The AI hallucinations were confirmed by multiple leading publications, including the Financial Times. The so-called "Thought Leadership" reports were intended to articulate PwC's insights into some of...
You’re not wrong, but j feel like people have been so slipped up by a century of neoliberalism and education cuts, 20 years of social media, and five years of chatgpt+wsb/bettingmarkets, that there’s no solution left to anything but violence. I hate that shit.
Some of these problems could be solved other ways,but they require much more sophisticated coordination and the capitalists have just digested it out.
The reality is no one person is qualified to “run” a multinational megacorp. Not a single human being knows enough for this level of complexity, but the only reason any of them can justify the ungodly amount of marginal return they take is to pretend they’re super-geniuses while relying on ‘consultant’ teams to do the actual thinking, and also keep it quiet that they’re no more competent than the janitor they’re making 1000x the salary of (all in stock options of course, but 1000x nonetheless).
All of this would work better if the “bosses” could accept they aren’t demigods, that the domain expertise to make collective decisions is within their existing org charts and they just need to step down off their high horses and remember they are just a cog in a much bigger machine that makes its own decisions with or without their input. They’re self-important sales reps, with just enough of a grasp of finance to be dangerous to themselves and others. I’m sure me and my 10 closest colleagues would also be inclined to say we do a billion $ of work every day if we were writing our own bonus agreements. We just wouldn’t have the hubris to convince ourselves it’s true.
The reality is no one person is qualified to “run” a multinational megacorp. Not a single human being knows enough for this level of complexity
This was true of the United States of America in 1789, but still you need a leader. A leader like Buzz Lightyear, he’s “always sure.” Confidently pursuing a plausible, coherent path has value, even when it’s not the optimal path - difficult to see, the future is, always in motion - direction by committee of “the best people” has its place, but so does decisive leadership.
No, what you need is something that can facilitate coordination and communication between many moving parts, inspire confidence in the team, create stability, and sell a vision to generate investment, and those functions do not necessarily all need to be one person. You do not “need” a leader, you want a leader because it’s easier to conceptualize a relationship with a figurehead. Much like the rump English monarchy, the executive is a vestigial appendage and an artifact of of an aristocratic era of patronage. Locking in a coherent direction does not require a “decider”, there are other ways to achieve that. By designing companies to minimize personal liability and accountability, they have also designed themselves out of a useful role.
You’re not wrong, but j feel like people have been so slipped up by a century of neoliberalism and education cuts, 20 years of social media, and five years of chatgpt+wsb/bettingmarkets, that there’s no solution left to anything but violence. I hate that shit.
Some of these problems could be solved other ways,but they require much more sophisticated coordination and the capitalists have just digested it out.
The reality is no one person is qualified to “run” a multinational megacorp. Not a single human being knows enough for this level of complexity, but the only reason any of them can justify the ungodly amount of marginal return they take is to pretend they’re super-geniuses while relying on ‘consultant’ teams to do the actual thinking, and also keep it quiet that they’re no more competent than the janitor they’re making 1000x the salary of (all in stock options of course, but 1000x nonetheless).
All of this would work better if the “bosses” could accept they aren’t demigods, that the domain expertise to make collective decisions is within their existing org charts and they just need to step down off their high horses and remember they are just a cog in a much bigger machine that makes its own decisions with or without their input. They’re self-important sales reps, with just enough of a grasp of finance to be dangerous to themselves and others. I’m sure me and my 10 closest colleagues would also be inclined to say we do a billion $ of work every day if we were writing our own bonus agreements. We just wouldn’t have the hubris to convince ourselves it’s true.
This was true of the United States of America in 1789, but still you need a leader. A leader like Buzz Lightyear, he’s “always sure.” Confidently pursuing a plausible, coherent path has value, even when it’s not the optimal path - difficult to see, the future is, always in motion - direction by committee of “the best people” has its place, but so does decisive leadership.
No, what you need is something that can facilitate coordination and communication between many moving parts, inspire confidence in the team, create stability, and sell a vision to generate investment, and those functions do not necessarily all need to be one person. You do not “need” a leader, you want a leader because it’s easier to conceptualize a relationship with a figurehead. Much like the rump English monarchy, the executive is a vestigial appendage and an artifact of of an aristocratic era of patronage. Locking in a coherent direction does not require a “decider”, there are other ways to achieve that. By designing companies to minimize personal liability and accountability, they have also designed themselves out of a useful role.