Vertical and Horizontal-relationship

7/31/2019 Vertical and Horizontal-relationship

1/14

Tr iar chy Pr ess ~ www.tr iarchypress.com 1

ver t i cal t o hor izont al : a new w orkp lace real i t y

Fol lowi ng on f rom his ar t ic leno-one to command & control ; a new paradigm f or a new real i t y RuneOlsen explores t he our assumpt ion t hat h i erarchy is the nat ural way of st ructur ing an organizat ionand considers how f lat t er a l t ernat ives respect t he digni t y and autonomy of i ndiv idual em ployees.

Contem porary organizations have t ended to organize the workpl ace in a vert i cal and hierarchicalmanner, as t hough t his arrangement is t he only natural w ay of gett ing things done. This vert ical ly

or ient ed reali t y is based on a belief in domi nation, command and control, and has provided a powerfulsource of val idat ion for hierarchical r elat ionships in organizational l i fe.

The source of cont rol generally resides in some ext ernal author i ty t hat dom inates and exert s contr olover t he person by vir t ue of rank and posit ion. I t i s usually pow er exercised by one person over

another, where t he subordinat e is coerced into f ol lowi ng the decisions made by t he person in charge.

As Markus Reihlen1 says: One maj or character i st ic of hierarchical governing system s is the generaldecision power a person receives from his or her posit ion in t he hierarchy regardless of t he expert iset he person possesses for solving a given problem. One m ay add t hat t he higher up in t he organizat ion'slayers we get, t he more power ( t he author it y t o make decisions based on posit ion and rank) we f indand t he less compet ence (problem solving abil i t y) we f i nd. This is because decisions made in t he higherlevels of t he organization are m ade on the basis of a fair number of assumpt ions, presumpt ions andnoti ons, and not so much on the basis of actual knowledge of t he matt er at hand. The low er down int he organizational layers we get, t he less power and t he more com petence we f ind. This is becausedecision-making power is concentrat ed in t he higher levels. Compet ence at t he lower levels, however,is based on personal knowledge and experiences caused by the short distance between the people att he bot tom and the dai ly real i t y of t heir work and l ives.

In recent decades t he extent and range of human compet ence (knowledge, ski l ls, abil i t ies, capabil i t ies)in t he workplace has grown rapidly. Today s workf orce has knowledge and abil i t ies t hat w e would haveassumed inconceivable just 20-30 years ago. From a logical perspective, we should expect that becauseof t his knowledge revolut ion, or ganizational l i fe would have adapted to t his development in humancompet ence. We would have good reason to antici pate t hat t he need for comm and and control ofworkers would have been reduced in proport ion t o t his explosion in knowl edge and in in te l lec tua l

capi ta l . Furt hermore w e would also have reason to expect t hat t he need to encourage and generatepersonal freedom from control would have accelerated at an equivalent rate.

In fact, we have wit nessed quit e the opposite. I t seems t hat t he workplace is being organized as ifpeople know less and less, in spite of the f act t hat people know m ore and more. Therefore w e havewit nessed an expansion in cont rol l i ng syst ems in the workplace, and a corresponding diminut ion inpersonal freedom f rom control . This st ate of aff airs is paradoxical wit h regard t o the relat ionshipbet ween how t hings are get t ing done at work (as regular and usual) and the growt h t hat has t akenplace in human compet ence and capabil i t ies at t he same t i me. Inst ead of investing in the l iberat ion ofpeople f rom syst ems of command and cont rol, organizati ons have been invest ing in reinf orcing andt ightening the hierarchical order, wi th t he help of more advanced and sophist icated system s ofcommand and control.
http://www.triarchypress.com/http://www.triarchypress.com/


2/14


Hierarchies are, by t heir very nature, system s of dom ination, command and control. They areessenti al ly system s and st ruct ures of inst i t ut ionali zed domination. They place people in ranks ofsuperiors and infer ior s. Posit ioning some people above other s act i vates part i cular dr ives or responsesand st eering mechanismsto arrange and legit imi ze someone's contr ol over ot hers.

Researchers have not ed t hat w henever control, coercion, use of submission and dominat ion in t hename of rank and posit ion occurs, hosti le and dest ruct i ve form s of int erpersonal relat ionships emerge.David Kipnis2 concludes t hat w hen people are given t he opportunit y to cont rol ot hers (because of t hebui l t - in cont ro l l ing mechanisms in vert ica l st ructures) they wi l l t end to do so wi th t he intent ion of bothlegit im izing their own roles and f unctions as superiors and m aintaining t heir base as power-holders.Kipnis suggests t hat power seems to unleash in most people t he t endency to manipulat e ot hers. Suchabusive t endencies emerge even if people do not believe t hat t hese t endencies existed insidet hemselves before power over ot hers was bestow ed on t hem.

By placing people in legit im ized posit ions of f ormal aut hor it y over others, hierarchical power system st end t o br ing out abusive character ist ics in people.

How did domi nation, control and commanding mechanisms emerge? How did t hese author it y feat uresbecome so deeply embedded in our belief-systems, in mass-consciousness, in human societies and inour organizat ions? How di d people st art to vi ew l i fe as a vert ical reali t y and consequentl y lead humanbeings t o relat e to one another i n a dominati ng, control l ing, and commanding manner as superiors andinfer iors?

We have, f or example, used language to cover up this unequal tr eatm ent of fel low hum an beings in t hesense that we have replaced uncomfortable terms l ike command and control with more acceptablewords such as inf luence and leadership. However, t he essence remains. Vert i cal order in our societyand hierarchical power struct ures in our workpl aces have been a reali t y for centur i es and are ourreal i ty now.

This seems to happen because they are viewed as sacred or a natural order in which to arrangerelat ions betw een people. Formal author i t ies in our societ ies and in our organizations are given theauthor it y t o exercise control over t heir subordinates in the name of t his hierarchical order. This haspromoted t he development of pr imi t ive d isposi t ions in the workplace through the author izat ion ofpeople in charge. The belief t hat not everyone is able to t ake responsibi l i ty f or his or her own act ionsin t he workplace is an excuse t o t ake cont rol over ot hers.

The consequences of hierarchical syst ems in organizational l i fe are t he dest ruct ion of hum an dignityand personal freedom. The creat ive contr i but i ons of people in t he vert ical order are disal lowedbecause of t he mechanisms that are buil t into vert ical ranking in t he workplace.

Regaining control over our own l ives and our own sit uat ions in the w orkplace wi l l r equire somefundamental alterat ions in our belief systems. I t wil l require the transformation from a hierarchical

reali t y in t he workplace t o an egalit ar ian one. Such change wil l m ean a shif t fr om a belief system ofdominat ion, contr ol l i ng and comm anding others, t o a belief system of personal freedom and mut ualt rust . In t his context , t he t erm "egalit ar ian" means relat ing to each other as fel low human beings, asequals, as peers, as individuals who deserve respect because of our nature as unique individual humanbeings who have the capabil i t y and abil i t y t o take responsibi l i ty f or our own act ions.

