In the next
three posts, I will be discussing an idea that, in its own quiet way, tends to
overwhelm or absorb all competing ideas. First, a little personal context.
The Enemy
For many
Mormons, the best two years of their life are spent on a mission. But let’s
talk about the flip side of this cliché. Easily the two worst years of my life
were spent in BYU’s MBA program. No other two years even come close. This
experience was unpleasant for a couple of reasons. First, the work load. Nineteen
and a half credit hours of heavy business classes in each of the first two
semesters. Seventeen for the next two. Like pretty much everyone else, I didn’t
have enough time to study well for each class, so I had to make a decision I
found somewhat repulsive. I had to determine which classes I would prepare well
for and which I would let slide. I had always been a good student, so this went
against my better judgment, but I had no choice. Fortunately, I detested
finance, so it got very little attention. There was probably a real-life lesson
somewhere in this course overload designed to encourage mediocrity, but in thirty-five
years I have failed to find it. At least my feelings for finance did not go
unrequited. Finance as seemed to ignore me too. And a few years after I
graduated, BYU eased up on the course load. Good for them.
The other reason
MBA school was so unpleasant is that as I became immersed in the experience,
something pernicious began happening to my soul. At the time I didn’t
understand why, but the curriculum, the atmosphere, and the mentality of both
my fellow students and the professors had a devastating effect on me. I felt that
I was being turned into something I didn’t want to become and was being torn
apart inside. I had no idea what was happening to me. I only knew that some
deeply personal part of my sense of self was being attacked. I didn’t know how
to counterattack; I didn’t even know how to defend myself. I had no idea who
the enemy was. So I just tried to survive.
And that was
about all I did. I crawled to the finish line, bruised and bleeding, accepted
my diploma with numb relief as if it were some organizational red badge of
courage, and only then began putting myself back together and searching for
answers. I wanted to know what had happened to me—and why. For some reason this
was critically important to me. And fortunately, I was blessed with an
opportunity to seek those answers and to find them. That opportunity,
ironically, was a full-time faculty appointment (which was quite a surprise, I
assure you, for someone who had developed serious anticorporate feelings).
I suppose I
concealed quite well from my fellow students and my professors the awful battle
that had been waging inside me. My grades were not spectacular, but they were
definitely above average. And I had done particularly well in operations
management, the subject I ended up teaching. The math had been a place where I
could take refuge, I suppose. At any rate, I accepted the faculty appointment—so
I could earn some money and take a few classes before applying to PhD programs
(which never happened)—but also for some other reasons. One was that I wanted
to give students a very different experience from the one I had just completed.
Another was that I needed time to heal and time to search for answers. As it
turned out, I filled empty faculty slots at the Marriott School for nine years
on a one-year contract, and during that time I figured out what the MBA program
had done to me—and to many others—and why.
The single most
illuminating piece of the puzzle fell into place when one of my colleagues
suggested I read a book by William G. Scott and David K. “Kirk” Hart titled Organizational
Values in America. Kirk was a professor of ethics in the school, but I hadn’t
met him before. Nevertheless, I found a copy of the book and read it. And when
I came to chapter 3, I suddenly had my answer. I could finally put a name to
the enemy that had attacked me during the MBA program.
The Organizational Imperative
Scott and Hart identified
a basic assumption or belief that is almost universally accepted in modern
organizations. It is a direct corollary to the degeneration of the corporation
from a public-service institution to a self-absorbed entity bent on maximizing
profit. Scott and Hart called this assumption the “organizational imperative.”1
It is the notion that since all the good
things in our modern lives come from large organizations, it is imperative that
these organizations not only survive, but thrive. Thus, anything that promotes
the health of a large organization is, by definition, good and desirable.
This, of course, is simply a subtle way of saying the end justifies the means. And
so we get the Enrons, Worldcoms, Arthur Andersons, Tycos, Haliburtons, AIGs,
and Phillip-Morrises of the corporate world. We also get all kinds of other
abuses in organizations large and small, because the organizational imperative
is really just another way of saying that organizations are more important than
individuals.
