Not Willing To Dance to a Different Tune

With more frequent and more devastating events (e.g. increasingly hotter climate, more variable seasonal weather, stronger and deadlier storms, longer droughts, zoonotic disease, etc.) affecting an increasing proportion of people world-wide, (quite logically) it is appropriate to ask, why are these things happening and when will they stop?

In a recently released UN report Secretary Antonio Guterres said, “it’s time to reevaluate and reset our relationship with nature…humanity is waging war with nature” and the need for “making peace with nature, securing its health and building on the critical and undervalued benefits that it provides are key to a prosperous and sustainable future for all.” 

The report brings to light that this war against Nature is causing the climate crisis, wildlife and habitat destruction and deadly pollution. To date, “Society is not on course to fulfil the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to further limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. At the current rate, warming will reach 1.5°C by around 2040 and possibly earlier” and thus there is a need for “a fundamental change in the technological, economic and social organization of society, including world views, norms, values and governance.” 

Freedom (and Responsibility) Mis-Understood

Now wait! This can’t be!  As free individuals, we are each individually striving to become what we want to be. Hey, I am  just living my life as I desire to live it, exercising my freedom as an independent individual!  So it can’t be me, it must be them (those not like me) over there!  They need to be stopped, because those others are impinging upon my freedom!

Freedom!  What freedom?  At least in the countries considered developed or economically industrialized (a.k.a. advanced), freedom for the vast majority—particularly among the American business-minded—is freedom from constraints in pursuit of material gain to maximally accumulate wealth (as measured corporately by profit and nationally by GDP). 

That is to say, we each are guided by the precepts of capitalism to structure our life—as we see fit—in pursuit of things of outer value. 

In this system, we seek education to develop a career, to become more saleable in the labor market, not to develop our personhood/humanness. Focused largely on our career, we spend our time striving for a position worthy of the respect of others; one that would afford us accumulating as much wealth as possible and acquiring more things. In capitalist society, we are employees/consumers in service to another’s profit: It is a life consumed by getting and spending.  

Of course we all need to earn a living to meet the basic (living) needs for food, shelter, security and esteem—Maslow categorized these as deficiency needs—but these do not fulfill us and address our growth/development as persons. Moreover, we need to be freed from fear that these basic needs won’t be satisfied. Sadly however, in order to get us to do what they want us to do, those in management leverage this fear by establishing policies and procedures so that the satisfaction of these needs is made conditional and thus always in question.  

These fear-based procedures keep us focused on basic/deficiency needs satisfaction.  As a result, we haven’t the freedom to realize our uniquely human potential.  That is to say, fear is leveraged to guide (if not control) behavior.  Paradoxically, simultaneously people are led to believe they are acting as free independent individuals even as they are all doing and seeking the very same thing, as required by capitalism.  Talk about being flimflammed out of our (real) freedom!

The capitalistic system wouldn’t have it any other way. It is a self-serving objectifying, exploitive and extractive system. Having people believe that material self-interest is a primary defining human characteristic of humankind is absolutely necessary. Moreover, believing that we each (especially Americans) are rugged self-reliant individuals in pursuit of material self-interest serves the system of capitalism as well—think Hunger Games. We are led to believe it is all about ‘me’ and to hell with ‘we’—in fact there is no ‘we’. This being the destructive original big lie that is feeding inadequate action today!

Though we are born as human beings we aren’t born (fully) developed in our personhood/humanness. This development toward self-actualization should be the focus and attention in life, not material self-interest. Being consumed by the latter actually inhibits focused attention to the former. Quite nonsensically, we’ve been led to believe that freedom means freedom from the constraint of living in a deeply interconnected world. It is not a great stretch from this to seeing responsible climate change action as an affront to freedom.

Recalling Similar Inaction by Those in Authority

The UN report, while comprehensive and very informative, does not go deep enough into the system of causes.  I’ll explain by relating my experience with corporate managers when consulting on W. Edwards Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge for quality.  

First a little background.  Deming called for (first) adopting a new philosophy, which meant having an entirely different business intent.  Deming spoke of this required change as a drastic change, not a tweaking or revision of current business practice. It required putting aside one’s system of orientation in order to understand (unfiltered) the new system.

The management of the companies I consulted with were not interested in adopting a new philosophy, just in symptomatic relief of problems arising due to their lack of quality throughout the organization. Their interest was in merely creating the appearance of caring about quality—they knew the steps and wanted to continue dancing to the same tune. Thus, corporate managers chose to remain (willfully) ignorant of what was needed.  Hence instead of committing to learning and understanding Deming’s philosophy at a very personal level, they co-opted pieces or methods to fit what they were currently doing.  For example, instead of understanding the theory of variation in relation to the organization and its management, they only wanted to use tactics (more accurately mis-use tactics) associated with the theory so that they could better surveil and control workers by ranking and yanking (a.k.a. firing) those workers in the lower 10% of the performance distribution.  

Had corporate executives committed to learning and understanding—stopped playing the tune in their mind to which they were dancing in order to listen—this different way-of-business some 40-plus years ago, it is very likely income inequality would have been reduced, the financialization of the economy would not have emerged, the externalities of business would have been dealt with and mitigated and correspondingly the events we’re experiencing today would be significantly less disastrous. Industry and government leaders would have been all-in for understanding the system of causes and thus taking appropriate action.

Humankind, Nature & Capitalism

Additionally In the report, Guterres states, “By transforming how we view nature, we can recognize its true value. By reflecting this value in policies, plans and economic systems, we can channel investments into activities that restore nature and are rewarded for it. By recognizing nature as an indispensable ally, we can unleash human ingenuity in the service of sustainability and secure our own health and well-being alongside that of the planet.” Nature surely is indispensable not because it can be used by humankind for economic purposes, but because we are in Nature and Nature is in us.  The relationship is a deeply nested holarchical interconnectedness.  Further, stating that Nature is an ally, implies it is just (something) out there separate from humankind—like another business entity—with which we cooperate.  Yes being in cooperation with Nature and not in competition (war being the ultimate competition) is needed but this doesn’t quite capture our holarchic interconnectedness.

Missing is the acknowledged need for the transformation of our very way-of being-in-the-world. Yes, we have to change how we view Nature, but it must also be explicitly acknowledged that we have to change the way we view ourselves and our relationships in and with the world.  That is, we each need to better understand our very nature, understand our shared humanity and our deep interconnectedness with Nature.  In so doing, we will understand that what we do to each other we do to ourselves and, similarly, what we do to Nature we do to ourselves—this is inescapable. We must understand, continuing as we are, we are committing suicide; that capitalism has put us on a path of self-destruction; that capitalism is incompatible with life itself.

The UN report is extremely informative for what it reveals and for what is not explicitly stated. It is worth noting, capitalism is not at all mentioned. Though Inger Anderson (UNEP) identified “decades of relentless and unsustainable consumption and production” as driving the crisis, capitalism was not specifically named.  How can this be when the system of capitalism requires humankind’s domination/mastery over Nature in pursuit of unlimited material growth? The war humanity is waging against Nature is a capitalist necessity—Capitalism vs Nature.  Given our deep connectedness with Nature, in effect, this war is a war against ourselves.  If only we’d learn anew and gain the understanding to realize this!

This understanding will lay at our feet and make crystal clear the fact that capitalism—with its intent of unlimited material growth and objectification/commodification of everything—is incompatible with each developing their personhood/humanness, with understanding the deep interconnectedness with Nature and correspondingly with our viability of as a species. Inserting notes/lyrics from a different tune into the current tune— such as, “include natural capital in decision-making”—will lead to something people won’t/can’t dance to. Mere economic policy change won’t cut it!  What is needed is a change of the system not changes in the system!

Thus, the structuring our life and correspondingly our behavior commensurate with capitalism is at the root of the more frequent and more devastating events we are experiencing.  The longer we continue to adhere to capitalism as our economic/societal system of orientation informing decisions/behavior—continuing to dance to the capitalist tune—our viability will be increasingly (and likely forever) diminished.  

Ending this suicidal behavior—changing our worldview, our system of orientation—is where very few, especially those in authority, are willing to go. Why?  They’ve either internalized capitalism’s intent—believing that is just our nature to pursue material gain, so it’s against our nature to stop doing so—or they’ve become addicted to capitalism’s material gain dictate, so they can’t stop.  

In either case, what is keeping us from understanding is not a deficiency in intellect but rather willful ignorance—an unwillingness to think critically, systemically and deeply to address the root cause. Simply, seemingly those in authority are not willing to learn to dance to a different tune and to lead us in a different dance in life. 

We can’t dissolve the climate crisis—or any of the other devastating and related events—using the same level of thinking and system of orientation that created it!