The origin of the vertical organization and hierarchical power structure

Wendell Krossa3 says: Our contemporary form s of hierarchy or iginat e wit h the predatory dominat ion ofour animal past . The vert ical for m of relat ing has continued on t hrough t he var ious st ages of hum anevolut ion, f rom pr im ate to hunter / gather , and t hen int o the inst i tu t ions of ear ly human domest icated


3/14


society, and thereby into t he present. Hierarchical relat ing is ult imat ely an ancient expression ofanimal nat ure and animal behaviour. The vert i cal relat ionships of hierarchy express quit e simpl y t heancient dr ive of competit ion for resources and the domination required for survival in a competit iveanimal environment .

The core element according to Krossa is that t he hierarchical arrangement of relat ionships in humansociet ies is sim ply a ref inement of versions of anim al- l ike syst ems of dominat ion. Hierarchicalorganizat ions are quit e simpl y a formali zat ion of animal social struct ures impl ement ed in humaninst i tu t ions. The bel ie f syst ems of ver t ica l ly or ientated real i t ies made i t l ike ly t hat people wouldcreat e st ructures and inst i t ut i ons based on the only reali t y that t hey were aware of - the vert icalre lat ionships of dominat ion. Ear ly inst i tu t ions, wi t h t heir dominant / subordinate and super ior / in fer iorpatt erns of organizing, became t he main system for al l subsequent f orms of human rel at ions. Krossaconti nues: We are now human and ther e is no excuse to cont inue act ing l ike animals. I f we are evergoing to remove the destruct ive element of control from human relat ing then we need to understandt hat i nst i t ut ionalized vert ical for ms of r elat ing are a ser ious hindrance to human progress. Krossapoints out fur t her : There has been l i t t le ef for t to d ist inguish the f act that whi le animal evolut ionselect ed cert ain t rait s such as compet it iveness and domination f or i t s ongoing existence, t heemergence of m odern human consciousness is leading humanit y in an ent irely new direct ion away from

compet i t ion and dominat ion and tow ard co-operat ion, equal i t y and f reedom. But when we study t hereal i ty in our contemporary organizat ions, w e f ind t o the contrary that the path f rom compet i t iont owards co-operat ion is st i l l obstruct ed by the nature of t he power st ruct ure in modern organizations.

Krossa st ates furt her, The key point t o remember is that a vert ical or ient at ion expresses animal- l ikedominat ion and contr ol, whil e hor izontal relat ing serves to descr ibe non-control l ing co-operat ion andt he free inter act ions of t rue equals. What inspires t he format ion of vert ical rel at ionships orhierarchies is the inst inct or dr i ve for advant age over ot hers. In this st ruggle f or ongoing exist encet hose who cannot dom inate by brut e force are coerced int o submission. Animal r elat ing has becomedeeply ent renched in human ideologies, social orders and inst i t ut ions. As developing human beings weare becoming more conscious of t he nature of hum anity as fr ee, incl usive, and egalitar ian, but we st i l lex ist wi t h in contro l l ing organizat ions. We cont inue to exist w i th in pr imi t ive st ructures t hat or ient ust oward t he dr ives of our animal past .

The main inspirat ion behind hierarchies is the dr ive f or advantage over ot hers by contr ol and t hroughcommand. This disposit ion assumes compet it ion for power and the struggle for comm and and control asnatural and normal, and is regarded as t he only way we can get t hings done in our organizat ions. Ont he other hand thi s disposit ion tow ards vert ical commanding st ruct ures makes collaborat ion, co-operat ion and mut ual underst anding betw een people impossible.

I f al l employees had access to equal possibi l i t ies and opport unit ies and were appreciated andacknowledged for thei r competence and their know ledge, ski l l s and experience relevant t o theoperation of t he organization, ther e would be no rat i onal basis for hi erarchical author it y. The systemof contro l - t he main mechanism of h ierarchical author i t y - of f ers secur i ty, cer t a inty and predictabi l i t yat t he cost of t he loss of f reedom t o become a t ruly human being.

Hierarchical rel at ionships demand unquest ioning submission and obedi ence. The r elat ionship bet ween"comm and and obey" and betw een "control and submit ", is very import ant in relat ion to how we gett hings done in our modern working l i f e.

The myth and reality of human relationships

What does it mean to be human? It is simpl y freedom f rom cont rol. The compet it ive pursuit of personalsurvival and personal advancement is quite t he opposit e dr iving m echanism. Therefore t here is afundamental d i f f erence between animal ment al i ty as compet i t ive, and human ment al i ty as co-operat ive. The urge tow ards co-operat ion is the fact or t hat makes us human and it i s the pr imarymechanism t hat f orms human relat ions. Compet it ion on the other hand is the f actor t hat m akes us non-


4/14


human and creat es non-human relat ions. Freedom f rom contr ol and dominati on requires an inter-human relat ing in hor izontal rel at ionships wit h others.

Horizontal equalit y (an egalit ar ian power st ruct ure) encourages us t o:

1. Challenge contr ol2. Resist dominat ion3. Exerc ise choice4. Quest ion author it y5. Ref use comm and

The core of hor izontal organizing is a relat ionship based upon f ree and responsible equals wit h nooutside elements of control, command and domination.

Personal freedom i s encumbered wit h uncertaint y which is fr ightening to people long used to t hesupposed secur it y t hat em anated from a commanded and control l ed existence. So, i gnor ing thepossib i l i t y and oppor tuni ty t o be f ree, many people f ind i t safer to ret reat in to t he secur i ty of ahierarchical existence.

Freedom means responsibi l i t y t o make choices and to l ive w it h t he consequences of t hose choices. I tcan appear at f irst more secure to be handing over t o others r esponsibi l i ty, rather t han r isking theuncertaint y in m aking our own choices. This retr eat, however, is a denial of our essence as humanbeings and a choice to move int o the animal- l i ke existence of a commanded creature. The pr imit ivedesire t o be control l ed can to a certain degree explain t he wil l ingness of people t o be led by others.But t his disposit ion is not a human t rait and not at al l an ingredient in a human relat ionship, butinstead an animal- l iked inst inct to fal l into the way of being control led by author it ies.

Such subservience t o leadership al leviat es t he fear of i nsecur it y that accompanies true f reedom, andundermines the personal responsibi l i ty t hat i s essent ial t o human development . To m ake choices is, init s essence, insecure and unpredict able. But fr eedom is act ually about making f ree decisions.Responsibility is about making decisions and taking the consequences. If we resist freedom and want toavoid the consequences of f reedom, we at t he same t ime do not accept t he responsibi l i t ies that areembedded i n the nat ure of f reedom. Then w e also deny our abil i t y to act as responsible hum an beings.

Jack Zwemer4 has said: "In a tr uly human existence, control of choice and behaviour m ust neveror iginate f rom outside of the self because external cont rol eff ect ivel y dest roys the essenti al funct ionof t he human self as a responsible ent it y."

The h ierarchical re lat ionship bet ween dominate/ subordinate, super ior / in fer ior , boss/ worker ,leader/ fol lower ref lect s t he perverse human dr ive for prest ige, st atus and power over others. Rightsand pr ivi l eges are apport ioned according to one's rank and posit ion thr ough t he hierarchical order.