This may not
sound like an earth-shattering revelation. In fact, many people in today’s
world would hardly blink at such a notion: modern society is so thoroughly
saturated with the propaganda and logic of megacorporations and their “needs”
that we hardly question this logic anymore. But when organizations become more
important than people, the whole world turns upside-down and suddenly people
are at the mercy of things. They become, to use the awful modern metaphor,
human resources. And what is a resource? Something that is used to produce something else. And when it is eventually used up, it gets thrown away.
The
organizational imperative insists that people are merely means to an end,
things to be used in any way that will ensure the success of the organization. Above
all, they are a cost to be minimized.
Perhaps most
troubling, the organizational imperative creates an organizational morality
that is in many ways a repudiation of traditional American morality. A few
years ago, I taught a BYU Education Week class on leadership principles. In one
of the sessions, I introduced the concept of the organizational imperative. One
man raised his hand and volunteered a personal example to support what I was
teaching. He said he worked for a small company that had recently been acquired
by a multinational corporation. The corporation required each employee to sign
an ethics code. This was fine, the man said, but he was rather surprised at how
this code defined the term “ethics.” Anything that promoted the success of the
corporation was deemed to be ethical. Organizational imperative indeed.
Pirsig’s Giant
In Lila,
Robert Pirsig’s sequel to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, he
relates the following story, which aptly illustrates how backward and passively
dangerous our thinking has become in Organizational America. (In case you haven’t
read either of Pirsig’s books, Phædrus is his alter ego.)
When he was
young Phædrus used to think about cows and pigs and chickens and how they never
knew that the nice farmer who provided food and shelter was doing so only so
that he could sell them to be killed and eaten. They would “oink,” or “cluck,”
and he would come with food, so they probably thought he was some sort of
servant. He also used to wonder if there was a higher farmer that did the same
things to people, a different kind of organism that they saw every day and
thought of as beneficial, providing food and shelter and protection from
enemies, but an organism that secretly was raising these people for its own
sustenance, feeding upon them and using their accumulated energy for its own
independent purposes. Later he saw there was: this Giant. . . .
The Giant
began to materialize out of Phædrus’ Dynamic dreams when he was in college. A
professor of chemistry had mentioned at his fraternity that a large chemical
firm was offering excellent jobs for graduates of the school and almost every
member of the fraternity thought it was wonderful news. . . .
So here was
this Giant, this nameless, faceless system reaching for him, ready to devour
him and digest him. It would use his energy to grow stronger and stronger
throughout his life while he grew older and weaker until, when he was no longer
of much use, it would excrete him and find another younger person full of
energy to take his place and do the same thing all over again.
Now, this is a
backwards way of looking at modern society, but Pirsig is a rare seer in many
ways. He sees things others don’t. In America, we have encouraged and embraced
a system called corporate capitalism. It is a system of organisms that use
human beings for their own ends. And they are organisms, with needs and impulses
and priorities. Their main priority is survival, and they will do anything they
can get away with to achieve that priority. They maintain power through the
subtle spreading of a value system that convinces people to become passive or
even cooperative tools in the service of corporate goals.
Organizations
reveal a great deal about themselves and their real values by the official
terminology they employ. Many organizations, from retailers to churches, have a
Human Resources department. This term comes straight and undiluted from the
organizational imperative. By contrast, a good friend of mine who works for a
large and somewhat enlightened corporation has the job title Senior Vice
President of People Development Services. Although we might ask what purpose
the people are being developed to serve, People Development Services does send
a quite different message than does Human Resources. We need to be wary of
other terms also—such as human capital, performance evaluation, work
measurement, downsizing, rightsizing, empowerment, or motivation—terms that
suggest people are things to be used, controlled, quantified, or manipulated in
the production of goods or services. And the statement “Our people are our most
valuable asset” is a backhanded compliment at best. People are not resources,
capital, or assets. They are children of God, individuals with unalienable
human rights. Organizations should exist
to serve people, not the reverse. All organizations. Including the LDS
Church. If the Church becomes more important in our eyes than the people in and
around it, we have elevated it to the level of an idol.
