From Bradley W. Schenck's work of fiction, Slaves of the Switchboard of Doom:

"G-94VA's discomfort became acute and acquired an entirely new flavor.

It's difficult to describe, to humans, the emotions that a robot feels in a situation like this. You need to first understand that a robot's entire sense of self worth is tied to its job performance. A welding robot welds, and is uncomfortable in the face of bad welding. A service robot cleans and repairs: broken, dirty things offend it on a deep and profound level. A giant robot smashes things, and unsmashed things, to a giant robot, look incomplete and disturbing.

Although G-94VA was not by nature a security robot, that's the job he had been assigned to do today and he had not done it well. You might make allowances for G-94VA, but G-94VA didn't know how to make allowances for himself. He had failed.

G-94VA was horrified. He stamped forward on his big, flat feet and moaned to himself..."

Now while my ENTIRE sense of self worth is NOT tied to my job performance, my sense of self worth on-the-job is permanently and inextricably linked to my job performance; and not by my job performance as defined by my employer or my supervisor or my peers, but only by my job performance as defined by me. And so, in this moment, I am horrified. The job I have been assigned to do, is not being done well. It is not being done well because we did not properly anticipate the load. I am approaching failure. Yes, we could simplify the process; and to do so would not only be simpler but would also be less expensive. But it would not come close to fulfilling those requirements as dictated by my definition of job performance. I will have failed.

I am a bettering robot. My job is to improve the process so it may better the outcome. Good enough is not good enough. Unfortunately, (and this is where I consistently run afoul of an entrenched and powerful bureaucrat or bureaucracy), it is quite typical that improvement / enrichment / bettering involves not only a lot of skeptical questioning, but also some controlled experimentation in order to correlate significance; and with experimentation comes initial added complexity (to see what matters), and some number of (what appear to be) steps backward (to eliminate what does not matter). And again unfortunately, once a process is bettered it must be doubted, and then it must be reassessed, tweaked, and fine-tuned, and (on occasion) overhauled; which may appear to some as constant upheaval, and unnecessary to a process that is already good enough. Each time a process is improved, yes, it is better; but all we have really done is to establish a new baseline for good enough. And good enough is not good enough.

When G-94VA failed at his assigned job, he did what any self-respecting robot would do; he chased after his elusive quarry in an attempt at redemption. When he, (much later in the book), ultimately determined he would not be able to realize his own high standards, after considerable robot-soul-searching, he found a new employer; one with power more evenly distributed than in the closed and angry fist of a single bureaucrat.

I am a bettering robot; and, for these last few years, I am an administrative robot. And while there is some satisfaction in the organizational aspects of an administrative function, once that is mastered, I must continue to enlarge my areas of responsibility so that I may aspirate enrichment. I am not fulfilled unless I am seeking Perfection; and since Perfection is not possible, I will never be satisfied.

All robots are bettering robots. All workers are not robots. All workers though, are mechanized. Bureaucrats are not robots because, if you remember, robots have emotions; bureaucrats are mechanized puppets. Some workers are mechanized sheep. Some workers are mechanized drones. Some workers are mechanized zombies. Some workers are simply mechanized tools. And some workers are mechanized hybrids; (for example, certain high-placed government officials today are mechanized zombie-sheep-puppets). It should also be noted that some workers bring human emotions into the workplace; robot emotions are better suited for the workplace, but only robots have robot emotions.

(Further elucidation: a mechanized puppet is controlled by a puppet-master, often in the form of rules, customs, and traditions. A mechanized sheep is a willing and unquestioning follower. A mechanized drone is an overpaid tool. A mechanized zombie is an unthinking provocateur. And a mechanized tool is a follower who falls on a spectrum between unenthusiastic and mildly subversive; a true subversive is most likely a robot. So as is apparent, humans nor robots are necessary for momentum; but robots are necessary for positive change, and humans are necessary for relationships.)

For job performance, it is good to be a robot. For a husband, or a father, or a friend, it is not always so good to be a robot, because robots seek Perfection. And to seek Perfection in others can be truly subversive to a human relationship. Human emotions are much better suited to maintaining relationships, and on occasion they must be utilized in the workplace. I believe I have finally entrenched this learning into my learning presidio.

But I believe one can also conclude from this, that robot emotions and robot systems / tactics / methods are better suited for improvement in the workplace. To unsettle an apple cart, and at the same time to not lose or irrevocably bruise too many apples, requires reasoned calculation. In the workplace, mechanized techniques absent robot circumspection will, at best, maintain status quo. In the evolving workplace, human emotions will, at best, muddy the waters. Robot emotions and robot systems / tactics / methods are better suited for subversive enrichment.

Today, I believe subversive enrichment is necessary.

Today is a good day to be a robot.