Loyalty with or without compassion

In human re lat ing we f ind main ly t wo t ypes of l oyal t y:

1. Singular loyalt y: Coercive volunt eer ing ( forced loyalty) . Connection to an ext ernal author it ywho is in charge and has the power t o make decisions over ot hers below. In a vert ical struct urei t is a compulsory tool t o force employees into conformit y, r i g id i ty, uni formit y t hrough pledgingt heir loyal ty to t he mast ers. The demand of l oyal t y is par t of t he ef for t to contro l people andkeep them subservient t o the hierarchical order.

2. Mutual loyalt y: Chosen volunteer ing (self -elected loyalty) . Connection wit h personalresponsibi l i ty f or oneself and ot hers in mut ual tr ust , understanding and respect f or individualdiversity.


5/14


People show loyalt y to decisions over which t hey have inf luence and control. People wi l l especial lysupport t he outcomes of processes if t hey feel t hat t he outcome is genuinely the result of t heir owndecision making and has not been handed down to them from superiors.

Jack Zwemer has said t hat, t rue compassion is only possible bet ween persons on the same level . I t isnot possible t o have true compassion up or down t o others. To ful ly realize t rue self-hood people m ustrelat e to each other equally. Personality and individuali t y cannot develop in a relat ionship bet ween asubordinate and a superior person. Each must be capable of the same possibilit ies and opportunities forchoices and decisions. The relat ionship must be comm it t ed to hum an equalit y. You cannot comm andcompassion or commit ment . The self m ust be f ree to co-operate or not co-operate. Ext ernal controlexercised over the human self w il l destroy t he very nature of t he self i n i t s relat ionship wit h others.

Free people t end t o commit to co-operat e as equals when t hey are t reated as equals. Then t hey musthave equal access whenever t hey choose t o operate as free indivi duals. Freedom f rom out side cont roland freedom f or personal cont rol is the essenti al fact or f or becoming and being a human individual.

Vert ical l y or i ented power is corrupting and depr aving in regards to hum an consciousness. Kipnis st ates

t hat outer contro l of power in any re lat ionship wi l l cor rupt t he at t i tude of t he person hold ing t hedominant posit ion. Ext ernalized power changes t he perception of the people in charge and t heirpercept ion of ot hers. Externalized power gives the one in charge a perception of t hose below as lesswort hy of f reedom and trust, and legit im izes manipulat ion in a commanding and condescendingmanner. The powerf ul perceives the powerless more as product ive obj ects and less as individuals andhuman beings.

Krossa says, Ther e are no such t hings as nic e bosses. Cont rol is by it s essence d amagi ng anddest roying to self -awareness, self-esteem and self -respect whet her or not t he boss is nice or bad. Thehierarchical syst em is there anyway wi t h i t s control l ing and commanding mechanisms. People who aretreated as genuine equals feel more secure about expressing themselves as individuals and feel lessobliged t o perfor m in st andardized ways according to organizat ional rules and regulat ions.

Tokenism as a way to create myths in justifying control and command

Tokenism i s the way managers create an i l lusion of t rying to humanize t he workplace. AndrewOldenquist5 has done research on the ref orm ef for ts of corporat ions for im proving work-result s. Hest ates t hat, Corporat ions are seemingly interested in improving the qualit y of working l i fe, but ( inreali t y) t his is pursued only to t he extent t hat i t serves management and corporate goals - maximi zingprof i t , im proving eff iciency and raising product ivit y. These token eff ort s are oft en only disguisedmanipulat ion, and serve only to create further resentment and resistance from those at the bottom.These eff ort s as alter native w ays to organize the workpl ace end up promoti ng the same old vert icalstructures, which do not create real part icipat ion and self-control, except in a token way. Oldenquistsays fur ther: Author it y is st i l l di st r ibut ed hierarchically wit h decision making power concentrat ed att he top of struct ures. This leaves t he major i t y at t he bott om powerl ess. This is not in any way about

freedom, but simply a form of modern slavery.

We do not get cont rol from other s. We take control by ourselves whenever we get control . I f we aregiven contr ol by others, we are only manipulated t o believe that we have cont rol as a token effor t ofpart icipat ion. Cont rol i s somet hing we achieve in gaining personal responsibi l i ty . Ellen Langer6 says: Contr ol is essenti al t o human funct ioning and if people are given a sense of bei ng in control of t heirl ives, then t his sense of cont rol can br ing clear mental and physical im provement t o them . She alsostates that instead of giving people decisions to make, we should encourage decision-making as anongoing process for developm ent of self-est eem and mutual t rust . I t i s t herefore im port ant t o realizet hat personally t aking init iat i ve and exert ing cont rol has more impact t han when cont rol is given byanother. Giving cont rol im plies that t he person giving st i l l has control and can wit hdraw it according t oLanger.


6/14


Langer furt her says t hat people must not be given control as t hough it were an obj ect t o be given andt aken back . People must inst ead learn t o t ake personal contr ol as an evolving process of l earningpersonal decision-making. Giving or delegating author it y creates a superior/ infer ior relat ionshipbet ween t he people involved. One person is t he dominator w ho controls a resource to be delegated t o

another person below. Our author it y as givers automat ical ly grant s us power over ot hers who do nothave the same access t o t he resources. Theref ore, t his pract ice of giving - as a form of dominat ion andmain threat in the hierarchical organization - is always encumbered with the feeling of humil iat ionfr om t he receiver 's point of view . Being an obj ect of delegat ion and a recipient of giving (as a token ofshared power), a person can natur al ly f eel t he humil i at ing bit ter ness engendered by being a powerlessand subservient receiver of the mercy from the benefactor.

Managers control power, which t hey may choose to give or to share wit h t heir subordinat es, but only i fthis does not detract from their own author ity or abil i ty to exercise power. The most obvious f law int he context of power concent rat i on in the hands of m anagers is that i t assumes that pow er is acommodit y t hat can be shared among individuals or groups. This presumes the hierarchi cal power basein organizat ions so t hat pow er can be kept in t he hands of t he givers. Giving, delegati ng or shar ingpower in a hierarchical st ruct ure is a way of pret ending t hat people wil l be empower ed by the

managers goodwil l . This is a deception i n t he sense that managers are not act ually ent it led t o giveaway any power because t heir power i s connected t o their posit ion and rank. Therefore the m anager spower cannot be given away as some personal gif t or comm odit y, because t his power is an int egral partof t heir j ob and occupational st atus. If t hey st i l l give some of t heir power away, m anagers wil lundermine t heir role as superiors and encounter problems wit h their ow n author it y in exercising theirpower t o control ot her persons.

The consequences of humi liation in the workplace

The humil i at ion and desperat ion t hat ar ises from loss of control over a person's work sit uat ion can l eadt o t ragic result s. When people are not al lowed t o express t hemselves t o a superior because of f ear of

losing t heir j ob, people can suff er i l l ness and ot her damage. The human being is expected to suppresshis or her personal feelings and needs, as a production factor in the organization's economic self-int erest . Therefore, upper hierarchical posit ions demand t he type of people who are callous, aggressiveand cynical in their t reatm ent of others. These tr aits are believed to be necessary in order t o coercesubordinate people t o funct ion eff icient ly according to t he organization's st andards, norms and values.If people do not obey and submit t o these management st andards, t hey can be, according to t hestandards, rules and regulations, "justly" exposed to punishment and sanctions.