Should Technology Replace People

When calling a company’s customer service, I am very frequently greeted by a virtual receptionist, which more often than not is a huge waste of time and an exceedingly frustrating experience. Yup, I am forced to fit my unique issue with a programed series of questions, which rarely ever represents my need.  In addition, turning frustration into annoyance, the programmed voice tells me that I (as a customer) am very important to the business enterprise. 

So the answer to the question, does technology employed by business meet our needs, I suspect—if my experience is not unique–most would offer a resounding No, Not Usually!

Such use of (labor saving) technology serves the company’s bottom line, not the customers’ needs. The use of technology here, even given the company’s warning ‘our options have changed so please listen carefully’demonstrates that it hasn’t even dawned upon management in authority that customers are not monolithic.  There is a difference between attending to each individual customer and attending to each customer as an individual (i.e. as a person).  Doing the latter can’t be attended to by a virtual receptionist, but clearly this isn’t stopping the management of business enterprises from cutting labor costs by any and all means.

Could Implies Should

As reported in The Guardian, robots will be increasingly employed by corporations to replace actual people.   Why is this happening?  Simple, it is better for the bottom line: Robot labor is far less costly than people labor!  After all, the company’s profit matters most—profit wins out over individual personal service every time.  The business of business is profit.

What jobs might be considered or included in this increased use?  The business minded answering this question will likely say, those positions with tasks that are formulaic thus lending to automation.  Greater insight into where the likely focus for job displacement lies can be realized by looking at the business organization from the perspective of its hierarchical structure.

Using the hierarchy as a framework, we can readily see the bifurcation of jobs into thinking versus doing.  With management driving the organization to its goals, the thinking jobs are at the top and the doing jobs are those on the lower rungs. Ultimately, as technology advances, those jobs not performed by those occupying the upper rungs in the organization’s hierarchy would be on the table for consideration. Clearly in a similar fashion to the decision regarding which jobs should be off-shored.  

It appears as though the burden in peoples’ lives caused by job displacement is thought of as an externality and thus not a criterion concern of management in the decision to employ labor saving technology.

Critically Thinking The Decision

First note, automatable implies programable. That is to say, jobs that are formulaic and executed via algorithms are programable and thus automatable. However, rather than keeping with the thinking versus doing dichotomy, we need to understand that not all the thinking going on in the organization is either creative thinking or critical thinking.  There is a considerable amount of routine (previously established) thought being applied, even in the upper levels of management. So let’s include for consideration what management attends to as well.  

It is instructive to understand the work in the organization in its context, the capitalist economic system, which is particularly relevant to upper level management tasks.  As discussed in a previous post, capitalism encourages, if not requires, business enterprises operating within it to align with its material growth maximization maxim. To this end, management is tasked to monetize all aspects of the company in the process of driving for profit maximization.  

As previously explained here, management is thus laser-focused on driving for ever increasing profit by any means. Results are what matters!  Consequently, management doesn’t just manage for results they manage by results. Management sets higher goals, applying the thought that raising standards will lead to better results.  Using results to get better results is clearly not reflective of sound logic, yet it is a popular practice. Furthermore, people are held accountable for results. Though unintended, results by any means can cause harm to others in the pursuit of results.  

Further as discussed here, not only is most everything translated into monetary terms, it is accepted management practice to reduce the evaluation of both individual and organizational performance—very dynamically complex phenomena—to a simple either/or dichotomy.  That is, performance evaluation is reduced to a good versus bad judgment relative to what is desired. The common practice is to assess and evaluate performance with the aid of a variance report, this management practice is akin to painting-by-the-numbers: Making it simple and formulaic with no need for understanding and critical thinking.

Sounds pretty algorithmic, and quite automatable, don’t you think? 

When An Externality Is No Longer That External

Replacing higher priced (management) labor with lower cost robots would surely drive results!  But, in this case, the use of robots would not be considered, even though it would result in far fewer people becoming unemployed.  This option is likely not on the table. 

When what was previously an externality (i.e. the very personal impact on some ‘others’ becoming unemployed) turns to being quite personal—me losing my job–then it changes everything. In this scenario, the externality becomes an internality; something that is very much personally felt. That is to say, the decision to automate one’s own job no longer fits the often-heard expression, nothing personal, it’s just business, which is often offered to absolve the decision-maker from responsibility of the very (personal) human cost of the decision.

