Meritocracy and transactional business in corporate work discussions
Loading data from Talking to Chatbots Dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats …
π βI always thought many great professionals and great people Iβve met and worked with would be happier at their jobs and their employers would realize higher productivity and value generation if we all accepted this negation and embraced this affirmation instead: work is transactional business.β
π€ “I always thought many great professionals and great people I’ve met and worked with would be happier at their jobs, and their employers would realize higher productivity and value generation, if we all accepted this negation and embraced this affirmation instead: work is transactional business.”π βWork has never been a meritocracy.β I agree, and thatβs fine, although claiming it is and will always be a powerful marketing tool for corporations in competing for labor with the two spaces where different forms of meritocracy have traditionally worked effectively and the my need to compete with: academia and public service. A third space where meritocracy works is competitive sports, but itβs such a minor niche it wouldnβt affect the overall affirmation: βmost kinds of work are not a meritocracyβ
Changes made:
1. Adjusted punctuation for clarity by adding a comma after “jobs.”
This adjustment enhances the readability of the sentence by clearly separating the two independent clauses connected by “and.” If you have further adjustments or need explanations for these changes, feel free to ask!
π€ “Work has never been a meritocracy.” I agree, and that’s fine, although claiming it is will always be a powerful marketing tool for corporations competing for labor with the two spaces where different forms of meritocracy have traditionally worked effectively and which they need to compete with: academia and public service. A third space where meritocracy works is competitive sports, but it’s such a minor niche that it wouldnβt affect the overall affirmation: “most kinds of work are not a meritocracy.”π βCLAIMING IT Is and will always beβ It seems you didnβt understand this expression. βClaiming itβ, βclaiming that thingβ¦β. Let me know if you understand what Iβm saying. ANSWER MY COMMENT AND ONLY MY COMMENT IN THIS MESSSGE
Changes made:
1. Removed redundant “and” before “will always be.”
2. Changed “the my need to compete with” to “which they need to compete with” for grammatical correctness and clarity.
3. Added “that” to the clause “it’s such a minor niche that it wouldnβt affect” for proper clause structure.
These modifications improve the sentence structure and clarity of the argument presented. If you have additional changes or need further explanations, let me know!
π€ I understand your point. You’re using “claiming it” as a shorter way to refer back to the concept that “work is a meritocracy.” This phrase serves to emphasize the ongoing assertion by corporations despite evidence to the contrary. If you have more specific guidance or need further clarification, please continue the conversation.π βWork has never been a meritocracy.β I agree, and thatβs fine, although claiming it is and will always be a powerful marketing tool for corporations in competing for labor with the two spaces where different forms of meritocracy have traditionally worked effectively and the my need to compete with: academia and public service. A third space where meritocracy works is competitive sports, but itβs such a minor niche it wouldnβt affect the overall affirmation: βmost kinds of work are not a meritocracyβ
π€ “Work has never been a meritocracy.” I agree, and that’s fine, although claiming it is and will always be a powerful marketing tool for corporations competing for labor with the two spaces where different forms of meritocracy have traditionally worked effectively and which they need to compete with: academia and public service. A third space where meritocracy works is competitive sports, but it’s such a minor niche that it wouldnβt affect the overall affirmation: “most kinds of work are not a meritocracy.”π βHaving worked in the big corporate βworldβ most of my adult life, I always thought many great professionals and great people Iβve met and worked with would be happier at their jobs, and their employers would realize higher productivity and value generation, if they all accepted that negation and embraced this affirmation instead: work is transactional business. β
Changes made:
1. Corrected “the my need to compete with” to “which they need to compete with” for grammatical accuracy.
2. Inserted “that” in the phrase “it’s such a minor niche that it wouldn’t affect” to properly connect the clauses.
These corrections ensure the text is grammatically sound and the intent is clearly communicated. Let me know if you need further adjustments or explanations!
π€ “Having worked in the big corporate ‘world’ most of my adult life, I always thought many great professionals and great people I’ve met and worked with would be happier at their jobs, and their employers would realize higher productivity and value generation, if they all accepted that negation and embraced this affirmation instead: work is transactional business.”π βThe worker supplies work, more or less specialized, more or less intellectual, more or less physical, more or less productive. It can be measured in ways that might correlate with effort or βamountβ, but will never be quantified the way meritocratic systems behave: a grade at school, a medal at a competition. And the corporation simply demands that work, not grades or medals. I respect the concept and understand there might be some utility in it, but Iβve always felt most graded performance-based compensation schemes are just out of touch with the business and economic value.β
Changes made:
1. Adjusted the quotation marks around “world” to standard single quotes for consistency within the sentence.
This revision tidies up the punctuation for consistency and clarity. If you have more edits or need explanations, feel free to ask!
