The age of the manager is over.
There may be a lot of room for counter-argument. But there's nothing to be done about it. The mass market and prevailing corporate culture have started to recognize this nuance. Of course, since they've only just begun to, it isn't yet common knowledge.
' What used to be called the sharing economy — Airbnb and Uber — is actually not a sharing service. The carpooling they talk about isn't carpooling. If money changes hands directly between individuals, a platform manages them, and that platform takes a fee for each person's sharing activity, then this is nothing more than unregistered sellers' production activity. In other words, it's a marketplace that facilitates the re-production of each individual's idle assets. Carpooling in the past was more like "pumasi" or "dure" (traditional Korean mutual aid). You didn't give neighbors you knew a ride in exchange for a fee.
This is similar to how social commerce — especially Korean social commerce — is not really "social commerce," but rather a process like group-buying, half-price discounts, or dumping stores.
Of course, I don't mean to criticize their business models or services. It's just that I find it disagreeable when what's inside doesn't match the outside yet is used as a strategic selling point. Individuals who seize a trending keyword and build their own market off of it look to me less clever and more cunning. They may have made lots of money and earned fame, but thanks to them the world keeps getting harder. My stance is just: Don't be devil.
Personally, I think the real sharing economy model is Wikipedia. They share services (content, knowledge) via collective intelligence. They do not run the platform on a brokerage-fee business model. '
Feels like I went off on a tangent. To not forget, I'll attach the article that prompted this post.
https://www.seri.org/fr/fPdsV.html?fno=218520&menucode=0499&gubun=27&no=001039&page=1
"Blockchain Will Replace Uber and Airbnb" | SERI.Forum : SERI.org
www.seri.org
It feels like the details of liberalism and socialism are being adjusted. The harsher social-economic conditions caused by neoliberalism have grown concern for, and the weight given to, welfare even within the market economy. And I personally think we're gradually entering a stage where, through IT technology, past socialism can be made real at a level that doesn't infringe on individual freedom or economic activity. I know — it's a story from the distant future. But in that process, maybe those of us who are at the starting point can do something? Or get something out of it, I think.
If you're reading this post, you've probably come across articles like the one below. https://www.mk.co.kr/news/culture/view/2016/12/903431/
A future where robots take our jobs... is it really a catastrophe? - Maeil Business
A Future Without Labor / by Tim Dunlop / translated by Eom Seong-su / published by BusinessMap
www.mk.co.kr
Neoliberalism's abundance is premised on endless growth, so every category across society is bound to face its own entropy. The people living in that society have no choice but to keep chasing ever-expanding income. But we stay in the same place. Because everyone is moving in the same direction. But for how long? How long must we earn more and more — more than yesterday, more than tomorrow, more than our peers, more than them — in order to be happy?
What if some part of reality could be transacted in physical goods instead of money? What if the era that demands we earn lots of money to maximize our personal exchange value didn't actually need to be that way? For example, instead of working for 1.5 million won and then buying a 500,000-won item, what if we worked for 1.3 million won and got the 1.3 million won plus the 500,000-won item (30,000 won cost)? This naive? daydream could actually become reality today if social commerce were real commerce. Likewise, if Airbnb and Uber were real sharing-economy platforms, these things could happen in our reality even if no one intentionally strove for or waited for them. Of course, we shouldn't only feel regret. When blockchain becomes more widespread — as a platform structure, not as a coin-as-investment-vehicle — I think a naturally (more essential) new sharing-economy platform will appear.
There will of course be fierce resistance along the way. The middlemen, for example traditional big corporations with vested interests, won't easily let go of their possessions and influence. But alongside that process, substitutes (e.g., Uber and Airbnb mentioned earlier) will appear, and over time they will gradually dilute or be repositioned. In the end, change will overcome the resistance of the powerful. But.. my life will probably be in the middle of that process of overcoming, and by the time that resistance is fully overcome, I'll either be gone or in my old age.
Hmm? The flow of this post is strange? You started with "the age of the manager is over" and now keep talking about social (liberalism, sharing economy, robots?) topics? The reason is that what makes up that society is organizations, and what makes up organizations is their culture or structure.
Early on, the supplier delivered the service (product) directly to the producer. | In organizations, that maps to boss and employee.
In the middle period, brokers emerged between suppliers and producers. | In organizations, that maps to CEO, middle managers, and employees.
At the peak, the supplier (broker) also becomes the producer, and the broker (producer) also becomes the supplier. | In organizations, that maps to CEO, members, and mediators.
Not only that, the need for a planner role will remain, but if the planner's R&R is communication between client and internal workers, managing projects, or communication between designers and developers, the planner as a job title will be diluted. Actually, it already seems to be happening.
Of course, not only society and organizations but also the internet will change. Smartphones will change too.
The era of the manager is setting.
Is there room for counter-argument? A manager and a mediator are different. And the mass market and the prevailing corporate culture have started to recognize this detail. The scope of recognition is expanding. I expect it will become common sense before long.
P.S.
As is typical of the internet age — surfing links, skimming the mailing list, and I find myself writing down unplanned thoughts. The jumbled content of this post and this P.S. — that's just how it is.
Ah — hold on, (update)
What about celebrity managers? Is that job also changing? My answer is YES. You can feel it watching "Jeon Won Chamgyeon-si" (I Live Alone). A manager is less someone who simply manages a celebrity and more someone who plays the role of a natural mediator, connecting the celebrity with various people (fans, broadcasters, media) to create positive synergy, I feel. Of course, it might just be me. I'm a sensitive person ;D
Individual influence boundaries are expanding. Thanks to the mediating device that is the smartphone and the mediating online network that is the internet (though there are issues with both too). In that context, the idea of an individual "managing" another individual is a contradiction. Who is managing whom? You can only manage yourself. On the other hand, wouldn't it be possible — or perhaps more valuable — to recognize the unique value of self-managing individuals and to mediate them with one another?
End of update.