The desire t o cl im b over others, t o compet e and to w in over other s is descr ibed as being ambit ious andis a main value in a hierarchical organizational st ruct ure. This behaviour is rewarded by promot ion.This cl im bing does not concern t he conscience of t he organizat ion, even if t he cl im bing over other sserio usly dehumanizes and damages bot h t he passed-over person and the cl im ber as a person.

When callous individuals aggressively climb the organizational ladder to gain personal advantage,power and cont rol at t he expense of ot hers wit hout any concern or conscience at al l , they are -t hrough t heir promot ion - t aking part in t he shaping of organizational pract ices and st andards. This"vert ical f low" movement up the hierarchy then forms a type of inst i tut ionalized psychopathy.Contemporary economic ideology just i f ies this pract ice of competit ion in the self- interest of man in thehierarchical organizat ion.

To get r id of t hese suppressive and oppressive forces, we must reach down to t he root cause of t hecontrol and domination patterns in work- l i fe. Just changing the term "competit ion" to "co-operat ion",wit hout m aking fundament al changes in t he power struct ure, does not change t he essence of t heserelat ionships. These t erms do not r emove t he exist ential fact t hat as long as someone exercises contr olover other s, t hen we w il l never get col laborat i on and co-operat ion w it h i t s essenti al equal access and


7/14


equal i nfl uence over t he deci sion-mak ing process. As Krossa says: Denying shared pow er over dec isionmaking processes t hat aff ect people, viol ates peoples sense of equalit y and freedom and theref oreviolat es t he basic humanit y of al l i nvolved in a process or organizat ion.

The myth of eff iciency

Compet it ion is t he dr iving mechanism in hierarchical relat ing. The ideology of eff iciency has beendeveloped to support compet it ive hierarchical dominance. This ideology urges eff iciency as thesupreme value, t aking precedence over al l ot her organizational values, including human values.Eff iciency is used t o validat e and measure al l ty pes of hier archical arrangements. Eff iciency as acent ral element in human enter pr ises ref l ects a one-sided dr ive t o meet only m ater ial needs and goals.Our vert ical st ruct ures embrace values based on competi t i on bet ween human beings, w it h the resultt hat someone must wi n and someone must lose. Therefore, eff iciency encourages values t hat arecontradictory to co-operat ive human relat ionships.

The myth and reali ty of part icipation

George Benell o7

says that workers are motivated to part icipate in the control of their workplace andwil l develop personal responsibi l i ty when t he opportunit ies exist . Enhanced part icipat ion increasesworker sat isfact i on and comm it ment t o their work. He says: There is a circular reinforci ng process sot hat as competence is increased, great er confidence develops. This leads to a greater wil l ingness toexercise personal control , l eading in t urn t o increased competence. Just as t he inabil i t y t o makedecisions breeds lack of confi dence, so t he opportunit y t o part i cipate i ncreases confidence. Thet okenism of shar ing power and invit ing empl oyees to part i cipate i s creati ng a reluct ance t o j oin t hesepart icipat ive processes. People are seeing through the delusion of part icipat ion whil e under t he chargeof others.

The d i f ference between pretended par t ic ipat ionan d rea l par t i cipa t ion is fundamental for mot ivat ingpeople to j oin up and get t heir ful l support and dedicati on to t he process. When people experiencepret ended part i cipat i on they wi l l cl assify i t as coercive, and the result can be a blocking and sabotage

of organizational act ion. The real part icipat ion process is just about voluntary joint efforts betweenequals on the same ground, shar ing power to get t he job done. Real part icipat ion wil l bui ld m utualtrust between people in their individual abil i ty to take responsibi l i ty for their separate tasks andfunctions. Only through this type of part icipat ion wil l creativity f low as it unleashes individualcapabil i t ies and the wil lpower t o do one's best and to help each ot her to do t heir best in get t ing t hej ob done . When, on t he ot he r hand, t he organi zat ion is p reocc up ied w i t h get t ing t he j ob do ne bymot i vat ing people to do t he job bet t er than others (and not help ing each ot her ), th is at t i tude wi l ldest roy real part ic ipat i on and undermine personal responsibi l i ty and creativi ty .

Organizat ions experience ineff iciency and deter ior at ion w hen people resent and resist part icipat ion,but st i l l put t he blame f or disappoint ing result s on people's behaviour and not t he organization's ownatt i t udes, values and pract ices. The organizat ional problem and paradox wil l inevit ably st rengthenorganizat ional behaviour around one version or st andard as a cause of t he det er iorat ed results, w hich

in the next round wil l demand further effect ive control through conformity and subservience for thoseinvolved. Organizational feat ures and patt erns are theref ore frozen into ingrained organizat ionalst ruct ures and f ixed procedures.

Joyce Rothschild8 says: Where people do not have part icipat ory habit s, i t is because t hey have notgenerally been al low ed any subst antial cont rol over import ant decisions. The power-holders dread theloss of control over others and devise numerous excuses for refusing to share power. The main excusefor i mpl ement ing cont rol devices is t hat people can be stupid and lazy and lack a sense of co-operat ion. Furt hermore, people are said to be unable to t ake responsibi l i t y for t heir own act i ons. Themanagerial syst ems of cont rol are t herefore in place t o provide for t he unforeseen and unpredict ableconsequences of t he act ions of ordi nary people.


8/14


The lack of real part icipat ion in t he workplace leads to a lack of im plement at ion of decisions, becausethe people that are needed for the implementat ion of decisions do not feel themselves a part of thedecision making process. When pretended part icipat ion is put int o act ion, people w il l f eel that they arefor ced to part icipat e and wi l l do so in a resist ing way. As Kipnis says: The use of even moderate power

in per suading employees to j oin a decision process, st imul ates opposit ion.

Snyder and Fromkin 9 say that most contempor ary organizations tend tow ards an operat ing pract ice inwhich t hey dest roy t he uniqueness of people. They add: On ent er ing organizations people are shapedinto an object that f i ts the inst i tut ion, to assist in the smooth running of routine operat ions.Empl oyees are forced t o f i t thei r behaviour to mat ch some standardized general prof i le. This isachieved through conform it y to rul es. Any deviat ion from t he organizat ional st andard of behaviour isdealt wit h by discipl inary act ion. Wit h the loss of individuali t y, t here is a loss of creati vit y, whi ch is thepr ice organizat ions are wil l ing to pay for conform it y to r ules and regulat ions.

The myth of management development

Management development programmes are presumed t o create greater involvement and part icipat ionin t he workplace. As we have t alked about ear l ier i n this paper these eff ort s are oft en ways to di sguiset he need for m ore advanced and sophist icated f orms of cont rol l i ng people in their w orkplace. Thedifference between what management programmes pretend and what they really intend aresubst antial. Take empowerment programmes. They pretends as fol l ows:

1. Delegation of responsibi l i t y f rom management t o employees.2. No-hierarchical form s of work organization.3. Sharing of informat ion bet ween and wit hin dif f erent levels of organizat ion.

