It’s not wrong to be rewarded for working hard…

Over the years, the Badger’s been an independent observer in numerous formal meetings dealing with an employee performance or disciplinary issue, or employee complaint. There were robust procedures for these, and HR always ensured that a record was kept of what was said at the meeting. Many of those the Badger attended were memorable, not because of the particular issue, but because they provided an insight to the character and attitude of the employee concerned.

With elections in the UK imminent, the Badger recalls one employee complaint meeting which highlighted that people not only make different life choices, but they also have different reasons for why they work. The Badger was asked to be the company’s independent observer at the meeting which involved HR, the complainant’s boss, the complainant, and a friend supporting them. The Badger didn’t know any of them; they were all from a different part of the company. The complaint seemed straightforward. The complainant had asserted that they were being unfairly treated because another colleague of the same age and length of service working on the same project had a higher salary. There’d been a previous meeting, but the issue was unresolved because the interactions between the individual and their boss became antagonistic.

The Badger quickly tuned into the complainant’s attitude to work and life. They were intelligent, articulate, likeable, and passionate about their many costly interests and hobbies outside of work. They always arrived for work on time and always left on time. They never worked extended hours even when incentivised financially to do so. It was obvious that their hobbies and interests outside of work were their priority and that work was simply the vehicle to fund them. Also, they had no interest going the extra mile at work to earn a higher salary because they believed that salary progression came primarily with length of service. Their project colleague with a higher salary was the opposite and motivated to do what needed to be done to build a career and accumulate the benefits that come from going the extra mile.

The meeting concluded with the HR person pointing out that the complainant and their higher-paid colleague had made different lifestyle choices, and that a complaint about someone else’s choices had no validity. They added ‘It’s not wrong for your colleague to be rewarded for going the extra mile. This country and this company were built by people who did just that’. The complaint was closed with no further action. For the Badger, it was memorable because it highlighted that people make different choices and have different motivations, attitudes, and views about working hard to build wealth. As the UK goes to the polls, the Badger senses that the HR person’s words capture a sentiment which the country needs to revive in order to be great again…  

Digital backlash…

The Artemis mission around the dark side of the moon, the sight of humanoid robots running a half marathon (here and here), Anthropic’s Claude Mythos AI model and comments by ex-PM Rishi Sunak, all illustrate the power and relentless advance of digital technology. Having a decades-long career in the IT industry, it’s been routine for the Badger to deal with perpetual change in digital technology. The rapidity of that change kept the Badger and his colleagues motivated, challenged, learning and eager for new skills, and greatly satisfied when systems were delivered to clients and put into operational use. With this background you might think the Badger is an ardent digital technophile today, but he’s not. He’s ‘neutral’ with no strong affinity for, or aversion to, digital technology. He’s not overly enthusiastic about digital technology’s constant impact on our lives, but not overly critical of it either. Why is that?

The answer lies in three points: there’s no putting digital advances back in the box once they exist, not all digital technology is good for society, and digital technology dominated by a handful of individuals, corporations, or countries does not lead to a focus on benefiting humanity as a whole. Regarding the first point, innovation is a human attribute that will always produce advances, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s the second and third points which have moved the Badger to ‘neutral’ over the last decade, because digital technology has taken over our lives by stealth, driven ostensibly by agendas set by giant US and Chinese corporations controlled by a handful of individuals. Regulators have been slow, and tech giants have strongly resisted the introduction of sensible new laws that benefit wider society at every turn because of the threat to their own agendas. Digital advances have infiltrated society by default and diffusion without too much regard for the impact on the public. AI simply illustrates the point. Philosophical objectivity is thus at the heart of why the Badger’s become a neutral rather than ardent technophile.

Everyone today is more aware than ever before of digital technology’s downsides. There’s a growing willingness for the public to push back on the digital world. The UK government backtracked on Digital ID ambitions after a backlash, there’s a growing backlash against AI in the US (see here, here, and here), Swedish schools are cutting back on digital learning and returning to books, pen, and paper, numerous countries are  moving to ban social media for under 16s, a ban on children using smartphones at school has just been announced in the UK, and big tech has just lost a landmark social media addiction case. Society’s pushing back and questioning an unrestrained digital world more and more, and this backlash seems likely to grow with time. Indeed, with the world as it is today, the Badger’s unlikely to move from a neutral affinity any time soon…