Blog 1 - Projective City
Mallon’s dialogue at the Communitech event is very much indicative of the notion of the ‘projective city’ theorized by Boltanski and Chiapello. Mallon talks about all the different changes that Waterloo will need to overcome to turn the community into a breeding ground for innovation. In his seven variables of changes, highlights the possibilities of changes that can be capitalized on: “a tsunami of data; AI and computing robotics; jobs that are vulnerable to automation; diversity and generational changes; the fact that we’re living longer, so our careers will be longer as well; and an explosion in contingent work”(Pedro, 2019). Furthermore, Boltanski and Chiapello stress in a projective city, there is a strong sense of mediating actions of creating networks in order to put people with the right contacts in order to make connections and create a ‘network’. In other words, it was the importance of the networking power of organizations and individuals to come together.
Likewise, Mallon’s is very much indicative of this notion of a projective city, as he understands the importance of attracting talent, and securing talents by understandings their needs and wants. While there are numerous works to be done, businesses will need to be articulate in what skills is required, as talent as become the main contributory of productivity now and business must understand what type of skills is required, in order to understand how to attract the right talent. “Instead of hiring a certain number of employees, businesses will need to think about what type of work needs to be done in the future and the kind of talent that will fill the gap” (Pedro, 2019). As a result, businesses will have to dramatically change the structure of their company to facilitate an environment that will cultivates the talents that would work there. In the article, Mallon mention that there is a particular importance in this aspect, and outlines his ways to foster the talents in his company “spend time rewarding employees for taking good risks, create spaces for employees to step outside their comfort zone and practise new skills, and also figure out how to use data to improve learning to quickly understand what’s working and what’s not (Pedro, 2019). Furthermore, Castell outlines this ability of actors and organizations to influence the decisions of one another, respectively as a notion of power in a global network society.
Ultimately, Mallon depiction of Waterloo alludes to the making of a projective city and in part, the path to creating an innovative Waterloo community. In order to so, it requires countless changes and adaptation from both businesses and community to create an efficient system. With actors and organizations finding each other and cementing connections in the industry and community, the by-product of these networked power becomes the catalysts for innovation.
With the importance of rewarding and cultivating talent as mentioned in the Mallon article, do you think that providing a loose work environment such as freelance jobs allow talents to truly be invested in the businesses and their projects?
Castell, Manuel. "The network society." The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture 1 (1996).
Boltanski, Luc, and Eve Chiapello. "The new spirit of capitalism." International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 18.3-4 (2005): 161-188.
Pedro, Kelly. “A Master's Every 10 Years: How Workers Will Adapt to Change Future of Work Series Aims to Position Waterloo Region as Test Bed for Ideas.” Communitech News, news.communitech.ca/a-masters-every-10-years-how-workers-will-adapt-to-change/.
Hi Victor,
ReplyDeleteInteresting question you have posed. I think to some degree, workers in a 'projective city' scenario have to invest themselves for the sole purpose of cultivating new projects to take on once another project inevitably ends. Boltanski and Chiapello note that an "awareness that the project will come to an end is accompanied by the hope that a new project will follow, that it is already in gestation in the fabric of current connections, even if it is not yet known what form it will take" (111).
Personally, it sounds like the reward for completing one job, is just another job to do afterwards. The 'projective city' and the New Spirit of Capitalism transcend monetary reward, yet the example of Waterloo's tech sector becoming a 'projective city' is worrisome because, for the time being, it doesn't exist in a vacuum where the current 'rules' of capitalism don't apply. What happens when someone takes a 'bad risk'? Is there some sort of safety net they can rely on? Or do they lose the trust of others working on the 'project'? Do they lose the networks they've built up and ultimately become ostracized? I'd be interested to hear what kind of labour policies Chan plans to implement, if and when he plans to use Waterloo's tech sector as a guinea pig for the future of work.
Hi Victor,
ReplyDeleteWith regards to your question, it is my sense that there is large investment to be made by workers in their 'projects'. However, it does not emerge from companies "rewarding talent". It seems to me that the 'loose work environment' is problematic in that it fuels the pervasive ideology behind many informal/'innovative' work environments. A sort of social capital and prestige involved in working for tech corporations and startups—promises of lofted ceilings, catered lunches, and unlimited espresso and alcoholic beverage— that mask the workers precarity. Even freelancers are encouraged to overcome precarity by working in trendy shared workplaces and 'hustle' in order to increase their networked power (Castells, 1996). If these aforementioned promises are considered 'rewards' by tech workers then the ideology seems to be operating well...
Moreover, if by informal you mean 'flexible' workplaces (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqG0O6debQM) where greater collaboration and camaraderie is thought to increase individual and team productivity— we should ask who really benefits. In essence, then, I don't necessarily see how informal work environments /'cultures' derive significant benefit to the worker. Indeed, workers might feel that their work is meaningful and fulfilling. This is good. However, the increased productivity (Gregg, 2018) supposedly derived from these flexible workplaces rewards organizations more than it does labour.