The specif ic workplace-m echanism t hrough which t hese pret ensions shall be realised are:1. Auto nomous wor k-groups (t eams)2. Decent ral ised infor mat ion syst ems

Diff erent research st udies have shown t hat t hese measures represent relat ively m arginal m odif i cat ionst o dominant, pre-exist ing, organizational form s and pract ices. Cunningham et a l . 10 found in Br it ishst udies t hat "empowerm ent f ai ls t o give employees much in the way of incr eased power and inf l uence."Warhur st and Thompson11 conclude from t heir workplace st udies t hat: The hollow laugh received whenment ioning the word 'empow erment ' in most or ganizations is t he tr ue test t hat empl oyees at m anylevels exper ience thi s great 'innovation' less as t he opport unit y t o exercise extra discret ion, and moreas t he necessit y t o undert ake more t asks. Bil l Harley12 says t hat: Empl oyees who work in workplaceswith any of the empowerment mechanisms in place do not report any dif ference in their level ofautonomy f rom empl oyees who work i n workplaces wit hout t he mechanisms . This is a very signif icantf inding. I t is consistent with the claim that pract ices al legedly associated with empowerment do notcontr ibut e to em ployee aut onomy. Harley cont inues, Being a member of a management group isposit ively associated w it h aut onomy, whi le being a member of ot her groups t ends to be negatively

associated . Finally, he arr ives at t he fol low ing conclusion: The relat ive capacit y of individuals orgroups to exert control over production is determined pr imari ly by vir tue of their respective posit ionswit hin organizational hierarchies. Posit ions wit hin hierarchies are defined in t erms of thei r relat ionshipt o other posit i ons. Managers are managers by vir t ue of t heir posit ions wit hin hierarchies, which aff ordst hem t he capacity t o exercise power over t heir subordinat es. Unless hierarchy disappears, i t isext raordinary unlikely t hat we w il l w it ness a generalised shif t in control f rom managers to em ployee.I t is this fact of organizational l i fe that provides the most compell ing explanation of why empowermentdoes not empower workers.

The use of w ork-groups as a way of developing the w orkplace in a m ore autonomous direct ion c anbackfir e in t he sense that group pressure can creat e anot her form of confor mit y and servi l i t y. MarkusReihlen st ates this paradox in his research: The group-thi nk eff ect emerges in strong coherent groups


9/14


where group members attempt to realize unanimity, consensus, and harmony of their efforts. At thesame t ime, the abil i ty for creative thought and rat ional judgement is negatively affected by grouppressure . Reihlen concludes, Excessive cult ural control leads t o the el im ination of t he plural ist iccharacter and deprives t he organization of i t s innovative abil i t ies. Moreover, t he organization w il ldegenerate int o a belief system sacr if i cing its creat ive potent ial t o a unifor m dogma. Louis Zurcher13

notes that individuals easily def ine t hemselves in t erms of an organizat ional group in which t hey areincluded. He says: The individual t ends t oward r igid adherence to conventi onal values; submissive,uncr it ical att i tudes toward idealized moral author it ies in the group, tendency to look for and punishpeople who violate conventional values, opposit ion to the subject ive, imaginative or tender minded,t endency to t hink in r igid categor ies, preoccupat ion wit h dominance/ submission, st rong/ weak,leader / fo l lower cat egor ies.

Wendell Krossa argues t hat, We are in need of new struct ures for human organizing that wil l supportnew co-operat ive forms of human re lat ing - t ru ly egal i tar ian forms of re lat ing . Max Weber14 developeda contr ary ideology in t his respect. Weber 's belief in an organizational syst em (bureaucrat ic) regulatedby rules, led him t o accept domi nation as legit i mat e and necessary, as an administ rat ive st ruct ure toexecute com mand and control . Weber developed his thought s about organizations over a cent ury ago.Fredrik Taylor15 applied t hese t hought s t hrough his theory of Scient if i c Management in t he beginning of

t he 20th cent ury. But the ideas and visions of t hese pioneers in t he histor y of or ganizations st i l l f l our ishaft er almost 100 years. And t hat is a paradox when we know t hat everyt hing in working l i fe haschanged charact er dur ing the last century, aside from t he organizat ional st ruct ure in the workpl ace.Theref ore w e can say, using Krossa's word s, We, as develop ing human bei ngs, are be comi ng moreconscious of t he nature of humanit y as fr ee, inclusive and egalit ar ian, but we st i l l ex ist wit hincontrol l ing organizations. We continue to exist within pr imit ive structures that or ient us to the dr ivesof our animal past . Wanda Mari e Pasz16 adds t o this evolut ionary perspective: When it comes to t hetools, methods and processes we use to get work done, we're light years ahead of our predecessors butwhen it comes to t he values, t he pr inciples that f orm t he basis of our rel at ionships to and at work,we're st uck in the past - the deep, dark past .

As for management decision-making processes, subordinated people are needed to t ake part in t heimpl ement at ion of decisions of t heir superiors because of t heir rol es as operators in t his phase of theprocess. However t hey are oft en excluded f rom t he decision making it self because t hey are notent it led t o the author i ty t o part i cipate in t his phase of the process because of t heir role assubordinates. Therefore t he f i rst phase - w hen t he decisions are made - can be def ined as in fo rming,and the second phase - when decisions are being put into action - can be defined as involv ing. Butemployees can nevertheless be character ized as par t ic ipa tors whether t hey are just in formed aboutdecisions t hat are m ade (as receivers), or as operat ors who are involved in t he impl ement ing of t hedecision (as executors). In any case employees are commanded and instructed to do so. So the termpar t ic ipa t ion relat es to a management pract i ce that deals wit h control over t he decision makingprocess, and t he power t o deter minat e whet her or when subordinate people shall be excluded orincluded in t he process. Used in this context , t he term part icipat ion refers to a management met hod(grounded on a vert ical struct ure), and not t o anything mutual and reciprocal (grounded on a hor izontalst ruct ure betw een equals). As Bernhar d and Glanz17 suggest , att empt s at developing organizat ions oft en

give the i l lusion of par t ic ipat ion, but come down t o a management t r ick to make people work harder .

Management development is mainly focused on developing ski l l s for compet it ion, t o be best al l t ime, t oatt ain the best advantage in compet ing wit h others, t o succeed as winners and not be losers, t oencourage promot ions at t he expense of ot hers. In others words beat ing opponent s and st ruggling t owin t he match at any cost t hrough compet i t ion is t he mantra of m anagement development .Compet it ion consist s of t wo contr ary element s. The const ruct ive one is t hat i t can mobil i se untappedresources inside the human being. But when these potential resources are released and unpacked in amanagement process, t hey cause severe damage to relat ionships bet ween t he people involved. Thewinners resources are being st imul ated and appreciated, whil e t he losers resources are looked uponas uncompet it ive and unworthy of appreciat ion. In compet it ion, t he winners emerge as superiors, andt he losers are relegated t o subordinate stat us. And this diversif icat ion in rank, posit ion, st atus and


10/14


prest ige, nat ural ly undermi nes relat ionships bet ween people as equals and dest roys t heir abil i t y t ocommunicat e and co-operate. Our abil i t y to comm unicate and co-operate i s deter mi ned by our degreeof equalit y. This is because people must be on t he same and hor izontal level to be able t o grant eachot her equal r ights of personal f reedom and mut ual t rust , and in t hat sense to be capable ofcommunicating and co-operat ing with each other.

