What does a job mean for you? What is work to you?
It used to be just tasks or collection of tasks that had to be done. The tasks were easily connected to the end goals.
Then things got complex and the tasks were clear but it felt more distant from the ultimate outcomes that the whole lot of people were trying to achieve.
Finally we did away with task-based identification of the work and changed parts of the work to be based on creating some kind of outcomes. In trying to connect the outcomes to the person, we lost the clarity on the specific tasks required. That can lead to undisciplined exhaustion of energies and burn out.
On the other hand, for all the jobs where tasks can be clearly specified, technology has been used to displace human workers. Leaving humans to only supervise or check through the results. In fact, at some point even the quality checks can be automated.
Where does that leave us? What does that mean about the future of work?
The future of work can be meaningful if we resume our human role of caring for who the outcome of work is for, and the manner in which the work is done. We carve out that higher role for ourselves by being capable of continuous improvement that focuses on the final objective of the work itself – the satisfaction of the user.
One of the big struggles of corporate is that when you have clearly defined roles where there are job titles, managers, and the ‘managed’, there is this false sense that you get promoted because you’ve proven yourself. Now, you start being required to work with entirely new skills, and you no longer have to use that much of what you were good at.
The tricky bit often in management is that the corporates are not sufficiently focused on training and bringing you up to the level required because mass training is easier to justify than just training a handful of people. Moreover, in many organisations, being in management has a lot more to do with handling internal politics and jostling for resources than to do with getting the real work done. Politics is of course important because that enables the delivery team to be able to deliver but if you just got promoted from being the best performer in the delivery team, you’re almost completely oblivious to what this new management role really is about! Not to mention growing the skills overnight to be able to do the new job well.
Some organisations, like the military that operate based on the old British aristocratic style tries to overcome this problem by having two classes within the service. The commissioned officer and the non-comissioned officer tracks are ways in which you focus one group on the ‘leadership’ (really, it is more management) skills. In contrast, the other group are more focused on ‘operations’ (or what is deemed more as ‘follower’ type) tasks. Of course, reality is a lot more complex than that but this form of organisation, while crude, aligns expectations and allows the specialists to focus on the frontline nitty gritty and have the ‘leaders’ focus on the big picture elements. Over time, though the commissioned officers have ever been trained in the basics, they lose their ability to really keep up with the changes on the ground to be able to command at high level.
Yet that form of organisation is probably not ideal as it can be a bit elitist and does not incentivise people to perform in ways that allows them to utilise their potential well. It boxes people into neat categories that serves the organisation more than the individual, and at some point, a lot of people would give up on the system as they find themselves uninterested in being thumbed down as second-class citizens, or being forced only to do the big ‘leading’ kind of stuff.
The market presents a new way of organising people, and as our markets develop, I’d expect a lot more small tiny firms to exists and serve large swathe of people when technology enables them to.
One of the greatest challenges confronting our modern world is the sense that when there is a solution for something, the idea that we didn’t apply it indicates a lack of responsibility or some kind of mistake on the part of a human. The fact a surgeon could have healed someone but failed to puts the blame on the surgeon even when the chance of success is probabilistic. Of course, some things require a lot of resources to achieve even when they are feasible, so that doesn’t mean that the feasibility of a solution isn’t the only parameter to determine whether it should be applied or not.
Yet somehow at the back of our minds, if we didn’t apply it, that seem to imply we did not try hard enough or do our best. The issue is that with limited resources, you probably can’t ‘do your best’ in everything. There’s only this much you can give. This applies even to the government, whether it is taken from the budget perspective or the use of manpower.
And for a small country with a lean government like Singapore, solving for the ‘which problem’ to tackle is perhaps increasingly important as there will always be some fringe issues that you can deal with to make yourself look as though you’re doing your job when you’re not making any progress. The recent cigar dish case seems like one of those situation where it is probably not significant enough to escalate to higher (or more mature) decision-makers while seeming to have that easy solution of ‘order them to remove it’. We have a limited attention span available for our public servants, especially those handling frontline issues.
