There exists a firm with only two employees, an artisan and a seller. The artisan is a master cordwainer, maker of fine leather footwear. Starting with tanned calfskins and leather soles, he puts everything together by hand. As the artisan crafts oxfords and derbies, the seller builds relationships with the proprietors of high end boutiques, where the shoes will be sold. He curates a website and conducts interviews with the press to build interest. He ensures that the shoes reach the right stores through the right channels, and that customers are satisfied with the product.
There is almost no overlap between the duties of the artisan and the duties of the seller. Sure, they are broadly familiar with what the other does. But both men are essential, and neither one can do the other’s job. Because their roles are so focused, they have become experts at their own craft.
Fraternité
Each man is quick to admit how inept he is at the other’s job. And it’s a point of pride for them, because each man is confident in the other man’s expertise. Each man is humble, because he recognizes that the other is indispensable. He has great respect for his colleague, because he cannot reproduce his craft. He rarely runs strategic decisions by the other, because his decisions in his own domain are trusted. If it ever came to it, the artisan, as the origin of the shoes, has final authority; the seller’s skills are broadly transferable to another cordwainer, or even another craft entirely – his transience means lets him choose a creator whose vision he endorses. But there is little acrimony and much mutual dependence and devolution.
To be sure, there are aspects of the job that they don’t like. But there is no squabbling about who will clean the workshop or who will deal with angry customers – it’s obvious who must do what. If ever there is a question, it’s quickly settled, because this division of roles has been so successful in the past; they are anxious to restore order and assign obligations to one man or the other. Sovereignty and responsibility are in a fine balance, and each man’s creative freedom is maximized.
Egalité
There exists another cordwaining duo, where both men fill both roles, of artisan and seller. In theory, this should be an efficient setup – when orders climb too high, both men will make shoes to meet the demand; at trade fairs, both will canvas the room to drum up business for their firm.
The reality is not so rosy. They bicker incessantly over the right designs, over which direction to take the product. One wants to go avant-garde, and the other wants to go traditional. One wants to sell in low volume at high end stores, while the other wants to go in a more mass-market direction, and even outsource some of the work. Each one is involved in deciding, with each decision made by committee. From design to manufacture to distribution, every aspect of the business is a cause for dispute.
If their enterprise had corporate overlords, those overlords might decide to lay off one of the men, to cut off a head on a two-headed snake as it were. The product would still get made and sold with just one man on the payroll, after all. His sameness makes him eminently disposable, leading him to bemoan in quiet the ‘disposability of men.’ He knows he is interchangeable, and it corrodes his confidence. Superfluity erodes his humanity, and he succumbs to ennui. Each man thinks to himself, “I do all the real work.” That “the business would be so much better off if I had all the power.” “My partner is good for nothing – I don’t even need a partner!”
Yet each man is secretly scared of settling into a distinct role. He fears he will fail, so he contents himself with indecision, with a foot on each side; whenever he fails at one role, he tells himself his true prowess lies in the other, a little shell game he plays in his mind.
Each man is emasculated and encroached upon by the other, and feels he has many obligations but few freedoms. The men constantly undermine one another. And it is precisely their sameness that makes them chafe at and despise one another. Yet each secretly wishes the other would seize control, and take responsibility for the future of the firm. Yet when presented with the prospect of division of roles, both come together and snarl in disdain, confident that complementarity is a fate worse than death.
Egalité is an excellent allegory for the dominant human dynamic at work in all of corporate America. Well done, sir.
Becoming more valuable is becoming more irreplaceable.
The other day I saw a 50 year-old man working as a door-opener at an expensive shop, this is a sad state of affairs for him, his job is replaceable with no training whatsoever.
A caveat to this is that the value must be useful, in theory somebody could construct a system within an organisation unnecessarily complicated that only they know how to use, they are irreplaceable as far as the system goes, but their system has no value in itself.
Today, a lot of skills that men have built up over decades are becoming obsolete through technology and other things, which is a fact of reality that we currently face, investing in a skill is a gamble but still preferable to the other end of the scale being mediocre at a lot of things.
If you think this story is about your job, I think you have missed the point.
Bingo, we have a winner! We’ll see if anyone else figures it out.
True, I suspect many who read this won’t even comment as they will be too afraid to. This is more than marriage, or work; it encompasses life itself from the view of manhood.
If you quinge when reading what I just said, or any of the concepts flying around this posting and its comments then these concepts prove you need not be here.
I then strongly suggest the Good Men Project, they claim to need a few more manginas, Here, we would rather not have to waste time spitting them out.
