James Surowiecki, who has written for The New Yorker since 2000, published "The Cult of Overwork" in this year's January 27 publication. He makes the argument that bankers and analysts could be more productive if they cut down the hours they work, but that the culture of these professions would strongly resist it. He suggests that banks change their expectations for their workers in an effort to change this overworking culture and produce more efficient work methods.
Surowiecki uses statistics to demonstrate how the world of Wall Street is conditioned to work long hours. For example, he writes, "A 2008 Harvard Business School survey of a thousand professionals found that ninety-four per cent worked fifty hours or more a week, and almost half worked in excess of sixty-five hours a week." These statistics, the strongest and clearest evidence he could use, give the reader background information on business culture which is essential for the reader to understand in order to comprehend Surowiecki's main claim.
Unfortunately (from my perspective), the author spends only one paragraph proving that reducing the number of hours worked could increase worker productivity. He also supplies relatively weak evidence: just a few vague examples and a study or two. Surowiecki writes, "Among industrial workers, overtime raises the rate of mistakes and safety mishaps; likewise, for knowledge workers fatigue and sleep-deprivation make it hard to perform at a high cognitive level." The facts aren't insignificant, but I find it disappointing and ineffective that the author gives more attention and better evidence to proving that bankers are overworking than to proving that they shouldn't do that.
A Deep Picture of a Businessman Bear Who Wants to Run On a Broken Hamster Wheel
Well, The New Yorker used it...
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2014/01/27/140127ta_talk_surowiecki
No comments:
Post a Comment