PSAU Saudi Telecom Company Wellbeing Economics Essay

Description

My organization: stc (Saudi Telecom Company)
The assignment: The eventual essay (to be handed in late February) has to be at least 3000 words and include various parts: general description of your organisation, description of at least 2 parts / activities of your organisation where you think wellbeing information can help, description of what you propose (including what would be measured, who would do the measuring, how data might be analysed, what feedback loops would be involved in optimising the initiatives, how it would be managed), the aims of the initiatives, and your general view on how your organisation can gain from wellbeing knowledge.

Your proposal should briefly outline the wellbeing initiatives you now have in mind for your organisation, why you think they might help, and what you further intend to research and find out in order to write your essay. Note that you do not necessarily have to pick the organisation you work for. You can also pick an organisation you know well (like one a good friend works for or that you have worked for in the past). There are many areas of the organisation you could talk about in terms of benefiting from wellbeing initiatives, including the suppliers, clients, workers, particular departments, etc. The point of the proposal is thus that you start to be specific about what you want to write your final essay about and for you to realise what you still have to learn.
note: stc is one of the leading companies in the MENA region and they are taking wellbeing of the employees as one of the must important matter. please your kind support to deliver an extraordinary essay about this topic. The supportive materials will be attached as well. The word attached file has more details  

5 attachmentsSlide 1 of 5attachment_1attachment_1attachment_2attachment_2attachment_3attachment_3attachment_4attachment_4attachment_5attachment_5.slider-slide > img { width: 100%; display: block; }
.slider-slide > img:focus { margin: auto; }

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Wellbeing for business.
Vision 2030 on Wellbeing.
• AT THE HEART OF OUR VISION IS A SOCIETY IN WHICH ALL ENJOY A GOOD
QUALITY OF LIFE, A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE AND AN ATTRACTIVE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT.
• THE HAPPINESS AND FULFILLMENT OF CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS IS
IMPORTANT TO US.
Who am I, where is the reading material, how to talk
to me out of class?
• pfrijters@mbsc.edu.sa
• material on Blackboard
• one-on-one meeting
• Zoom
• email with your availability
Goal of this course?
• To teach you how knowledge of wellbeing can help your business.
• Along the way you will also learn how knowledge of wellbeing can enrich
your personal life, and improve the effectiveness of government.
Wellbeing week 2
Lecture 7/8: statistics
The lesson of today is that in social science
• Which includes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Economics
Wellbeing
Psychology
Sociology
Marketing
Management
Demography
Health
There is no such thing as precision.
But nearly everyone pretends there is such a thing.
(Dr House: everyone lies)
No precision
• In either empirical definitions
• Or
• Any actual measurement
Importantly…
• Statistics is always a business.
• Someone is making money by measuring or using data. Always ask
yourself:
• Who is doing the measuring? Why? Who is paying them? Why? What
pressures are there on getting particular answers?
• Who is doing the analysing and reporting? Why? Who is paying them? Why?
What pressures are there for getting particular answers?
Some examples
• Of where both definition and measurement are very imprecise and it
matters a lot.
• And examples where they are a bit imprecise, but it does not matter
much.
Homicide (murder) rates in Saudi Arabia
Points to ponder:
• Is this data even remotely accurate? My EMBA2020 students tell me it is
completely wrong. They say murder is social taboo so huge underreporting.
• Also the definition is imprecise: there is a grey area between murder and
accident; a grey area between murder and manslaughter.
• Why does this matter? Just think: would you see this data as measuring the
‘performance’ of the Saudi police?
• If yes, note what that means for how the Saudi police will be judged.
• If no, note that you have now said its impossible to judge the performance of the
Saudi police in this area via this metric.
Famous saying…
A few imprecision examples that might
surprise you…
Take a very simple question
• How do you define your ‘body temperature’?
• How do you propose to measure ‘body temperature’?
• Write down your answers for yourself: definitions, measurement.
That question
• What is your body temperature? Definition and measure?
