ANOTHER EXCERPT: The Worker, Alone!

Why we can never get off the “dime,” and instead head for a constant train wreck!

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

© May 2, 2015

THE “LOST” AND “FOUND” IN THE SAME MOMENT!

In the recent past we have heard much about “re-inventing” and “re-engineering” the corporation, Total Quality Management, Performance Management Systems, and now the Edenic expectations of the “information highway.”

The idea is that the postmodern world is Eden and man as Adam and Eve can return to that idyllic state through man’s ingenuity.  British philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) was weary of this misguided optimism identifying its aberrational source. He wrote:

“The machine has gained control not only over the material aspects of society, but also over its philosophy, art and literature.  Men have grown mechanical in head and in heart, as well as in hand. Their whole attachments, opinions, turn on Mechanism, and are of a mechanical character.”

These mechanistic propositions can easily become toys of the mind treated as tools, or little more than distractions, if a holistic approach is not adopted, where cause and effect, the controlled and controller are treated as one.

Control is not a matter of doing something “to the system.”  It is realized only by a radical change in the mentality of each member of the workforce, where self-order is the outcome. Once movement is made in that direction, it will have a ripple effect, ultimately resulting in a revolutionary restructuring of the culture of the workplace. What deters this is a thinking system that overtly acknowledges change but covertly promotes stability.

Since this dichotomy seems to be in place, is it any wonder that we have little faith in the change process?  To put this in perspective, consider the notion of the social contract, which speaks of workers “vesting” their power in a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and his management team to honor their rights to a pension fund should they retire or be terminated.

Workers have granted control of such pension funds (in too many cases) to a management team and union consortium only to find the funds misapplied or depleted due to mismanagement, collusion or corruption.

As a practical matter, this vesting is not challenged, as power is accumulated like a commodity without opposition. The “conferring” of power makes for the powerful, but what is this?  What is “power”?  What is “conferring”? Who confers power and how is it done?

Nobody knows.  It is just the way it has always been.  The conferring is an incomprehensible act.  Conferring power, acquiring power, using power, is like eating or drinking or walking, on automatic pilot. Workers everywhere remain in the dark: obscurum per obscurius. All they know is that power is another word for control, and in their experience such control has always been outside of them.

What currently worries workers is that events suggest that those in charge—the CEO and his key executives courtiers—are not always diligent.

Events have proven to be the master. It is not uncommon that workers in the trenches have a better feel for the “state of the company.” It can even be argued that decisions issued in the trenches are likely to seem crucial in retrospect. Perfectly sensible orders issued from mahogany row may prove ultimately an embarrassment, foiled by an unfavorable work climate or the turn of events.

Power (control) exercised in the wrong place at the wrong time, and in the wrong manner invariably leads to corporate derailment or the equivalent of a corporate train wreck.  Stated another way, internal organizational stress and strain, if not acknowledged and properly addressed, can lead to organizational fatigue, instability, and consequently, an inability to respond effectively to accelerating external competitive demands.

Alexis de Tocqueville’s 19th century, Democracy in America (1834–1836), expressed anxiety about the pervasiveness of “soft despotism” in the conduct of business. His insight turned prophetic in the 20th century as we saw management attempting, and largely succeeding, to kill trade unionism with kindness.  Its success has contributed to an undesirable outcome, worker disenfranchisement.  This destabilization has led to worker disenchantment, apathy and counter dependence.

Unwittingly, management’s disingenuous approach to power sharing has led workers to go from being management dependent to counter dependent on the organization for their total well being, placing workers and managers poles apart.

Much energy is wasted at this interface. Managers with position power become aggressive, while workers with knowledge power retreat into submissive passive behaviors. Line managers know about this situation, but are far removed from corporate decision-makers.

Meanwhile, first causes are accessible to trench workers, who experience them first hand. If acted upon immediately, crises can be avoided later.  But workers too often do not act. They wait for orders from above. Control of the situation, when it is controllable, slips out of control and into a major crisis. This alone, and nothing deeper or more interesting, is the source of common corporate perturbations.

To be fair, executives have gravitated to a role as have workers that has proven counterproductive.  Managers would rather take the blame for disasters than admit their impotence in the face of events.  Prudent decision making is a necessary and sufficient condition of joint problem solving, especially in this electronic age.

Traditional executive leadership is a luxury workers can no longer afford.  They must take charge of their lives and destinies. For workers to enjoy the fruits of their labors they must embrace an equal share of the responsibilities. This requires commitment and accountability, the ability to take risks and failure in stride.  It requires mature adult workers.

Once established, there will be a different working mentality and a radically different distribution of power. No grand design will produce this outcome. It will be a gradual process based upon the primal drive of workers, survival!

The focus will shift from disorder to order. Power will begin to flow organically according to demands of the task; decisions will be made at the level of consequences; managers and workers will be treated as teammates; management will be part of the workforce, as compensation and entitlements will be brought more in line. Mythic executive infallible authority will vanish. Interdependency will be the key to order.

To grasp this concept, consider control on a personal basis.  If a worker is “envious,” he is told he must control his envy. This is wrong. This tends to separate envy from the person. He says, “I must not be envious!” This never works, as he becomes more obsessed with what others have and are than ever before. The worker is not separate from envy. He is envy! There is no way to change that fact. He may try to control envy as though it was separate from him, but it cannot be done. He may attempt to imitate someone else who has mastered his envy, and this, too, will fail. Not until he embraces the fact that envy is integral to his nature, can envy be understood, and therefore controlled.

The worker, who deals successfully with envy, moves toward envy, not away from it. He admits to himself that envy is “what is,” that he is the cause and effect of his own condition. This allows him to deal with his envy by bringing all the pain to the surface. Envy no longer is buried in his mind where it gnaws at him. Subject and object are one. Envy is controlled. He no longer feels a need to control envy, so he can. Without cause, there is no effect.

On the other hand, look at the 1960s and the Sexual Freedom Revolution. More than five decades later, sex is obsessional and more, not less a problem. Ask yourself, are we, as a society, more or less attuned to our sexual nature? Do we have more or fewer psycho-sexual hang-ups?