To develop contest ing and competi ng ski l l s (even if t he off i cial purpose is t o develop communicativeand co-operat ive ski l ls) managers att end tr aining seminars in an effor t t o become bett er leaders. Thevain hope is t hat a management t raining programme wi l l result in improved empl oyee relat i onships andimpr oved organizat ional perform ance. This eff ort is, as we have argued ear l ier , an exercise in fut i l t yfor t he company. Much research documents t he lack of im proved prof it abil i t y for t he organizat ion as aconsequence of m anagement t raining programm es. Such programmes include a small m inor it y ofpeople in the or ganization because of t heir superior ranks and posit ions, and exclude a vast maj or it y ofpeople grounded by t heir stat us as subordinates. These t ypes of t raining programmes are, t herefore,only t oken measures. Such tokenism insult s the people who are lef t outside as j ust anot her form ofmanipulat ion and control. Such management t ools are understood by subordinates as nothing m oret han a means to dom inate and control t he many. This t ype of management pract ice is t herefore view edas a tact ic for secur ing benef it s for t he few at the f urther expense of t he many.

What t hen are the alt ernatives to management development in organizational l i fe? I f we l ook atdescr ipt ions of t he known alternat ives, w e wil l f ind t hat t hey are focused around work m ethods andwork organization, and that they normally stop with the ideas of how work can be better managedthrough improved working methods, such as teamwork. But these suggestions lack any consideration ofa l ternat ives in re lat ion to t he d ist r ibut ion of power . I t is the case t hat work methodsare the result ofhow we choose to organize the work-sit uat ion. The power struct ure is at t he root of t he work met hodst hat we creat e. When the power st ruct ure is in place in the organization, i t inform s how we are goingt o get t he j ob done: eit her in a hierarchical w ay based on superiors and subordinat es, or in a hor izont aland egalitarian way based on equals. Rothschild9 refers in her paper to the research of Rosabeth MossKanter who argues that i t is t he st ruct ural feat ures of modern organizat ions t hat det ermi neorganizat ional behaviour, m uch more than individual att r ibut es. Therefore we have to st art by shapingthe structure, before we can develop the appropr iate work methods, condit ions and forms.

Ot her expert s in t he f ield of w ork st i l l argue that w e don't have to change the current st ruct ure of ourorganizat ions. All t hat is necessary, t hey claim, is to change people's att i t udes. Robert W. Ful ler18 usest his argument for t he preservation of t he st atus quo in regard to t he cont emporary hierarchicalst ruct ure of organizat ions. He says: The aut hor it y of rank is so commonly m isused t hat some j ump t ot he conclusion that r ank itself is the problem and that t he solut ion is to do away wit h i t . This kind ofegalitar ianism ignores the fact that people are inherently unequal.. . and that dif ferences of rank in apar t icu lar cont ext m ay cor rect ly ref l ect t h is. The t rouble is not wi t h rank per se but wi t h t he abuse ofrank. We r ightful ly admire and love author it ies.. . who use the power of their rank in an exemplaryway. Accept ing their leadership ent ai ls no loss of di gnit y or opport unit y by subordinates. In response,Wanda Marie Pasz says: I t is the myt h of the benevolent ruler that beloved bosses use t heir pow er inexemplary w ays. The benign dict ator or m onarch who is so beloved by his subj ect s that t hey don't care

about f reedom. They want to submit . Their al legiance to t heir ruler doesn't cost t hem any loss ofopport unity or dignit y either (as long t hey cont inue in their brainwashed st ate). . . . Since t erms l ike'dict ator ' or 'ruler ' don't sit well wit h people in a democrat ic societ y, t he workplace rulers are called'leaders'. Accept ing subj ugat ion t o t hem is, as Fuller puts i t , 'accepting t heir l eadership'.

Fuller st ates furt her: Given t he ser ious consequences of c onfusing rankism (abuse of rank) and r ank, i tbears repeati ng t hat many power dif fer enti als are legit im ate and that i nveighing against t hem oragainst t he dif f erences in rank that m irror t hem is mi sguided and fut i le. Proposing to do away wit hdifferences in ranks makes about as much sense as the notion of doing away with differences in race orgender. Wit hout a syst em of ranking, compl ex inst i t ut ions might sl ip int o a st ate of disorganizat ion, i fnot anarchy. To Fuller 's st atement about t he r isk of anarchy wit hout a system of ranking, we m aintain


11/14


t hat anarchy, disorganization and chaos wil l only appear when people are not autonomous, andtherefore cannot take personal responsibi l i ty for their own situat ion in the workplace.

Fuller is concerned about t he abuse of r ank (rankism) but does not see t hat rankism depends on acorresponding power struct ure in t he organizat ion which, i f w e fol low his reasoning, should be able to

remove t he main causes of rankism. He st ates for example t hat indivi dual dif f erences and inequalit i esmust be ref l ected in corresponding dif f erences in ranks, but cannot at t he same t i me see that t hesystem of rank is the cause of rankism. Because the system of rank is based upon hierarchicalst ruct ur ing, t he syst em i s not able t o remove inequalit y in hum an relat i onships. Wanda Marie Paszresponds t o Full er as f oll ows: He fram es t he oppressive syst em as somet hing t hat i s good and natur aland is only a problem to t he extent that cert ain managers get carr ied away wit h their pow er and donot -very-nice-things wit h i t . Rank is good. Rankism i s bad. He f ai ls to recognize (or even to expl ore)t hat t here is a causal relat ionship bet ween rank and rankism. Rank not only causes rankism - i tdemands rankism. I f you don't t reat your subordinates l ike subordinat es, you're going to get i nto t roubleas a manager sooner or lat er. She wri t es fur t her: Superior it y is bestow ed on the r ankist . The rankistmust be superior as a condit ion of his employment . The concept of sort ing humans into dif f erent ranksis presented as somet hing innate - j ust l ike nat ure sort s humans into dif f erent racial groups. Therefor eindividual differences and diversity in the workplace will be suppressed and oppressed as long as power

is connected t o posit ion and rank.

Wil l iam Bridges19 also deals wit h t he preservation of current st ruct ures in organizat ional l i f e. He argues: Since t he abil i t y to manage transit ion is t ied to t he reali t i es of an act ual leader in an actual sit uat ion,mut ual t rust betw een advisor (ext ernal consult ant) and leader is essenti al. Br idges focuses on t heleader to faci l i tate change by gett ing people through per iods of transit ion through control by theleader. The leader can get people to t rans i t ionand in t he next t urn creat e change. Bridges does notsee t hat a connection bet ween t he individual s inner processes and t he corresponding organizationalst ruct ure w il l be necessary t o t ransform t hese individual processes to ones of individual responsibi l i tyand personal independence. In Br idges' mind it is the leader who prom pt s both t ransform ation andchange wit hin t he individual, t hrough a hierarchical str uct ure. Br idges concludes: The best leadershipprograms impli cit ly address t he challenge of understanding change, t hey are experiential, t ai lored t ot he needs of t he leader, and based on deliver ing real-worl d results.

