EXCERPT -- The Worker, Alone!

 A Conversation with Stanley

(PART TWO OF THREE PARTS)

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

© May 15, 2015

What I see lacking in education is a philosophy of education. What appears instead is the expediency of design — a “new curriculum” for every contingency that surfaces. For me, the aim of education is to prepare the student first, to think, to become an able problem-solver within the context of life experience; second, the dual function to increase an awareness of the nobility of man’s achievements, and an appreciation of the fragile beauty of nature; and finally, to make prudent choices in the student’s best interest, which ultimately would prove beneficial to society.

This combination enhances the student’s grasp of reality and maintains his hold on his spiritual legacy. The combination also heightens his capacity to love and to give of himself, which makes him more human.

Education is not preparation for a job. That should come later when the student chooses a profession, craft or vocation. All the technical skill in the world, without this spiritual-intellectual foundation, leaves little satisfaction. Life is meant to be lived, experienced, and enjoyed to fulfillment. Pain, risk, discomfort, embarrassment, confusion, doubt and failure are but country roads taken to arrive at that destiny.

Stanley asks: You speak of the control that polling has over our government as well as ourselves. What can be done?

In other books, I write that the “please other” mentality is damaging to the soul. Such a mentality is too easily swayed to follow the Pied Piper of Polls.

When the focus is on other people’s expectations for us (on their agenda), there is little appreciation of what gives us satisfaction. Life is a constant battle to please, in which case the spirit always loses: “You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t!”

Only by first “pleasing self” may the spirit soar and behavior be guided by what we personally think, believe, expect and value, not because we are instructed to be so inclined, but because we have discovered it to be so.

It is further suggested that selflessness is one of our convenient masks that wins societal approval, but which hides a hidden agenda. It is the disguise of the victim, of the person who swims in the ocean of self-pity and never touches the shore.

On the other hand, the truly selfish person, who first understands and satisfies his basic needs, is more in a position to be generous and genuine. He is whole. Such a person values people who have an opinion, a stable of beliefs and a value system which supports his choices.

What a person thinks is of more value to him than what voices of wisdom would have him think. He bases his behavior on firsthand experience, not second or third hand information. He takes success and failure in stride. He judges others on the basis of what he experiences in his relationship to them. Celebrity, which the “please other” mentality spawns, is of no consequence to him.

Therefore, polls are irrelevant.

He has a point of view, a philosophy of life, an approach to the problem-solving. The choices he makes are his choices. He is in our present societal corporate culture a rare breed.

So much identity and recognition is tied to collective belonging. Pollsters exploit this tendency. Many find comfort in thinking like the pollster’s sample. One day it will dawn on those so inclined that the only person they can please is themselves. Advancing that agenda is bound to displease others. No one can have it both ways. Meanwhile, society is gridlocked in a nervous dance to be all things to all people. Polling is symptomatic of this mania.

Stanley asks: Where are students going to learn the difference between rights and privileges, since all too many parents have abdicated this responsibility? Many parents don’t want schools to become involved in teaching values. So where does that leave us?

Forgive a personal aside. When my daughter was a teenager, we once gave her the largest bedroom in our home, complete with her own television, personal telephone, stereo, bathroom, as well as generous access to a family automobile. I say “once,” because she treated these privileges as rights.

Over time, as her behavior deteriorated, she was not grounded, but these privileges were reduced. First, she lost her large bedroom with adjoining bath. She had to find a place for most of her things in the attic as the new bedroom was quite small. In time her bedroom looked like a convent cell, with no phone, sparsely furnished, plus, she no longer had the use of an automobile.

After a few months, as her behavior improved, these privileges were gradually restored, eventually she was even given the title to her own automobile. Thereafter, her behavior became more and more exemplary.

She now understands clearly the difference between “rights” and “privileges.” School, which was once a drag, became suddenly important to her. She is now a college graduate and a successful professional in her chosen field. And she has done it all on her own. No one else can take credit for her turnaround.

You cannot teach values. You have to demonstrate values. Rhetoric is no substitute for the pain of reality. Neither the family home nor the school can have it both ways. They cannot threaten to take away privileges, then restore them without reason as if rights. Parents and teachers have to demonstrate values in the conduct of their function, not pontificate them.

Teachers often are afraid to be teachers. They complain they lack the support of the administration. Parents are afraid to be parents. They are afraid their children won’t love them, will no longer see them as “friends.”  The function of the parent and teacher is not that of a friend but rather of a caring, concerned and knowing nurturer.  Without this nurturing, chaos is the result, first in the home, then in the school.  Parent and teacher are partners in adolescent growth and development; neither is effective without the other. 

Stanley writes: You ask who is to blame, then say, ‘The workers have no one to blame but themselves.’ Where does leadership come from? Is it any more apt to come from union leadership than the company CEO?

We are in the midst of a leaderless society. The role of leadership has not changed. Leadership remains a function of vision and service to others. That said transactional and transformational leadership, what scholars have focused on, is also proving inadequate in addressing the role of leaderships in the 21st century.  Those in leadership roles and those in followership roles seem not to be on the same page so how can you expect them to get off on the same dime?  Put another way, leaders fail to understand their co-function of followership and followers their co-function of leadership. 

For some time now, those in positions of leadership, seemingly mystified by the new demands of leadership.  They have come to treat perks as the divine rights of their status, and therefore to exercise power however they desire.

Paradoxically, they have little sense of the nobility of their role. This is equally true in trade unions, academia, government, the religious and the corporate world alike. They see their role as directing activity when it is totally that of facilitating shared values based on trust. 

Leadership has been on holiday, and gridlock has come to occupy the vacuum. The prerequisite for leadership according to James MacGregor Burns is complete followership—that is, complete attention to the maturations, motivations and nuances of the human group. Today, leaders and followers, however, exist as if on different planets.

Patriarchal conceit springs from the belief that leadership is omniscient; that it knows what is best for workers without knowing them at all. This conceit has finally run its course. The fact that industry and commerce are stumbling along without leadership indicates how valueless leadership has become, but how valuable workers in its absence.

Society is surviving with no one at the helm but the worker, alone. Having said that, workers are still waiting for a venerated leader to rescue them from their Limbo of Despair. It will never happen. They expect from leadership what they refuse to expect from themselves. The result is stagnation.

Leaders do not choose their destiny. It is chosen for them, and by their followers. Leadership entails the heart, soul and mind of the followers, their complete essence, with the ability of leaders to articulate their passions and to identify with their needs, which are often beyond expression in language, but can be conveyed powerfully in symbolic terms.  It is not the leader’s agenda which is central to leadership, but that of the people.

George Washington was not the great wit of his day, but he understood the people of the young American nation.  He dressed like a leader, indeed, some said like a king without acting like one.  He designed his own uniforms and they were gaudy and ostentatious.  It was what the people wanted.  His appearance connoted strength, power and purpose.  Standing well over six feet, straight back, firm jaw, and bold demeanor, he epitomized what they took to characterize their own persona.   

  

For a good part of the 20th century, we have had it “ass backwards.” Leadership develops its agenda and then recruits followers to its support. This continues to fail for it is a counterfeit process.

Leadership rises out of the ashes of the Sphinx, out of the rank and file workforce. All of the trauma workers have experienced in the past several years could have been anticipated.

Indicators of ensuing problems in personnel displacement and company retrenchment were glaringly predictable. Nobody paid attention, especially the workers.

Four people were assigned to do a one person job. Reports were generated which nobody read. Meetings were conducted on a daily basis in which 90 percent of those in attendance were subbing for those called to the meeting. Trips were taken as social jaunts with a wink at business. Hourly workers huddled in factory tunnels waiting for the whistle to blow for the shift to change so they could clock in for overtime.

When workers complained, they were careful to complain amongst themselves, not to management. Meanwhile, workers didn’t see themselves as part of the problem and therefore not part of the solution. Workers share in the blame and cannot expect relief from the problem until they accept this fact.

Without workers, there is no organization. Without dedicated workers, there is no good will or successful outcomes. An organization can survive with leaderless leadership at the top, as it has, but not without conscientious workers. Modern society is proof of this.

Stanley writes: You list three crucial flaws that contribute to the social psychological chaos of our times: workers failure to grow up and seize the moment; workers predominantly as knowers, not learners; and workers obsessed with control. You say happy workers are the foundation of a rational ordering society, then go on to say that this responsibility belongs to workers, alone. I quote, “Happiness is about being, not becoming, which is a choice.”

My point is that the purpose of life is what we do, as individuals, not what we “are going to do,” or “should do,” or “are expected to do,” or “say we’ll do,” but what we are actually doing, now.

Moreover, intelligence or brilliance is not a “genius” score on an I.Q. test, or a perfect S.A.T. score, intelligence is what it does. Potential is of little value if it is not translated into something meaningful and useful.

Once we are born we are old enough to die. Every moment of life is precious. Pain and pleasure, happiness and sorrow, success and failure are the fabric of meaningful existence. You cannot have one without the other. Every honest pursuit in life is noble.

None is nobler than another. If what we do is enjoyed for itself, gives us a sense of pleasure, is of value to others, and makes our spirit soar, we are on the right track to happiness.

Yes, it is a choice. Life is to be taken seriously, but not ourselves. There is a certain irony to everyone’s life. The fool is as much a part of the sage as darkness is a part of light. Knowing this generates perspective, a sense of humor, balance, and secures our well-being.

Stanley had trouble with the chapter on “Not Happy Campers.”

He writes: “Aren’t you painting society in general and special groups in particular with a wide brush? There are those in every trade and profession who take money under false pretenses. True, I have known teachers and professors who fit your characterization, but there are many others who are very dedicated.

As to doctors, Dr. Bernie Siegel says that a large number of doctors need to remember to treat the patient as well as the disease. As to society two hundred years ago, sheer numbers make this a different world. A strong work ethic then was necessary for survival. Those who had a trade developed great pride in their work. As to how CEOs are selected, I suspect that in all too many cases what you assert is true. In government we seem to be so dumb that we vote for candidates who promise us the most without giving pause to consequences.”

Only the reader can decide how wide my brush is. I share only my own experience, observations, reflections and limited knowledge. It is up to the reader to compare this with what he knows and understands to be so. If it fails to make sense, or fails to provide insight, then it will be rejected, as it should be. But if it touches a cord of experience and stimulates thought, it might increase the level of awareness and discernment. Then, reader and writer have connected.