• The temperature of your blood near the skin? Know that your blood is
warmer deep inside or under armpits than in the toes.
• The average temperature of your blood? Almost impossible to measure.
• The temperature of the air in your ear? Not really what one is after. Differs by
whether you have just exerted yourself, what hat you wore, and what shape
your ear has.
• So in reality, we have ways in which we ‘usually’ measure body
temperature. There is an ‘accepted’ measurement device. That is
‘good enough for most purposes’.
• But there is neither a precise definition, nor any precise
measurement.
Where is this ok and is imprecision unimportant?
• When you go to a doctor and he/she want to measure if you have a
fewer.
• When you want to check yourself or your family if you have a fever.
Where does it matter though….?
With temperature screening at airports, if they make your life difficult for having a high measure you are going to
figure out how to get a low reading on those machines….which is in fact easy….
Another very simple question
• How old are you, exactly?
• How would you define someone’s age?
• How would you measure someone’s age?
• Think of 2 people who say “29”
•
•
•
•
•
•
Were they born at the same exact moment?
Were they conceived at the same exact moment?
Was the ‘egg’ cell from which they grew created the exact same moment?
Have they had the same amount of ‘ageing’ experiences?
Is their body exactly equally ‘used’?
Do they look the same age?
• Answer: of course not. But does this mean their answer is a lie? No: the answer
is useful information for many purposes. Truthful answers as imprecise
measures of an imprecise concept.
That very simple question…
• How old are you, exactly? Some used definitions:
• Number of years (rounded down) since the moment of birth?
• Definition problem: inexact as a definition because of the rounding. Also, what is the moment of
birth? And is birth the true ‘start’ of a human?
• Measurement problem: people sometimes do not know, cannot remember. Governments often do
not record but get told by the family. Sometimes there are incentives to lie. In some cultures, age is
not important.
• Number of seconds since the moment of birth?
• Definition problem: moment of birth not clear. Also, why is birth the true start? Is it truly irrelevant
what happened in those seconds of life (what about being frozen for a while?).
• Measurement problem: costly to measure birth in seconds, habits differ as to what to count as birth
(Moment of first breath? Distance from womb?).
• Number of days since conception (useful for assessing very young babies)?
• Definition problem: what is the moment of conception?
• Measurement problems: obvious.
• Yet, for most purposes, we can measure age ‘good enough’ in a simple way.
When it matters (so for legal rights and obligations) authorities will often use
passport measures (also imperfect but harder to manipulate).
A topical example: death
• Surely, we know
• Exactly what the definition of death (as opposed to alive) is
• and hence
• When exactly someone died.
• But ask yourself:
• What is death, exactly?
• How would you measure the moment of dying?
•
and
• How would you define and measure a ‘cause of death’.
On the measurement of death….
• It differs by American State
• Some define death as heart and lung no longer functioning
• But people that are undercooled without a pulse can sometimes be revived.
• Some define death as lack of brain stem activity
• But, again, sometimes people who appeared to have no brain activity have it intermittently
later on.
• So in reality the measurement is more like “the doctor thinks this person will never
be able to interact with others in a useful way”.
• Sounds vague and subjective, right? Medics and families don’t like to openly admit that. So
some medics pretend to measure with precision.
• So whilst for most purposes it is clear what life is and what death is, there
is a grey area both in definitions and in measurement.
• https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-is-death-exactly/
Is timing of death measured accurately?
Covid-deaths in the world by day since January 2020. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Why the dips?
• Weekends in most of the world: Saturday and Sunday.
• Do you think people really die less often on the weekend?
• Or that they are not recorded as dying on the weekend?
• So ….. who records death?
• Why would they record something wrong?
Cause of death
• https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070102/Royal-Societyexhibition-John-Graunts-1679-medical-stats-reveal-Londoners-causesdeath.html
• https://clubtroppo.com.au/2017/06/28/quirky-cultural-customs-thecauses-of-death/
Death records for London from 1647 onwards. Note that causes of death included ‘itch’, ‘grief’, and ‘lethargy’.
Ask yourself: why does death need a cause? Who makes money from the fact that death supposedly has a cause?
Bottom line:
• Measuring causes of death is big business for the medical establishment since
the early 17th century. They make money out of the fact that a doctor must
assign a cause of death. The historical reason was to exclude the possibility of
murder: were causes ‘natural’ or not? Measurement was thus done for the
purpose of notifying the police of murder.
• But the notion that death has a particular cause is very strange for most cases
if you think about it.
• So recorded ‘causes of death’ are extremely arbitrary. Very easy to manipulate.
Huge problem for policy. Death itself is much easier to measure ‘somewhat
right’ than a ‘cause of death’.
So on death…
• The definition and measurement of death, and the timing of death,
are imprecise but for most purposes it does not matter much.
• Yet the cause of death is extremely imprecise, both as definition and
as measurement. It is a big problem for lots of purposes:
• To research on burden of disease, risks of particular diseases, importance of
cancer, covid, etc.
• To measures of ‘unnatural death’ like overdosis, murder, suicide. Changes in
data have more to do with what is in the news, incentives, and social attitudes
than ‘real’ changes.
• Measuring ‘cause of death’ is a business. Bear that in mind!
The lesson: always ask yourself….
• 1. Who measures?
• 2. What is the measure?
• 3. What is wrong with
• that definition (there is always something wrong)?
• the system of measuring (there is always something wrong)? Who is making
money out of the measuring? What is their story? What is the truth?
• 4. Is this a problem for the use of the data you are interested in?
• Note that this depends on the use.
• For instance, if you want to know if more people die of covid on weekends,
the official death data is useless. If you want to know if people die more of
covid in winters, it is useful.
Group of 5.
• 1. Try and come up with your own definition and measurement
procedure to find out:
•
•
•
•
The gender of a person.
The weight of a person.
The income of a person.
How satisfied a person is with their lunch.
• 2. Critique your own definitions and measurements.
• Come up with one use for which the problems do not matter much.
• Come up with one use for which the problems do matter.
Always distrust every statistic.
• Particularly important statistics you see in the news.
• Recent examples…..
Ask yourself
• How much of this graph is made up?
• What would the problems be with some of the measurement
instruments?
• Can you even think of an ‘accurate’ definition of the temperature of
the earth?
• So its not just social science that has a problem with definitions and
measurements….
Tourism revenues in Saudi Arabia?
A true expert in social science….
• Can find at least 5 things wrong with any definition.
• And 5 things wrong with any system of measurement.
• So accuracy is never possible, neither in principle or in reality.
• But ‘ok enough to be useful’ is possible. This judgment always depends on
the intended use.
• People working on wellbeing are used to thinking in terms of “imperfect,
but useful”. So should you, recognising that this is normal everywhere in
social science.
Variables and definitions
The assignment….
Gender
0 Male
1 Female
Income
0 poor
1 middle
2 rich
-9 don’t know / refuse to say
Urban
0 live in a village
1 Live in a city
Life Satifaction
0 Totally unsatisfied
…
10 Completely satisfied
999 Don’t know/ refuse to say
Individual
Gender
1
Income
Life
Satisfactio
n
1
8
Urban
0
2
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
-9
1
0
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
9
8
8
8
8
10
9
-99
110
0
1
1
8
111
1
-9
0
112
0
2
1
#NUM!
9
Key questions in the assignment…
• Did you spot the -9, the -99, and the !NUM ?
• Did you realise the -99 life satisfaction was not defined? Nor the !NUM?
• Did you realise that one of the questions (rich women) has no observations in
this data?
• When calculating averages that used these observations, what did you do with
these strange observations? Did you replace the number with something? Did
you disregard the individual in the calculation? Did you calculate things as if -99
and -9 were real (so that people can have a -99 as life satisfaction)?
• I was after the question whether you made reasonable choices and could
explain what choices you made via the definitions.
• Otherwise this assignment was super easy.
Lessons on real data….
• 1. Always check the minimum and the maximum number for any variable in
your data.
• Does the minimum and the maximum make sense?
• If yes, someone else has already ‘cleaned’ the data and you should ask yourself ‘what did they
do?’ What was done with OUTLIERS and MISSING OBSERVATIONS? If someone cannot answer
that question, you will know they have not themselves worked with the raw data.
• If not, what is reasonable? Often the answer is to replace the missing variable with an average or
modal number (or a predicted number).
• 2. Never presume a question necessarily has an answer. Sometimes data is
just not useful for a question.
• So always wonder when someone ‘uses’ data to get an answer whether that data
would really have had many relevant observations? Was the data suitable to get
answers? Etc.
Wellbeing data
• Wellbeing science uses data a lot. Yet, the question is always:
•
•
•
•
What purpose is there in measuring wellbeing?
Does the right person do the measuring for that purpose?
Is the right person answering/observed for that purpose?
Is the data analysed/stored/presented in the right way for that purpose? To
the right person?
• How are the lessons learned from wellbeing data? Who does the learning and
are they the ones leading to better decisions?
Group work
In Heathrow, a privately-owned and operated airport, check-in has an emoji button
machine at the check-in counters. The company pays money for these machines
and the analysis of the data. Answer the following questions:
1. What is the data you think comes out of this machine? How is it stored?
2. What type of person analyses the data: trends over time, differences between
airlines and destinations, relation to how busy the airport is, etc.?
3. If you would punish or reward people in any part of the check-in area based on
output from this machine, what would they do to avoid punishment?
4. (based on answer to 3) Can this data be used by top-level management to
punish or to reward anyone for ‘performance’?
5. What commercial decision do you then think this data could be useful for (the
purpose)? How would you then link the output from the machine to the
relevant decision making?
6. (technical) Suppose the normal average is 80% smiles and 20% sad. Yet, the
data analyst sees that a 1,000 ‘very sad’ faces were pressed in a 2-minute
interval. How should the analyst interpret that data? Is that an ‘unreasonable
outlier’? If you have to trust the analyst to interpret the raw data, can you then
reward or punish the analyst on the basis of the ‘cleaned’ data?
And for tomorrow…
• Do not forget to read the Chapter 2 excerpt. I will check….
Lecture 9/10 Wellbeing systems and theory
Your individual assignment
• Is about how wellbeing information can improve your own organisation.
• This means you will have to give a brief overview of your organisation; and give a fuller
description of the parts you think might improve from wellbeing information / data / theory
/ insights.
• You will have to explain how you think the improvement can be achieved:
• If measurement is proposed: who would measure? How would it be organised? What would be
measured? Who or what would be measured? How would any data be stored and analysed? What is
the purpose of the analysis and how would it feed back into decision making? What feedback loops
would there be to see whether decision really were better?
• If no measurement is proposed: on what basis (like outside experiments / example /theory) do you
propose what kind of improvement? How would it be organised and who would be affected? How
would you envisage fine-tuning any new wellbeing initiative? Who would be involved?
• If you propose a whole set of initiatives in various parts of the organisation: sketch your reasons for
each of the initiatives and the systems (if any) needed to make it happen and to incorporate feedback
loops.
• I encourage you to send me a draft proposal for what your assignment will cover
and include by January 28th. I can then provide feedback and hints to help you.
Wellbeing systems: a single good with single user
and a single source
Buy
Give
Update
purchasing
routines
Analyse
Feedback
loops
Examples:
buying your wife flowers
Hiring workers for a particular job
Purchasing system inside any company (such as a bakery buying sugar)
Ask: ‘OK?’
Feedback loops
How is this analysed formally?
• This kind of thing is a simple optimisation problem.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There is the satisfaction of the consumer/producer Y
The answers to “is this ok” provide estimates of Y.
There is a main input X (flower type, worker type, sugar type)
There is a cost to X of Px
There is a benefit per unit of Y estimated to be B
So one estimates a satisfaction function Y=f(X)
And then maximise over X the relevant part of the profit [=B*f(X)-Px]
There is an enormous statistical and mathematical literature on how to do this. It
can get extremely sophisticated, but in principle this is straightforward.
