In the "free market" system, there is huge amount of performative work done - think of advertising and PR. This type of information manipulation is an unintented result of direct competition.
This culture then seeps into large companies, which are trying to emulate it with things like OKRs and company-wide metrics and comparisons.
Earlier, companies were more authoritarian in the sense that understanding of your performance was more at your direct boss discretion, but that brings another problem - nepotism. This is bureacratically simpler but the boss becomes a weak link of "fairness". IOW, people "had their place" in the hierarchy, and it was changing slower (if at all) with their actual contribution.
In collectivist systems (which are distinct from authoritarian ones, and are not typical for firms, unless you have something like a cooperative), on the other hand, selfish people just tune out directly, without need to perform or schmooze with bosses, because there is too little practical repercussions for doing so. During socialism in my country, there was often little pretense that people are not making an effort - because there was little you could do about it.
The reality is always some mix of the three, but I think multi-decadal shift from authoritarian to liberal (while collectivist stagnated) explains the rise of performative work across society. Because status is now more frequently measured rather than remaining stable.
My point is, systems have trade-offs, neither is perfect. Selfish people will adapt to any of them. Although (as a leftist) I would personally prefer less liberal and more collectivist approach to status.
This culture then seeps into large companies, which are trying to emulate it with things like OKRs and company-wide metrics and comparisons.
Earlier, companies were more authoritarian in the sense that understanding of your performance was more at your direct boss discretion, but that brings another problem - nepotism. This is bureacratically simpler but the boss becomes a weak link of "fairness". IOW, people "had their place" in the hierarchy, and it was changing slower (if at all) with their actual contribution.
In collectivist systems (which are distinct from authoritarian ones, and are not typical for firms, unless you have something like a cooperative), on the other hand, selfish people just tune out directly, without need to perform or schmooze with bosses, because there is too little practical repercussions for doing so. During socialism in my country, there was often little pretense that people are not making an effort - because there was little you could do about it.
The reality is always some mix of the three, but I think multi-decadal shift from authoritarian to liberal (while collectivist stagnated) explains the rise of performative work across society. Because status is now more frequently measured rather than remaining stable.
My point is, systems have trade-offs, neither is perfect. Selfish people will adapt to any of them. Although (as a leftist) I would personally prefer less liberal and more collectivist approach to status.