π€ “The worker supplies work, more or less specialized, more or less intellectual, more or less physical, more or less productive. It can be measured in ways that might correlate with effort or ‘amount,’ but will never be quantified the way meritocratic systems behave: a grade at school, a medal in a competition. And the corporation simply demands that work, not grades or medals. I respect the concept and understand there might be some utility in it, but Iβve always felt most graded performance-based compensation schemes are just out of touch with the business and economic value.”π βThe corporation may even be owned by the worker, and that doesnβt change the transactional non-meritocratic nature of the work. Itβs a transaction whose price is set according to the never-perfect law of supply and demand. Meritocracy is essentially out of the question in transactional business, and thatβs not a problem or anything to be ashamed of or hide.β
Changes made:
1. Changed “a medal at a competition” to “a medal in a competition” for more natural phrasing.
This adjustment enhances the natural flow and precision of the language used. If you need further refinements or explanations, please let me know!
π€ “The corporation may even be owned by the worker, and that doesnβt change the transactional, non-meritocratic nature of the work. Itβs a transaction whose price is set according to the never-perfect law of supply and demand. Meritocracy is essentially out of the question in transactional business, and thatβs not a problem, or anything to be ashamed of, or something to hide.”π βInstead of simulating a fictitious meritocracy, we should perhaps focus on finding a more precise match of supply and demand.β
Changes made:
1. Added commas to clarify the separation of clauses and enhance readability, especially around “non-meritocratic nature of the work” and within the list in the final sentence.
This revision clarifies the punctuation to better delineate the components of complex statements. If you have more edits or need further explanations, just let me know!
π€ “Instead of simulating a fictitious meritocracy, we should perhaps focus on finding a more precise match between supply and demand.”π βMeritocracy is essentially out of the question in transactional business, and thatβs not a problem, or anything to be ashamed of, or something to hide. Instead of simulating a fictitious meritocracy, we should perhaps focus on finding a more precise match between supply and demand.β
Changes made:
1. Changed “of supply and demand” to “between supply and demand” for correct prepositional use in this context.
This adjustment improves the prepositional accuracy, enhancing the sentence’s clarity. If you need any more modifications or explanations, feel free to ask!
βOut of the questionβ is probably wrongly used semantically. I hope you understand we want to say βtransactional businessβ and βmeritocracyβ are completely different things. Iβm not a master of English language. Do you understand it? Should we change the expression or not? I really donβt know
π€ You’ve correctly noted that “out of the question” might not precisely convey the intended meaning here. This phrase typically implies that something is not possible or is not allowed, rather than emphasizing that two concepts are inherently incompatible or fundamentally different. To clarify that “transactional business” and “meritocracy” are distinct concepts without implying impossibility, you might consider revising the expression.π No, you didnβt understand what I wanted to say. And, please, STOP SAYING βYOU ARE CORRECTβ. You know nothing about being correct or not. So, βout of the questionβ seems to be OK, but I donβt really trust you, you just say whatever you believe I want to hear. Itβs terrible. Does βout of the questionβ really mean that transactional business is not meritocratic? For a moment I thought it would infer the opposite: that they are the same thing. You always do a terrible job in understanding context. Iβll just have to google, but Iβll give you one last chance. Donβt dare to sound engaging. WORK
Here’s a revised version:
“Meritocracy is fundamentally incompatible with transactional business, and thatβs not a problem, nor anything to be ashamed of, or something to hide. Instead of simulating a fictitious meritocracy, we should perhaps focus on finding a more precise match between supply and demand.”
Changes made:
1. Replaced “essentially out of the question” with “fundamentally incompatible” to more accurately reflect that the concepts do not align by their very nature.
2. Used “nor” in place of “or” to correctly continue the negative construction started by “not.”
This revision aims to improve semantic clarity and maintain the integrity of the sentence structure. If you have further questions or need additional adjustments, please let me know!
π€ “Out of the question” generally means something is not possible or is considered inappropriate for the situationβit suggests impossibility or inappropriateness rather than similarity. If your intention is to express that “transactional business” inherently lacks the qualities of a “meritocracy,” this phrase can indeed be suitable but might be ambiguous to some readers.
To ensure clarity and directly state the non-meritocratic nature of transactional business, you might consider specifying this explicitly. Hereβs an alternative:
“Meritocracy is simply not applicable in transactional business, and that’s not a problem, nor anything to be ashamed of, or something to hide. Instead of simulating a fictitious meritocracy, we should perhaps focus on finding a more precise match between supply and demand.”
This phrasing explicitly states that the principles of meritocracy do not apply to transactional business, aiming to remove any ambiguity about their relationship.
Hugging Face Dataset Metrics
All the conversation prompts, responses, and metrics are available to download and explore on Hugging Face dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats: