Hiljaista Pohdintaa

Hiljaista Pohdintaa

tiistai 6. joulukuuta 2011

Suurten organisaatioiden sosiaalisen maailman projektio (edit)

Kommentoin professori Bruce Charltonin blogissa seuraavasti (paranneltu versio):

The origin, functions and ideology of PC is most completely described in Moral Mazes, The world of corporate managers by Robert Jackall (Oxford University Press) in pages 54-78; and in the larger sense, in the whole book. Thus PC is the inner social world of large complex organizations projected with power, de facto coercion, manipulation and influence into the local, national and international environments, despite the differences, incompatibilities and incongruities between them. Increasing negative consequences are the result. Social worlds of large complex organizations are flawed in themselves, let alone when they are forcefully projected into the social environment. The same applies to large government bureaucracies, except that their social world and policies are more enduring/stable, slower, more predictable and more according to rules.




I kind of agree, but it is a complex issue. The seeds of PC are of course more than two thousand years old, but in its modern manager ruled form it was established by the cooperation of the largest bankers in 1913, not immeadiately, but they send the ball rolling.

Some of the aspects of modern manager ruled large organizations:

- De facto loss and exclusion of almost all larger context of society (religion, nation, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, culture, etc.) and feverish preoccupation with styles, topics, techniques, methods and tasks of the moment. Larger context is viewed instrumentally and only in relation to the organization's needs.

- Illusion of endless status opportunities in highly vertical large organizations (to a large extent, illusions of status in itself, except at the top of the organization).

- Concentration on surface qualities like fashionable clothing; groomed appearances; polished manners; instant pleasantness to other people; constant strategic and tactical lying and lying by omission to create a surface of friendly and caring environment; ethos of teamwork (instrumental, and often used for e.g. squashing opponents or dissent) and tension of these with the underlying cold and brutal status competition, back stabbing, greed and malice.

- Constant change or constant threat of change in the organization, jobs and statuses, which can materialize at any moment, and disrupt and destroy everything which has been achieved. Relativity of it all, living in the moment, fairly little real long term perspective in the organization and no real long term perspective outside the organization.

- Internalizing the fame, reputation, achievements, success, good tasks and large scale decision making of oneself (not self-evident) and of others (the normal state of affairs); externalizing (delegating, creating illusions, using power, manipulating etc.) blame, problems, bad tasks, details of tasks, involvement with tasks etc.; and creating an organizational, occupational, team work and informational situation beforehand which will do the said internalizing and externalizing as automatically as possible.

- Lack of knowledge, information and real standards on how to evaluate people in the large organizations. Anonymity, and superficial knowledge about and friendships of large numbers of people. This allows all kinds of manipulations and uses of power for self-centered gains. E.g. those who do the evaluating of work (de facto) evaluate themselves, and their competitors and subordinates; when externalizing blame in the large organization to an obscure or distant employee or manager, perhaps only a few people know the person and his doings so well, that they know he got a raw deal, and if they do and say something against it, they are easily silenced with threats of e.g. losing their jobs or statuses.

In a small healthy community or small tightly knit group where all the people know everybody and everything well, these things either can't happen, or it is much harder to pull off dirty tricks.

- Maximum interchangeability and movability of people.


A couple of examples in managers' own words:

"Someone who is talking about team play is out to squash dissent. It is the most effective way to tell people who have different perspectives to shut up. ... You can and you have to learn to keep your mouth shut. My boss is like that. ... It's hurt me because I have spoken out. It might be that someone has formed the opinion that I have interesting things to say, but more likely, it gives you a troublemaker label and that is truly hard to get rid of. The "troublemaker" is often a creative person, but truly creative people don't get ahead; to get ahead you have to be "dependable" and a "team player". ... When I hear the word, I immediately think it's an effort to crush dissent. ... Bosses say they don't want a yes man, but in fact, most bosses don't want to hear the truth. And this is particularly true if it disagrees with what they want to do."

"Our motives are purely selfish. We're not concerned about old Joe failing, but we're worried about how his failure will reflect on us. When you pick somebody, say, you invest part of yourself in him. So his failure and what it means to his kids and so on means nothing. What you're worried about is your own ass with your superiors for having picked him in the first place. What we do essentially when somebody fails is to put him in a little boat, tow him out to sea, and cut the rope. And we never think about him again."

"You can put the damper on anyone who works for you very easily and that's why there's too much chemistry in the corporation. There is not enough objective information about people. When you really want to do somebody in, you just say, well, he can't get along with people. That's a big one. And we do that constantly. What it means, by the way, is that he pissed me off; he gave evidence of his frustration with some situation. ..."

"Now what it really means is going with the flow and not making waves. If you disagree with something, bowing to the majority without voicing your disagreemeent. You can indict a person by saying that he's not a team player. That doesn't mean he won't follow directions. It's because he voices an objection, because he argues with you before doing something, especially if he's right. If he is wrong, we can be condecending and adopt the "you poor bastard" tone."

It is easy to compare these to the PC and notice the consistencies between them.


Psychiatry classifies the brave woman in the following video to have a borderline personality disorder (unstable moods and feelings, unstable relationships, self-injury, high rate of suicide, impulsive and reckless behavior, feelings of empty or shifting personality etc.), because it causes herself and her relationships (to people around her) trouble. To what extent the same or more can be said about the managers of large organizations and to what extent large organizations select and refine troublesome mentality and turn it into actions? Is the psychological and societal status of managers of large organizations what it is only because certain benefits are artificially and unnecessarily tied to large organizations with the help of the state, which is also composed of large organizations?




Ei kommentteja:

Sivun näyttöjä yhteensä