Technology Alone Is Neither Bad Nor Good

The argument above is not to say that (labor saving) technology must never be brought into the work of the organization.  Those making this decision must not view—with one eye open–the organization as an independent entity.  Rather what must be understood is that it is deeply interdependent within the larger system of people in society; that is, there are no externalities to dismiss.  In short, the decision regarding the why, what and how of employing (labor saving) technology should not be made with one eye open and focused solely on the organization as an independent entity. Accordingly, some of the questions that need to be asked and fully explored include what is the intent, who is to benefit, who might be harmed as a result of employing the technology?  Are the benefits and burdens to each and all stakeholders just and equitable? What are the consequences—both intended and unintended as well as short and long term—of employing the particular technology? In short, having a systemic perspective and understanding must inform the decision whether and how to employ a (labor saving) technology. 

Can’t Fix What Ain’t Broke

Our economic system (a.k.a. capitalism) is broken!  The number of times I’ve read and heard this is countless, and thus quite telling.  It tells me that far too many believe that our economic system is basically fine, but that it just needs some fixing.  A little tweak here and there will do it. 

Continuing to strive to fix an economic system that never was intended to serve everyone’s very human needs, such as; basic life needs (i.e. food, water shelter, health, safety) and ensuring a sustainable environment in support of the viability of life—is a fool’s errand.  You can’t make something fit our needs that was never designed or intended to do so—a badly designed suit can never really fit well.  

Capitalism, as argued in so many postings here (which I invite you to explore), is a system that disregards life itself for the sake of the wealth accumulation of a select few—the winners.  It is a system of competition where I win and everyone else loses. Now some might say I like competition, I enjoy competing. Well competing by participating in a game might be fun, and even enjoyable, but playing the game doesn’t determine or impact how you live and you can stop playing the game and take on other activities.  But to make living your life a win-lose phenomenon would be a brutal way of existence—life’s experience should not be that of The Hunger Games. 

Furthermore, the very nature of competition lends itself to autocorrelation, where winning (next time) favors those who’ve previously won: those without substantial holdings can’t possibly be competitive and are thus destined to experience loss, and lots of it. Why do you think professional sport leagues engage in player drafts whereby the worst performing teams the previous season get first picks?

Profit Contextualizes Everything

Why is profit maximization and material value the guide in all decisions and not quality and human value?  Why are collectives of workers (i.e. labor unions) discouraged if not outlawed and yet collectives of corporations (i.e. industry associations) very much allowed if not heeded?  Why do so few own and control so much?  Why does the saying those having gained so much have done so at the expense of so many seem to ring true?

Everyone and everything out there is an object to be manipulated and exploited for the benefit of someone’s—but clearly not everyone’s—material self-interest.  In this system, your life my life—even the life of the exploiter–has no inherent (human) value since what counts is the sought-after material gain.  All that matters is whether the exploitee, the other, can serve some measure of outer value for the exploiter.  

Unavoidably, in this system of self-interest maximization we serve the system’s interest, it doesn’t serve us. Accordingly, through our participation we (tacitly) cast ourselves as objects in the game’s overarching process of exploitation.  In effect, the characteristics and size of the exploited population has changed and increased over time to meet the ever-increasing profit desires of the capitalist class.  With the goal is unlimited wealth accumulation then exploitation has no bounds!

If you doubt this, just take a few moments to look around at what’s happening, and has been happening for far too long.  The practice of capitalism is doing what it is intended to do, exploit and destroy life itself.  This destruction manifests as unhealthy water, air and food products, unlivable environment (ever-increasing heat, prolonged drought, significant melting of polar ice, rising sea levels, massive and longer-lasting wildfires, frequent and stronger hurricanes/typhons), and rising income inequality with below or barely subsistence wages for an increasing proportion of the population and exorbitant gains realized by the (already) wealthy.  All of this is the effect from the motivation for unlimited material growth by any means possible.

Capitalism is the ultimate competition system, enacting war on the universal needs of life for the material benefit of a few.  It is a system for and of losers, a parasitic system that destroys its host such that eventually there will be no ultimate winner.  Eventually, we all lose!

How can such a system be embraced by so many?  Why is it that the vast majority of people are complicit in the destruction of their own life, that of their family and more profoundly in  diminishing the viability of life on earth?