• A formal system of feedback loops will need a data strategy linking consumer to
data to an analytical unit, and a link between the analysis and the purchasing
systems.
Observations on this simple system?
• We all use this system informally whenever we ask anyone “How are you today?”
or “Did you like that?”. We might not store data in computers and analyse with
mathematics, but it’s the same idea.
• Doing this well formally costs money and makes processes difficult: one needs
systems for measurement, systems for updating, systems for analyses, etc. You
only do that if you think it is worth it. You use simpler rules of thumb and
informal feedback whenever possible.
• So formal systems are for fine-tuning in the case of large volumes and many
people. You do not do this for the basics or small operations. Then you use
theory (=general rules of thumb) and more direct/informal feedback loops.
….
• One can outsource simpler version of this quite cheaply:
• One essentially needs contact details of a group (workers / customers /
suppliers / stake holders).
• Doing surveys / measurements among that group is cheap to do. There are
also automated services providing simple information on the basis of the
gathered data (levels, trends, comparisons).
• So ‘quick and reasonable wellbeing feedback loops’ ARE quite cheap to
organise and hence available for smaller organisations.
• But fine-tuning of highly specific goods for highly specific groups is not cheap
or easy.
Important principles…
• A bakery does not ask the sugar supplier whether their sugar is good!
• The police does not ask the criminal if they were happy with the
police service!
• Etc. : those who benefit need to organise it.
• The person benefiting from the updated decisions should organise the
measurement. If anyone else does it, there is much less incentive to get it
right.
• You measure where the knowledge truly is.
• The measurement system needs to be outside of the possible manipulation
by those who might lose out from changed decisions.
Wellbeing systems: many goods with single provider
Assemble and
offer whole
package
Package of goods (eg
tourism experience, like
a diving trip or safari):
1. Intake system.
2. Transportation
3. Pamper level
4. Excitement level
5. Difficulty level
6. Social elements
7. Price
8. Etc.
Customer
experience
Update
purchasing
routines
Feedback
loops
Analyse
Ask: ‘OK?’
Feedback loops
Independent survey of
customers on
1. Intake system.
2. Transportation
3. Pamper level
4. Excitement level
5. Difficulty level
6. Social elements
7. Etc.
Also:
“How satisfied overall”
And
“Would you recommend?”
How is this analysed?
• This kind of thing is a much more complex optimisation problem.
• There is the satisfaction of the consumer/producer Y, but also of elements Zk
• The answers to “satisfaction with” provide estimates of Y.
• The answers to “satisfaction with element k” provides estimates of Zk
•
•
•
•
•
There are a lot of different inputs Xk There is a cost to each Xk of PXk
There is a benefit per unit of Y estimated to be B (from willingness to pay P)
So one estimates a satisfaction function Y=f(Zk)
And then maximise over all sets Xk your profits [B*f(Zk(Xk))-sum(Px)]
There is again an enormous statistical and mathematical literature on how to do
this. It gets extremely sophisticated, but a reasonable job on this is not too hard.
• You do now need smart geeks to truly do this well. You need very smart geeks to
be world-best. Large top organisations have very smart geeks doing this.
Points to note
• There are now so many decisions and elements to make that you want to
make most decisions on the basis of rules of thumb: you only want to use
formal measurement to fine-tune, and even then only when you are big
enough and have enough clients/workers/etc.
• So for most of the design of experiences and most choices in a complex
environment you need theory. Measurement and fine-tuning is for the
elements you are most uncertain about.
• Systems of formal data-driven feedback loops will complement other
systems of updating, like the manager asking random guests for feedback,
or ‘inspectors’ coming on surprise visits, or outside reviews, etc.
Wellbeing systems: truly complex (huge # of
interconnections)
100’s
packages and
decisions
Customers
Workers
Update purchasing
routines, work routines,
management
information, price
packages, internet
protocols, mental health
offerings, hiring
protocols, etc.