The article is excellent in that it can be related to many areas of our lives and interactions with people. Great article.
When I lived in both Singapore and Northern Europe, particularly Germany, I noticed people were multi-talanted. This was last century.
People in the UK have not adopted this mind-set. With offshoring of jobs and use of software etc. to do what people used to do, I feel that many jobs in the modern era have become ‘sponges’ for people to avoid social unrest and are not really needed.
I also feel that the standard of postgrad education was far higher in Canada and the US, as I felt the doctors there had more education and technology going for them than the UK. The UK has been badly managed for many years. Also, the UK is a country full of financial services aka ‘parasitism’.
My question is this. I am not the smartest guy. But I do have three health care related degrees, including the MD. I don’t need a secretary. I don’t need a financial analyst as I have family in this field. I don’t need many other services and my father is somewhat of a tradesman and has taught me many of his skills. In a technological and specialist society, does that mean many people may have breadth and depth of skills that they have acquired over many years, leaving the rest of the population’s skills unnecessary/obsolete? And then should I/do I want to pay for society’s upkeep (which is becoming increasingly impossible)? I do feel that many people are denied opportunities due to lack of cash and regulations, however, there is still a significant segment of the population who do not want to work and even if they did, no one would want to pay them for the work that they produce. Even many people nowadays, I can see are headed to be fired if just because they are not productive in a world that has become ever increasingly competitive.
I respect all people that work, even the binman. I also respect that certain careers such as engineering and agriculture possibly offer society much more than I do. However, there has been a lack of thought as to how the current techno-socio-economical climate is supposed to reconcile fairness with the value of production/sustainance of one’s work.
The parable is easy enough to see – however – serious shoe lust! Damn – is this how women feel? I WANT THOSE WING TIPS
The best business partnerships are those where the skills of each are distinct, yet complement each other. I have been in a business partnership for over 13 years now, and believe this to be true.
I work in a hospital laboratory. This laboratory utilizes the core laboratory concept. There are 5 main sections within the core laboratory. Majority of the staff are trained and rotated around the sections. Hence, new staff will have to be sufficiently competent across these sections. Infact this model is strongly borrowed from the Toyota-style manufacturing process.
The only staff who are given the most distinct roles are the heads of the sections. Other staff will be rotated around based on shifts.
After working here for 1 year, I find this concept to be a double edged sword. On one hand it seems like a ‘fair’ format to do shift work. Everyone gets a ‘fair’ share of the workload involved in the core laboratory. Staff who have free time in a particular section can assist another section when needed.
However, the disadvantage I find is. People naturally have a preference for a specific section or 2. Not everyone is thoroughly exposed to the rare situations that occur within a section. It can still be error prone. Some section heads rule with a subtle iron fist always picking on previous staff on duty regarding errors or any differences. I feel that having more staff with indepth knowledge within the section is more useful.
The idea behind rotating staff between assembly line positions was reducing repetitive stress injuries from doing the same physical task –fitting clips and tightening bolts in an assembly line –over and over again. Unsurprisingly, Toyota doesn’t rotate its design engineers, technical staff, or management like this.
In the lexicon of the modern American woman, “relationship” = an opportunity for incremental castration and vampirism off the male.
i think its about the relationship and duties of a husband and wife. the first example being a more traditional setup, and the second example shows the failures of the modern day marriage
I must respectfully disagree, though there is some limited applicability. The article is about bros before hoes, and recovering our masculine ‘humanity’. The mission of shoe making or selling is for the man to define and the woman join, thereby being elevated to cultural belonging.
Had to register after reading this one; fantastic article.
EG you have just moved up a hundred points in my book, I don’t care if you care or know why. This was expertly written, and shows a foresight and inner character that is obviously lost on many men here. Though I have not agreed with everything you have written, you bear the mark of a wise man, and obviously have no reason to fear the petty insects around you since you carry the skills and wisdom to mold men around you how you see fit knowing your product sells itself.
I respect men like that, even if I think they are a POS. I don’t think you are a POS. You now have my respect; hopefully this means I don’t have to like you? lol
Best article so far.
Very few webesites bring this kind of quality to the table of the Manosphere. If anyone knowns any similar websites, let me known.
OT: I can log into disqus, hit the drop down on the settings gear symbol and log in successfully, since I can’t re-log in. I can’t post a comment with the same login info. Apologies for perhaps a stupid question, but what am I doing wrong to not be able to post except as guest? Using firefox 22.0.
Great article!