I also like the points that Adam makes here regarding the inherent risk involved in the new education/labour imperative being championed by Mallon. Surely, we ought to realize that behind the facade of innovation in workplaces— where trailblazers and risk-takers are glorified—lie real humans. Therefore, as Adam points out, it is important to ask what sort of safety measures or corporate policies are in place when a project or initiative goes awry?
Hi Victor,
ReplyDeleteI feel as if I could come about your question from two sides. One of which comes from personal experiences and conversations with peers in similar positions, and the other from a more generalized, and in my opinion more popular belief of precarious work.
First off, there is the what I believe to be the more popular idea when it comes to precarious work, that this style of work breeds less commitment from workers due to the lack of stability. I can 100 percent see this ideology being true in a sense that the worker feels little obligation to commit to the company as they know that their time with the organization is limited to when the project is done. In addition, there is also the reality that many people in precarious work positions are taking on additional jobs in order to gurantee income on a month to month basis. This could also lead to lack of commitment as individuals are needing to juggle multiple schedules, leaving them only slightly commited to multiple institutes.
On the flip side are my thoughts that when put in a position that could be taken away from me, I feel a desire to give it my all, in hopes of generating a positive reputation within the company, its employees, and external delegates who have a say in my work and my position whether now or in the future. While I can admit that this is likely the unpopular opinion, from conversations with others, I feel that this notion is becoming more and more prevelant. The 21st century has shifted the labour market, and while I recognize that precarious work is a part of that shift, I also feel that people sometimes utilize that as a crutch in order to justify sticking to their minimum wage job for 20+ years.
As mentioned, I dont believe my perspecive of precarious work is the common one, nor do I necessarily think its the right one. I do recognize the insecurity that comes with precarity, as well as the many detrimental downfalls to this system of labour. But seeing as jobs are only transitioning to becoming more precarious in nature, I feel that our generation needs to tackle this in an effective way, and deal with it as it comes.
Hi Victor,
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I think that providing a loose work environment does not necessarily allow creative individuals to focus on their projects. While the individual is given more time to focus on their projects, a loose work environment such as a freelancing position only creates more instability for the individual with regards to pay and employment. A negative outcome from the freelancing position could result in stopping or further delaying this individual's creative career. I believe the best solution would be a mix of both structure and flexibility. This could include implementing changes such as the option to work from home, picking your own hours to best suit your own schedule, and giving workers more autonomy within the workplace. I find that this would help introduce more security into their work whilst also giving the worker the flexibility to work on their own creative pursuits as well.
Hi Victor,
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I feel provide a loose work environment do not allow talents to truly be invested in the businesses and their projects. Take freelance jobs as an example. I do not think it is a good option for people to choose, because this kind of job does not have job security. On the other hand, in my opinion, the best work environment is to provide a flexible time for employees. Therefore, they can choose the best time for them to do their work and projects. In addition, flexible work time can improve their work quality. Some people prefer to do work during the day, while some people prefer to do it at night. Thus, this work environment can promote their creation. Overall, I really enjoy reading your post.
Thanks,
Chenwei
Hi Victor,
ReplyDeleteAs highlighted by Boltanski and Chiapello (2005), developing one’s portfolio is extremely important for success in a work economy as precarious as ‘the projective city’ (p.110). Portfolio’s need to be continuously improved and reimagined on the basis that they must be able keep up with the incredibly high demands of the rapidly evolving tech sector, which is notoriously defined by its incomparable obsolescence cycles. I think that the precarity of work undoubtedly enforces a sense of drive and urgency to seek out more projects, and to personally evolve at the same pace of the projects one is working on. However, I also think that this affective feeling of motivation and self-improvement is a naturally occurring human sense. One that everyone feels as they progress through life, yet at the same time, one that is often halted, and suppressed by the capitalist division of labour, and the forms of power operated within a cooperate work environment (refer to my blog post to read an example of this). Similar to how Will Borys mentioned above, the tech industry has employed their most enticing features (high levels of autonomy, increased free-time, and exclusive community culture) to effectively market the industry to those who feel that their personal progress has been halted by their ‘golden handcuffs’ in their 9-5 jobs. As well as to students who have been dying to implement their mass amounts of creativity they have cultivated over their last 4 years of studying.
That being said, I think the freelance work environment reinvokes the natural human sense of self-improvement through the urgency of taking on new projects and improving one’s portfolio. Therefore, to answer your question, I think that actors are encouraged to invest in themselves more than the project. The only thing pushing actors to take on more responsibility and leadership during these projects is their drive to compete with one another, in a direct effort to improve themselves and their portfolio for their next project. At the same time however, the project is the building block needed to complete this task, and therefore, demands a certain level of investment.