is cracked, but we still have to live in it.
The Judgment of Heaven — Michelle Cottle and Ben Rhodes are wandering in the wilderness, like most Democrats. The title is from the Tao te Ching:
DARING TO DO Brave daring leads to death. Brave caution leads to life. The choice can be the right one or the wrong one. Who will interpret the judgment of heaven? Even the wise soul finds it hard. | Tao Te Ching, 73, translated by Ursula Le Guin
…
Portfolio
Over at another of my Substacks, workings.co, I am writing a series on Portfolio, a comprehensive system for notetaking in Obsidian:
This was also quite popular, from 2008: In Praise Of (A Little) Mess Be (A Little) Scruffy.
Elsewhen
What does this even mean?
From Brandy Jensen:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Work Futures to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.