Ask: ‘OK?’
Managers
Analyse
Feedback
loops
Feedback loops
100’s of separate elements
of feedback: willingness to
pay from consumers, job
satisfaction from workers,
referrals from consumers,
quit data from workers,
reports from local councils,
directives from ministries,
click-info on the websites,
social media traffic and
feedback, et., etc.
How to analyse and optimise very complex systems?
• Even top scientists do not really know for sure. This is like the problem of how to
run a whole country.
• Formal systems of measurement and optimisation have roles in parts of the
system.
• The decision system as a whole then has lots of elements involving wellbeing
knowledge:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Habits, ethics, and ethos.
Rules of thumb (theory). ‘Ways of working’.
Reaction-heuristics.
Multiple decision-making units.
Cooptation elements (so that the problems are owned by many)
Experimentation. Trial and error.
• Essentially: the more complex, the more can be achieved by adopting basic
lessons and theory we already know.
• This brings us to the question: what is the theory of wellbeing?
Theory of wellbeing
• Basically a set of rules of thumb and ways of thinking about reality that
help one make lots of decisions without doing much measuring and formal
analysis.
• It is the ‘distillation’ of the body of knowledge on wellbeing for the
purposes of helping to design and improve organisations to be happy and
productive organisations (families, groups, companies, ministries, the
public sector, institutions, city authorities, etc.).
To start, let us see what you remember from
last month about empirical rules of thumb…..
Answer the following questions individually
(write your answer down)
• True or false:
• Those born poor will be much less happy as adults (at least 1 points on average).
• Wellbeing is mainly fixed in life: some people are always satisfied, others always unsatisfied, no
matter what.
• The happiest age is mid-life when adults feel busy and needed.
• If you know how healthy people are now, it does not matter for future life-expectancy whether
they have high wellbeing or not.
• A major negative financial shock is just as bad for wellbeing as experiencing the death of a child
or a partner.
• Average Wellbeing drops in a recession but returns to the previous level long before the
economy has recovered.
• If people’s social status drops a lot (like when they go from being important in their job to
unimportant) they get used to it after about 2 years and return to the same level of wellbeing.
• Physical health is much more important for wellbeing than mental health.
• There are very poor countries where people are just as happy as in the happy rich countries.
• Countries cannot get much happier over time unless they become much richer.
Did you get them all correct this time?
• Wellbeing theory is about useful rules of thumb, based on huge numbers of
empirical studies, that help you make pro-wellbeing decisions without doing
lots of costly data gathering and analysis yourself.
• Chapter 2 of the Handbook was compulsory reading so I expect you to have
some idea already about today’s lecture….
• Knowing how an organisation affects the wellbeing of a person is particularly
important for government, but also for any large organisation wanting to
have a happy workforce.
How to see individual wellbeing and its drivers?
The mind.
Mind and body
A group
Humanity
Inner experience: internal and
external harmony
Wellbeing
Individual inputs/outputs: physical
health, nutrition, mental health,
expectations, relations, production.
Organisationally manipulable:
basic comforts, status, belonging.
Individually-observed wellbeing drivers
Organisational wellbeing drivers
Higher-level, longer term: status of
the country; world technology;
world media; global natural goods.
Humanity wellbeing drivers
Inner life of a high wellbeing person?
• Experiences inner harmony and external harmony.
• Inner harmony: to have most needs met, to be able to live one’s passions,
and to like oneself.
• External harmony: to care for loved ones, to feel valued by ‘your people’,
and to feel connected to others.
Observables of a consistently satisfied person
• Good mental health.
• Good physical health.
• Meaningfully employed/engaged (valued by social group)
• Group as a whole doing well.
• High quality social connections.
The view from a large organisation (the state , large company):
Manipulable drivers of wellbeing
• Basic Comfort
• Social Status
• Belonging
• Basic Comfort:
• Enough warmth, Enough to eat and drink, enough sleep, Shelter, etc.
• Absence of irregular noise, irregular bodily pressure, irregular temperature,
etc.