We can organise our economy in very different ways, and even as the free market and the idea of capitalism reign, there can be different extents to which goods and services are produced and supplied to the end consumers. The non-profit organisation can serve as a way to coordinate activity that delivers real economic results in the form of goods and services.
I think we have overlooked the ability of such a form of economic organisation to do more for the world. The advantage of a non-profit that it explicitly pursues resources specifically for a cause. It doesn’t mean it will squander resources inefficiently, but the stated purpose of it, is to generate the impact or advance towards the mission. Ironically, some of the more profitable companies in the world can tend to make claims that are similar to non-profit in terms of the contribution it brings to society.
And since non-profits often have to deliver results in exchange for funding, or to unlock pre-committed funding, they will learn to optimise their budget and utilise resources optimised to deliver some of the results or at least provide inputs to the causes they are trying to champion. The funding portion of non-profits may be different but the way it should be ran operationally is probably not so different from a typical company, with the exception it may not be able to use the usual incentives for its staff (in those circles, they sometimes call it a passion tax).
Yet perhaps more forms of organisations should be acting as non-profits. For example, banks should potentially operate without profits, with the key objective of optimising risks in the system while providing access to credit for organisations and people. In fact, I think that all financial institutions, even those providing payment solutions probably should have limitations placed on their profits because ultimately, it is the real economy that they are trying to drive and allowing them to extract too much from the real economy can hinder the more fundamental process of capital allocation – which is what we are already seeing. Everyone needs to contribute to the real economy and finance in particular, has become the tail wagging the dog, in name of the pursuit of profit. That is a shame.
There is increasing acknowledgement of China’s leadership in a huge range of technologies around the energy transition and yet the struggle is that a lot of narratives in the Anglo-saxon world seem to be rather negative about this whenever the conversation on economics of equipment starts talking about using Chinese products.
I’m not sure if trying to re-invent the Chinese leadership in the technologies should be a key priority. Isn’t it the typical ‘western’ idea of trade that every country can develop their comparative advantage and should stick to it? One of the huge comparative advantage that the west has lies in taking seriously very preliminary, immature and ill-formed ideas and persistently exploring, improving, refining them until they are good enough for the market. At that point, the Asian economies with its ability to scale up further and drive costs down takes over those hardware aspects and this allows for prosperity and mutual gains.
The innovations in business model, technology and regulations that are needed probably will proceed the same way. Geopolitics can seem to drive the climate transition at times (such as putting a price on carbon, regulating flow of goods based on carbon content, enforcing carbon disclosures for companies, etc.), but they could also drive things in another way. When America or Europe puts tariffs on China batteries and other technologies, it can set back more advanced technologies that their local ecosystems are trying to build on top of solar, or batteries.
The truth is, more developed markets with more firms in the ‘traditional’ industrial sectors will definitely have to deal with some can of stasis introduced by incumbents lobbying, the inertia from having to restructure the economy, whereas the newer and up-and-coming markets have less to lose, or less industries to cannibalise when they are trying to develop their own industries. China’s advantage of leapfrogging some of the fossil fuels and moving straight from coal to renewables is simply something more fundamental.
The question as a global society is how we can lean on the strengths of different countries to deal with this global climate problem. Geopolitics and global competition can sometimes help. But not when competition turn towards having to re-invent the wheel.
As a consultant, we sometimes encounter clients who only want to pay for the outcome but not the inputs or the efforts. It is probably true that a client takes on the cost of the work and all of the risks when they are just paying someone for the efforts, but they do also get most if not all of the upside pertaining from the subsequent business success. Of course, the consultants get a track record or credential but that’s probably a win-win situation, not something you’d expect the consultant to be paying the client for.
But paying for effort, monitoring it and managing the risk continuously can sometimes be the only way to achieve success, rather than striking an agreement with someone whom you would only pay for success. You see, outcomes are often not a function of incentives, they are a function of effort, timing, chance and many things outside the agent’s control. By paying for success, you might not even be optimising the effort for success.