Serving the Church
The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims itself to be the re-establishment
of the Lord’s true Church in these latter days. If true, it is indisputably the
most important organization on earth. But is it more important than the people
in it—or the people who aren’t members, for that matter? Of course not. God
does not say, “This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality
and eternal life of the Church.” The organization is a vehicle, a tool, and a
temporary one at that. Its purpose is to serve us, the individual children of
our Heavenly Father, and to help us achieve our
purpose, which is to become like him. It is also a gathering place—a
receptacle, if you will—within which the Saints of God can experience community
and prepare for the Second Coming of his Son.
Given this perspective,
we need to consider an important question. Do we serve the Church? Should we?
No. We serve in the Church. We serve
each other. And we serve the Lord. But we do not serve the Church. At least we shouldn’t, because if we do, we
are elevating a thing, a tool, above the people it should be serving. This is a subtle distinction, but it is
vitally important. If a member with a little authority believes he is serving
the Church, he will act in a way that will, first and foremost, preserve the
organization or at least make it appear successful, even if this preservation or
appearance of success comes at the expense of the people in the
organization—because the organization, in his eyes, is more important than the
people in or around it. Often the appearance of success also comes at the
expense of the truth.
In a more
general sense, any institution that rejects the organizational imperative will
operate on the fundamental assumption that it exists to serve people, generally
in two ways: to offer a valuable good or service to society and to provide
opportunities for people to work, develop their talents, and earn a good
living. Organizational survival or even success, often quantified as profit, is
not unimportant, because organizations must survive in order to serve the
people in and around them, but it is correctly viewed as a byproduct of these more important objectives.
So where did the
organizational imperative come from? And what are the specific values it
inflicts upon society? Stay tuned.
________________________
1. See William G. Scott and David K. Hart, Organizational Values in America (New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1989), ch. 3.
Enjoyed this.
ReplyDeleteAs an MBA recipient (not from BYU) who has spent the past 20 years working in corporations, I have a very different view than the author. The corporations I have worked for are organizations of people who, together, accomplish much greater tasks than could be accomplished with independent small groups. They are driven by their passion for doing great work for customers. While profit motive is part of the equation, it is only one dimension.
ReplyDeleteI work in the information technology field so my experience is with companies that are wildly successful with a particular line of product for a period of time. Then they get busy managing that product, get surpassed by the next innovation, the best people leave to work for the company that surpassed them, and the company disappears, as it should. People in my industry understand the company was there to profitably deliver a particular product to a particular set of customers and that it won’t last forever.
The "organizational imperative" enters when the builders (product developers) and sellers (sales, support, and marketing), who really care about getting a great product to customers, get eclipsed by Finance and Operations, professional “managers” who inevitably destroy the soul of the company – because they don’t understand or care about customers. They care about trying to perpetuate an enterprise that is not going to last forever and definitely won’t survive leadership that focuses on inwardly on company finances and operations vs. outwardly on customers.
I don’t think The Church is like this at all and trying to compare it to a corporate enterprise really misses the mark. The church is not a commercial, profit-making enterprise and does not operate like one. It does not create a product for a particular time and place and the go away.
If there is anything out there similar to the church, it is the University, where there is not a profit motive but there is competition for ideas, work to attract the best converts, and the intent to serve the public good. Universities are also places where there are frequently toxic, tradition-based beliefs and politics, and entitlements (i.e. tenure) that guarantees influential leadership roles for those that may otherwise be past their ability contribute at a level that is commensurate to their role.
Let’s trade “corporatism” for “university-ism” and have a much more relevant discussion about the good and bad parallels between like organizations.
Excellent post.
ReplyDelete