• Pleasure/entertainment.
• Social status (including internalised social status via consumption or fantasy):
• Visible power over others.
• Admiration of others / consumption of status-conferring goods.
• Belonging:
• Synchronisation between a sense of ‘self’ / ‘self-image’ with what that individual sees
as what ‘a good person’ is.
• Emotionally warm relationships, including a harmony between the stories individuals
have of themselves and the stories the groups they are part of have of them.
Group discussions
Discuss among yourselves:
1. What do you think the role is of individuals in attaining these three elements (basic comforts, status, belonging)?
2. What do you think the role of your organisation is in providing these three to its workers (pick a particular
organisation to see as ‘your organisation’. You can pick the government if you cannot agree on something else)?
• Basic Comfort:
• Enough warmth, Enough to eat and drink, enough sleep, Shelter, etc.
• Absence of irregular noise, irregular bodily pressure, irregular temperature, etc.
• Pleasure/entertainment.
• Social status (including internalised social status via consumption or fantasy):
• Visible power over others.
• Admiration of others / consumption of status-conferring goods.
• Belonging:
• Synchronisation between a sense of ‘self’ and ‘self-image’ with what that individual sees as what ‘a good person’ is.
• Emotionally warm relationships, including a harmony between the stories individuals have of themselves and the
stories the groups they are part of have of them.
• Basic Comfort:
• Enough warmth, Enough to eat and drink, enough sleep, Shelter, etc.
• Absence of irregular noise, irregular bodily pressure, irregular temperature,
etc.
• Pleasure/entertainment.
• Role of the individual:
• Self-provide these things. Learn to like what is available.
• Adjust the environment and choose the groups that provide these things.
• Provide these things to loved ones.
• One of the main things a company does? It provides jobs that pays
people. With those earnings, they buy basic comforts! So providing
jobs IS an investment in the basic comforts of workers.
• Social status (including internalised social status via consumption or fantasy):
• Visible power over others.
• Admiration of others / consumption of status-conferring goods.
• Role of the individual:
• Chase these things: income, leadership roles, moral status, religious status, high-status partners,
high-status knowledge, etc..
• Chase the means to get these things: education, contacts, etc..
• Adjust the environment and choose the groups where one can have more of these things.
• Self-regulate the degree to which the status-desire is oriented towards things that are attainable
and socially productive.
• Provide these things or the means to them to loved ones.
• One of the main thing management in a company does? It sets career progression
rules and systems. Those are status progression systems.
• Belonging:
• Synchronisation between a sense of ‘self’ and ‘self-image’ with what that individual
sees as what ‘a good person’ is.
• Emotionally warm relationships, including a harmony between the stories individuals
have of themselves and the stories the groups they are part of have of them.
• Role of the individual:
• Chase these things: do what is expected of self and of the groups one belongs to.
• Adjust the environment and choosecreate the groups where one can have internal
and external synchronisation.
• Self-regulate sense of self, what one expects of self, what one expects of others, and
what one perceives the groups to want.
• Provide these things or the means to them to loved ones.
• A company is a social ecosystem with at least one group, often many more.
Its rules, activities, culture, and people strongly affect the feelings of
belonging of its workers.
• Basic Comfort:
• Enough warmth, Enough to eat and drink, enough sleep, Shelter, etc.
• Absence of irregular noise, irregular bodily pressure, irregular temperature,
etc.
• Pleasure/entertainment.
• Role of the individual:
• Self-provide these things. Learn to like what is available.
• Adjust the environment and choose the groups that provide these things.
• Provide these things to loved ones.
• Role of the state / large group institutions:
• Basic safety-net when individuals/families/groups cannot provide.
• Regulate/police against irregular interference: noise, crime, food safety, etc.
• Produce and certify the Information how best to have this: food education, sex
educ, mental health hazards, etc.
• Social status (including internalised social status via consumption or fantasy):
• Visible power over others.
• Admiration of others / consumption of status-conferring goods.
• Role of the individual:
• Chase