And that brings me to the payouts for Olympic medalists. A gold medalist for Singapore gets a payout of a million SGD, whereas an Australian gets a payout of $20k AUD, which is about $17.5k SGD at current market exchange rates. The point isn’t about whether that is a lot or little; and in any case, the Singapore government might say there are so many Aussie gold medalists that it would not be worthwhile paying them too much. The point is that Australia probably already spend a lot more money upfront in terms of public infrastructure for sports, supporting local sport teams, supporting talented coaches, and promoting a culture of sportsmanship. The ‘outcome’ of Olympic success is already ‘bought’ when they make those investments.
On the contrary, Singapore still thinks that sporting excellence and investing in sports is out of a desire to win. I think that’s a shame, because there are so many other great outcomes that comes from a strong sports culture. And I think the many years of ‘investing’ into Olympics thus far had been out of that desire to ‘buy outcomes’, which is probably why we are offering such a big payouts to the Olympic medalists for Singapore. It allows us not to spend taxpayers money if we don’t get the medal – but at what costs to our sporting culture?
If we are prepared to secure a gold medal, why not take 90% of that million dollars and spend it on something like paying coaches better so they can focus on coaching a one or two teams rather than two handfuls? And why not alter the education system so that civic values are also taught through sporting interactions? There are so many possibilities only if we are willing to put our minds to it, and think about the effort we want to pay for, rather than trying to buy an outcome.
I’ve written about carbon credits (here and here); but I never really quite considered them from the perspective of carbon tax, because I generally thought of it as just another instrument that is used to price carbon. In reality, the different mechanisms actually work differently. And even for ‘carbon markets’, where you allow trading (which can take the form of credits or allowances, again slightly different conceptually), the carbon price can take on different meanings depending on the underlying instrument in question.
Singapore’s carbon tax system introduced the idea of allowing carbon credits to ‘offset’ these taxes. And the carbon credits are essentially international carbon credits generated from projects that removes or mitigates emissions in one way or another. This is not new as some other markets have allowed the use of offsets to reduce ETS liabilities (eg. Korea). In Singapore, companies who wish to do so can only have 5% of their carbon tax exposure offset using eligible carbon credits; and there are clear specifications of what works and what doesn’t.
This marriage of carbon taxes and pricing with the generation of quality international carbon credits is something critical to bring the next step of carbon pricing to maturity. Global ‘carbon resources’ in the form of means of removal and sequestration is not uniform, even when we are all sharing the same atmosphere. It is therefore necessary to be able to trade carbon. Technically, because there is negligible transport cost when you ‘trade’ carbon, global pricing of carbon should eventually converge to the same levels. It is potentially as close as it gets to a good that can be pure commodity. Yet because of the whole issue around measurement integrity and the lack of consensus around some of the dodgier types of carbon credit methods, it is going to be very difficult for pricing to converge any time soon. The variations globally in regulating carbon emissions and putting a price on carbon emissions would also serve to slow down global carbon trade.
At the end of the day, there are wider geopolitical and economic considerations blocking stronger climate action. Working along these forces will be necessary since fighting them is rarely an option.
So having ranted incorrectly about energy subsidies, I saw this article about Malaysia and was reminded of this set of principles I suggested to one of the officials at the Single Buyer of Peninsular Malaysia while working with them on a project. These are ideas on how to move towards a regime where subsidies are reduced and does not apply to everyone:
1. Make them transparent: Start by making clear where there is a subsidy; even when there is a blanket subsidy, make sure that the amount of subsidy is clearly shown to those receiving the subsidy, and that the burden of the subsidy is properly attributed, reported, even publicly. Where price controls are used, the implicit subsidy needs to be made explicit.
2. Share a cross-section of the beneficiaries: Often, fuel subsidies are meant to help manage the cost of living for the lower income. But when it is implemented through price controls or blanket subsidies, it disproportionately benefits the largest energy users. By publicising who are the beneficiaries of the subsidy and how much who gets, you can start considering how to reduce the subsidy for select groups of beneficiary that will be impacted the least.
3. Reduce subsidy for beneficiaries not aligned with policy intents: unless the state policy intention is to benefit the fossil fuel industry, there are always some groups benefiting from a blanket subsidy whose profile doesn’t align with the target group you are trying to help.