I f we are working tow ards real part icipat i on and are in need of real part icipat ive met hods, w e have tocreat e a corresponding st ruct ure t hat i s hor izontal and egalit ar ian. This development wil l be based onour knowledge t hat only equalit y amongst people, w ith t he absence of ranks and posit ions, can createsuff icient real part icipat ion in the workplace. I f we do believe in true personal freedom and mutualt rust as t he means to creat e individual responsibi l i t y and personal independence at work, we have tomake a complete break with vert ical forms of relat ing and start moving toward a hor izontal way ofst r uctur ing the power f low i n t he organizat ion.

The horizontal and egalitarian route to structuring the organization

To descr ibe t he hor izont al and egalit ar ian approach we wil l start wit h a descr ipt ion of a model that

gives us some alt ernati ve options in relat ion to power - whet her we want t o just be in control overourselves or in contr ol over others. To get t he gist of t his model, im agine that you are on a t rainj our ne y an d have t he opt ion of st opp ing at t hr ee dif f er ent st at ion s. You can al so change yo urdest inat i on and go on wit h your journey t o another stat ion on the t rack. By choosing and select ing t herespect ive st at ions, you gain dif f erent perspectives on how your personalit y wil l "match up" to t hecondit ions at t he d i f f erent st at ions.

Station 1:

At t his f irst stop you al ight wit h t he purpose of seizing as much power as possible on behalf ofyourself and at the expense of ot hers. You aim t o protect al l t he power you get and are dependent


12/14


on j oining forces wit h ot hers who also operat e as power-snatchers and power-holders. The syst emof cont rol you have to est ablish and maintain is character ized as self -protect ing, self -aff irmat iveand self -preservative. At t he f ir st stop you can feed on t he power of your respect ive rank andposit ion. You wil l consequentl y get pow er for yourself by t aking power away from others. At t hisst op t he power balance is based upon t he pr inci ple: "Empow ering some by disempowering ot hers".

Station 2:

At t he second stop you al ight wit h the purpose of sharing the power you acquire w it h others. Youaim t o achieve power by br i nging what you get t o others. To get power at t his st at ion you have tobuild a shared understanding wi t h ot hers so you can be al lowed to acquire power t hrough shar ing.You are dependent on other 's co-operat ion and tr ust . You must cont r ibut e to prot ect i ng t he sharedpower and be focused on combating t hreats from out side. The system of cont rol at t his st at ion ischaracter ized as self -given, self-shar ing, m utual protect ing and self -preservative. At t his st op youconsequentl y get pow er by collaborat ion and co-operat ion wit h others. The power balance is basedupon t he pr inciple: "Empow ering yourself by empoweri ng others".

Station 3:

At t he third stop you al ight wit h the purpose of giving away al l of your power before you aresupplied w it h new power. You aim to give away al l your power, c ontrol , st atus and rank volunt ar i lyand uncondit ionally, before you are entit led to get power from the common power-source. You areat t his stop seeking power by giving up any form s of prot ect ion and personal secur it y, and placeyour dest iny in the hands of t he common inter est f or supplying you wit h the power you wi l l need t odo your t asks. The system of cont rol at t his st at ion i s character ized as self -given, mut ualconfidence, and self -preservative. At t his stop you consequentl y get pow er by t rust i ng yourself andot hers uncondit ionall y, and wit h a spir i t of absolut e belief in w hat you can obtain by giving toot hers what you have before you can expect t o get somet hing back. At t his stop t he power balanceis based on t he pr incipl e: "Dis-empoweri ng yourself before you get self-em powered".

In my ar t ic le "No-one t o command and cont rol "20 I presented some guidelines for a new power str uct ure

in t he workplace. This concept is based on the idea of ensur ing that control resides wit hin, rat her thanoutside, t he individual. In this way the individual develops t he abil i t y and capabil i t y to f unction as aresponsible and independent person in t he workpl ace based on absolut e personal f reedom and mut ualt rust . Through t his personal t ransit ion, exter nal steer ing-system s and steer ing-people are no longerneeded. As I stat ed in the art icl e: Without a change in st ructure, people wil l continue t heir currentpract ices based on their belief s, habit s and mental pat t erns that these creat es. Therefore a dif f erentconception of leadership ( indivi dual, personal and not by rank) is needed - one that empowers theperson ( inside author it y and personal power) and removes t he posit ion (out side aut hor it y and posit ionalpower) . This reasoning is based upon our belief s about t he capabil i t ies and abil i t ies of our fel lowhuman beings to act as ful l y responsible and independent i ndividuals.

What do we m ean by "responsible ? When we t ake on responsibi l i t y w e f eel responsible. The personwho f eels responsible wil l give away responsibi l i ty t o others wit hout disclaimi ng his or her per sonalresponsibi l i ty. The expression "give away r esponsibi l i t y t o ot hers" means t hat w e show ot her peoplet rust . Then we can get responsibi l i t y fr om ot hers in that we can also be shown t rust . When we,however, have responsibi l i ty imposed upon us fr om ot hers ( for example superiors) we are not able t ofeel t he same sense of r esponsibi l i t y. The person who does not feel responsible wil l not want give awayhis or her responsibi l i t y t o other s. Wit hout a sense of responsibi l i ty, we are not able to show ot herspersonal tr ust , whi ch is the m ain condit ion in achieving mut ual tr ust i n the workpl ace. We show ot herpeople t rust and can give away t rust t o others when we are permit t ed and able to t ake personalresponsibi l i ty for our own act ions. To be r esponsible as a human being, i t is therefor e necessary to t akepersonal responsibi l i t y ourselves. We wil l not easily assume and t ake on responsibi l i ty where w e aregiven responsibi l i ty by others through thei r control over our own act ions.


13/14


We can also consider t he phenomenon of "freedom" in rel at ion t o t he consequences of t he st eer ing-system and the st eer ing-mechanisms in t he workplace in the fol lowi ng way: in ext ernally- direct edsystem s (st eer ing outside the i ndividual) w e are relat ing to each ot her s posit ions and ranks. In t hist ype of posit ional based syst em t he posit ion and rank are pr im ary. In internall y direct ed syst ems(st eer ing inside t he individual) w e are relat ing to each other s persons. In t his t ype of indi vidual-based

system t he person, compet ence and relat ions betw een people are pr imary. In ext ernally- direct edsystem s it is impossible to prevent or solve confl ict s bet ween i ndividuals because rel at ions betw eenpeople are not buil t in as a mechanism int o t he st eer ing syst em. In internall y direct ed system s,however, confl ict s are prevented or solved because the rel at ions between people are buil t - in as ast eer ing mechanism. Common argument s are oft en presented in t he sense that confl ic t s are naturaland normal featur es in organizational l i f e, and that conf l ict s betw een individuals always wil l occur inone way or anot her.

Then we can t alk about t wo t ypes of value-based steer ing syst em in t he workplace wi th i n-buil tmechanisms:

1. A st eer ing-system (hor izont al and egalit ar ian) based on personal freedom and mutual t rust .2. A st eer ing-system (vert ic al and hierarchical) based on lack of freedom and mut ual trust.