A Couple of Answers Why

Two interrelated answers come to mind: internalization and addiction.  Internalization of the notion that extrinsic motivation is the seed of all human behavior and thus it is our very nature to strive to maximize our material self-interest. Consequently, an individual’s life’s aim is in alignment with the system’s aim, so there is no questioning and no alternative. This is further supported by a tacit societal commitment to a materialistic and mechanistic worldview, the system of orientation of capitalism. This all fits quite nicely into the capitalist’s need for compliant individuals, while simultaneously each holds in their mind the illusory notion of (their) individualism and autonomy. All substitutable cogs in the wealth accumulation machine.  So it follows, individually we feel we must strive to be successful, which is defined and measured by the size of one’s bank account and the number of toys it affords. 

Life in society is a competition, where each individual strives to make him/herself more saleable—a marketable commodity—in pursuit of a materially rewarding career. The educational system, which should be about human development, has increasingly become about job skill training.  All of this contextualizes life as a competitive game, and of course we not only feel the need to stay in the game, we are led to feel the need to become more marketable. The need to develop a career far exceeds that of developing our humanness, developing as a human being, which would benefit the welfare of everyone.

Consider, the context of  capitalist society as one large monopoly board wherein we all move around the board in pursuit of material gain. Forever seeking that ephemeral feeling of pleasure from winning in this game, has us addicted to the game itself. Addicted to hoping that this time we (just might) win, so we stay in the game by repeatedly throwing the dice.  But with each throw the rentiers are the ones amassing increasing material gain. Yet there is a very large number of players who never get a chance to even Pass Go, never earn the minimum subsistence.  Needless to say, the rentier class needs us to stay in the game; if we refuse to throw the dice the game ends.  So we’re exhorted to dream and hope that our day will soon come; all we need to do is continue to work hard (in service to their interest of course) and play by the rules of the game.  

We all lose the more capitalism is practiced! The need to re-think the intent of the economic system (and correspondingly the intent of each and every business) is paramount.  Each business enterprise must cease participating in the system against life; the system that is increasingly diminishing our development as human beings and the viability of humankind.

Business As Usual

Reflecting upon the related problems of Covid-19, racism, and climate crisis, integrating thoughts from a few previous postings ( i.e. here; here; here; here; and here ) could offer some perspective.

On Management in Crisis

In these times where the emergence of crises is seemingly unending, it might be instructive to step out of the chaos, just for a moment, to critically think about and reflect upon what we’ve experienced for a good number of years in organizations, institutions and society in regard to the phenomenon we call management.  I purposefully avoid the use of the term leadership here simply because it is so misunderstood and too often self-ascribed in an attempt to elevate status. We’ll keep to the use of the term management consistent with that found in W. Edwards Deming’s Out of the Crisis, where he concluded, management is the problem!

Dissolve the Climate Crisis

Carbon offset programs are failing as climate solutions.  Of course they are!  Paraphrasing Einstein, problems can’t be solved with the same system of thinking that created them.  In other words, one can’t solve a systemic problem by applying the same system of orientation that was followed in creating the system and thus the problem.
Carbon offsets or carbon allowances, are market-driven solutions to the climate crisis that cannot possibly work, since they are devised by the very same system of thought whose consequence is the climate crisis; it’s a capitalist resolution to a capitalism caused problem!

It’s Happening, Continually

Have you ever called customer support only to hear the sound of a recorded message, “ you are (or your call is) very important to us…” So, you wait and wait for an actual person who you hope might be of some help.  As you wait you are feed sales pitch upon sales pitch to purchase more of what the company sells. Yes, your call is an opportunity for the business you are calling to get more from you—of course your call is important to them!

Who’s for Business?

It seems opposition to proposals intended to help the greater mass of people, such as providing a livable wage or ensuring healthcare for all or having regulations that ensure a healthy and safe environment, quite often is that they would not be good for business. It does seem that business is opposed to being helpful to people in society, which is consistent with Milton Friedman’s (neoliberal) contention that a business enterprise has no responsibility apart from maximizing profit and shareholder value (over the next quarter).

 

So, who’s for business?

Sustainability, But of What

Sustainability is something we often read and hear about, especially lately.  More to the point, many are concerned about, if not interested in acting to reduce and/or remove the factors that diminish the sustainability of a healthful environment.  If you aren’t among the concerned many, then likely you are among the willfully blind or willfully ignorant.

Results Obsessed

We appear to be obsessed with results (further explained here)—the outcome of our activities—while we generally give little attention to the activity itself. Why?