I’m not at all put off by the skepticism. In fact, that’s why I bought the book and committed to reading it. But “Triumph” suffers from a few challenges: it’s a bit too “academese-y” and the concepts are pretty simple but dressed up and expanded in what feels like an attempt to fill pages. There are also some sloppily written/edited passages that made reading this more of a chore than reading “The Stupidity Paradox.”
Alvesson analyzes consumption, higher education, and work organization (his subtitle) according to three concepts he articulates as zero-sum games, “grandiosity,” and illusion tricks. His overall argument seems to be that goods/brands, schools, and jobs have been changed by a culture that has moved away from physical production and into “knowledge production.” And because Western culture now has fewer physical things to produce, the economy depends on manufacturing desire for products, which are “positional,” or “zero-sum.” Consumers buy brands because they (consumers) want to improve their (consumers’) status, which depends on a zero-sum game: I can only be (and feel) superior if I am better than you. And I can do this through brands, and schooling, and work titles, all of which are inflated.
Alvesson cites sources to argue that education is educating less (tests indicate that students are performing more poorly in critical thinking skills AFTER years of college than when they entered but schools use precious resources marketing themselves heavily as a brand), that middle management is increasing in size with inflated titles and leadership concepts are fairly bankrupt (when “leaders” chat and drink coffee with secretaries, the leaders are “doing leadership.” When secretaries chat and drink coffee with other secretaries, they are chatting and drinking coffee. Google “post-heroic leadership” and prepare for your eyes to get stuck that way from rolling them), and that people are so busy keeping up with the Joneses buying crap to fill a void that will never be filled.
And this leaves us where? With unfulfilling lives, jobs, narcissism, and a functional stupidity that we need to survive in a Potemkin village that looks great but is hollow at its heart.
There are some good analyses about fashion (it’s jumped the shark the minute it catches on—and this means fashions of clothing as well as theories of organization), student satisfaction (a consumer orientation detracts from what we like to think education does: teaches discipline and concepts and skills that may not come easily and the value of deferred gratification and personal growth over mere credentiaing), diversity (the symbolic value of diversity management is at odds with an everyday level of operations that involves people who may or may not play well with others and may or may not buy into the myth of a well-oiled rainbow workplace), and titles in the workplace (the professionalization of jobs leads to expectations that the jobs can’t possibly fulfill: everyone wants to engage in strategy and no one wants to do the grunt work).
But Alvesson’s writing in “Triumph” is a little too unwieldy and padded for me to feel like the substance I took away justified the volume and the difficulty of reading the prose.
Overall, my cynical take on the message: we are set up to want more (stuff, money, respect, prestige) than our economy and workplaces and education are actually able to provide. So instead of recognizing and accepting that and finding fulfillment internally, we look externally (and are encouraged to do so because that’s how brands and schools make money and how companies keep running) and expect our stuff and jobs and titles to provide that fulfillment. I put this on the “Existential Crisis: Deal with It Because Only You Can Fix You” shelf.
It’s not a message a thinking person can really reject.