In the egalit ar ian st ruct ure ther e is no cl im bing and no need for f ight ing each other because people donot need t o compete w it h each other f or survival. In this st ruct ure work is personalised in relat ion t oindividual responsibi l i t ies, coherent roles, funct ions and tasks. People work wi t h an uncondit ional t rustin t hemselves and in each other. In that respect people are able t o co-operate wit h each ot her and askfor hel p when help i s needed. People are used t o support i ng each other because t hey know t hat t heyare at t he same t ime support ing t hemselves. The egalitar i an st ruct ure is character i zed by an ongoingcommunicat ing process betw een equal human beings thr oughout t heir personalit ies, t heir individualauthor it ies and personal compet encies. Based on t his individual-st eer ing st ruct ure, i ndividualsunderst and and acknowledge t heir m utual dependence on each ot her. They are ready t o share andsupport each ot her.

Through t his concept of organizing t he workplace in an egalit ar ian way, t he control of work andworkers is internalised and is based on total and absolute personalised responsibility andindependence. This st ructure cr eates personal control of pow er and the conf idence to use this powert o execute individually-m ade decisions. In the next round, t his st ruct ur ing of pow er wi l l be t he basicelement in creating real condit ions for communication and co-operat ion between people.

To creat e a communit y of people who are able to act unanimously to get wor k done, the m aincondit ion is that t he unanimous creat ion is based upon the f ol lowi ng value and pr inciple:

The individual must become a sovereign human being who is able to discover, experience andcomprehend him or herself as a part of t he communit y and understand that individuals aremutually dependent as long as those individuals act and behave as sovereign individuals.

Collect ivism di d not work as an organizational f orm because of t he lack of understanding that acollect ive consists of i ndividuals and must base it s organizational str ucture on t his fact. Whenindividuals are funct ioning responsibly and independent ly based on t heir t otal personal freedom andmut ual tr ust , and when t hey have obtained personal confidence in t hemselves, t hey are mature enought o evolve a collect ive process of w orking together - f or example in w ork-groups. Then the collect ivebecomes a reali t y because of t he real empower ment of t he individual as an independent human being.Then individuals can, for t he f ir st t ime, st art t o use the expression "I" and "me" in reference t o t heircontr ibut ion to t he group process, and the t erms "we" and "our" in reference to t he commoncontr ibut ions and results of the work-group. The collect ive dr if ts into a hierarchical structure when itdoesn't acknowledge the sovereignty of t he individual. Inst ead, t he collect ive creates ranks andposit ions for superiors and subordinates and system s for cont rol and command. In t his way thecollect ive becomes an aut hor it ar ian and tot al i t ar ian regim e based on fear inst ead of t rust .


14/14


We can also develop a defi nit ion of "sol idar it y". Solidar it y evolves when individuals are t reated as thepeople t hey are (and not as t he people others want t hem t o be). Solidar it y is a consequence ofmut uali t y, equalit y and equity bet ween human beings based on their indivi duali t y as human beingswit h equal access to f reedom and trust in t he workplace.

When an egalit ar ian power st ruct ure is im plement ed as a formal reali ty in t he organizat ion, people wi l lst art t o relate t o each other as equals. Then they wil l be able to share what t hey are and what t heyhave wit h others wit hout being afr aid of losing anything and without f ear of being punished for beingwho t hey are.

Rune Olsen, May 2006

This art icle f irst appeared on t he Members for Democracy Archive atwww.unchar ted .ca/ con ten t / v iew/ 149/ 21/ The author can be contact ed at mailto:[email protected]

Endnotes

1 Reihlen, Markus, The Logic of Heterarchies, - Making Organizations Competitive for Knowledge-basedCompet it ion", working paper No. 91 of t he Depart ment of General Management, Business Planning andLogist ics of t he Universit y of Cologne (Cologne, 1996)2 Kipnis, David, The Powe rhold ers (Chicago: Univer sit y of Chicago Press, 1981, 2nd edi t ion)3 Krossa, Wendell, Creating A Horizontal God, retrieved May 2006 fromht t p : / / home. ista r .ca / ~wkrossa / ar t i c les.h tml 4 Zwemer, Jack, The Nat ure of t he Human Self , in Quest , No. 12, p.5. (Glendale, CA, 1991)5 Oldenquist, Andrew and Rosner, Menachem (eds.) , Al ienation, Comm unity and Work (West port , CT,Greenwood Press, 1991)6 Langer, Ell en, The Psychology of Cont rol (Beverl y Hil ls, CA, Sage Publi cat ions, 1983)7 Benello, George, Economi c Behaviour and Self -Management in From t he Ground Up (eds. RoussopoulosD. and Benello , G.) (Cambri dge, MA, Sout h End Press, 1989)8 Rothschild, Joyce and Whitt, J. Allen, The Cooperative Workplace (Beverly Hills, CA, SagePublications, 1986)9 Snyder , C.R. and From kin, H., Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Dif fer ence (New York, Plenum Press,1980)10 Cunningham, I . , Hyman, J. and Baldry, C., Empow erment : The Power to Do What? In Indust r ialRelations Journal 27(2) 143-154 (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 1996)11 Warhurst, C. and Thompson, P., Hands, Hearts and Minds (London, Macmillan, 1998)12 Harley, W., The Myth of Empower ment : Work Organisati on, Hierarchy and Employee Autonomy inContemporary Australian Society in Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 13, No. 1, 41-66 (1999) BSAPublicat ions13 Zurcher, Louis, The Mut able Self , (Beverl y Hills, CA, Sage Publi cat ions, 1977)14

Max Weber, Economy and Societ y (New York, Bedminster Press, 1968)15 Taylor, F., The Principles of Scientific Management (New York, Harper Brothers, 1911)16 Pasz, Wanda Marie, The 21st Century Workplace: R_evolution, retrieved March 2006 fromwww .ufcw .net / news/ archive/ news-archive-3-2005.htm l 17 Bernhard, Gary and Glanz, Kalman, Staying Human in the Organization (Westport, CT, GreenwoodPress, 1992)18 Fuller, Robert, Democracy's Next Step: Overcoming Rankism, retrieved May 2006 fromhtt p: / / www .humi l ia t ionst udies.org/ documents/ Ful ler Impulse.pdf 19 Bridges, W. and Bridges, S.M., Leading Transit ion: A New Model For Change, ret rieved May 2006 f romht t p : / / www. p fd f .o rg/ leaderbooks/ L2L/ spr ing2000/ br idges.h tml 20 Olsen, Rune K. w it h Pasz, Wanda M., No-One To Comm and and Cont rol, ret rieve d May 2006 f romht t p : / / www. t r ia rchypress.co .uk / pages/ ar t i c les/ a rt i c le4 .htm
http://www.triarchypress.com/http://www.uncharted.ca/content/view/149/21/mailto:[email protected]://home.istar.ca/~wkrossa/articles.htmlhttp://www.ufcw.net/news/archive/news-archive-3-2005.htmlhttp://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/FullerImpulse.pdfhttp://www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/L2L/spring2000/bridges.htmlhttp://www.triarchypress.co.uk/pages/articles/article4.htmhttp://www.triarchypress.co.uk/pages/articles/article4.htmhttp://www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/L2L/spring2000/bridges.htmlhttp://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/FullerImpulse.pdfhttp://www.ufcw.net/news/archive/news-archive-3-2005.htmlhttp://home.istar.ca/~wkrossa/articles.htmlmailto:[email protected]://www.uncharted.ca/content/view/149/21/http://www.triarchypress.com/

Documents

Vertical and Horizontal-relationship