4. Keep the subsidy only for groups targeted: once the policy intents are clearer and there is social consensus of who the target groups should be, the subsidies can be pared back to be given only to those who need them. This means that subsidies need to shift from producer-side towards consumer-side. This should be aided by improvements in technology, government data-collection, and new channels for disbursing benefits.
The truth is that economics of renewables have improved and could match fossil energy in some cases. Cutting subsidies for fossil fuel will not just help reduce the reliance on them but free up more government resources to accelerate the transition. We should not allow subsidies to stand in the way of the transition.
To make a change, we need a single pivot point each time. The pivot point is where things are fixed in place and do not change, and all the other changes hinge on it. And then when we make the next change, we can have another pivot point. But with any one change, we need to select a point of invariance to ensure some kind of order for the change.
In our climate transition today, too many people are trying to change things without a pivot point, thinking that the whole world has to transform. Determining what can be kept constant first is probably a good way to use consensus to drive actions. Then you’ll begin to realise what you are trying to keep the same can have far reaching consequences. For example, if you want to keep energy demand constant and start switching out existing demand into renewables, then you’re making it difficult for economic activities to expand. If you want to keep energy cost constant, then you risk keeping things to status quo and banishing adoption of costlier but greener technologies.
Laying out the trade-offs matter but one can consider how we fix certain parameters and move others first before coming back to revisit these. Take energy costs for example; given the cost of living issues and challenges, governments might want to focus on expanding proven, existing low cost green energy sources and pushing through all manner of regulations, and coordination necessary. Capture of landfill gas to be upgraded into biomethane and upgrading the biogas produced in wastewater treatment plants are low-cost sources of renewable gas that can be plugged into the existing system to displace fossil fuels. Malabar’s biomethane injection plant has just received the Greenpower certification and is the first biomethane plant in Australia to do so, ushering in what we hope to see as an era of using market mechanisms to drive renewable gas and fuel growth as it had done so for renewable electricity in the past decade in Australia.
Some may argue that prolongs the life of fossil infrastructure but we are calling them fossil infrastructure only because they are majority driven by fossil fuels as a result of legacy. One day, those infrastructure could be 100% driving renewable fuels.
I keep thinking about the role hydrogen would play in the netzero energy system. It is important because most specialists in the field think it will be incredibly important. But I’m afraid some of them think of the importance not from an energy or thermodynamics perspective but from a technological, socio-economic perspective. I think that is misguided for something that is so nascent and imature.
The solar and battery learning curves cannot be used to project what happens to hydrogen because it is fundamentally a more complex type of project. A lot less plug-and-play compared to solar panels or batteries. For solar panels, the technology takes in light and transform it into power, which in essence is the flow of electrons. There is of course the issue of DC power versus AC power but the inverters will deal with that translation; and you can plug directly to existing electricity grids. Of course, when you have a lot of them the grid must start shifting but at least you get a shot at getting started. And after that you’ve got batteries coming in, again almost ready to work with the existing electrical infrastructure.
Green hydrogen production integrates with the electricity system fine as well; it takes in power, feeds the electrolyser which separates pure water into oxygen and hydrogen, storing away the gas as it is being produced. However, the most valuable output in the process, the hydrogen, needs to be properly stored and transported to where it is needed. And all of these infrastructure do not yet exists! The largest part of the revenue generation problem has not been sorted!
This is why it is so difficult to get hydrogen started, and so expensive to do so even when the technology seem more and more established. The challenge is that a lot of that infrastructure would also serve some of the current fossil gas interests. There are issues of couse with the risks of interest conflicts when the fossil industry push for hydrogen.
The fact that hydrogen is not so plug-and-play to our current system means more evolution is needed before we are ready. Instead of putting direct incentives into hydrogen production, we should be using our resources to solve the problems along the journey to the hydrogen future. A lot of these problems involves collective action, coordination of choices and displacement of swarthe of economic activities that requires proper thought about restructuring.
There is really much more work to do than administering incentives. And this is definitely not an area the government can easily rely on market incentives to accomplish.
