From a vertical and hierarchical order to a horizontal and egalitarian order

in structuring and shaping the flow of power in the organization

Getting things done at work – myth and realities

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006

The material in this publication is subject to the rules of the Copyright Act. Unless otherwise specifically agreed with the author, any reproduction or

commercialization of this material is not permitted.

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 1

Contents: 1. Myths and realities in organizing the workplace Page 3 2. The origin of the vertical organization and the hierarchical power-structure Page 5 3. The myth and reality of human relationship Page 6 4. The human character Page 7 5. Loyalty with or without compassion Page 8 6. Tokenism as a way to create myths in justifying control and command Page 9 7. The consequences of humiliation in the workplace Page 11 8. The myth about potential chaos at work Page 12 9. The myth of efficiency Page 13 10.The myth and reality of participation Page 13 11.The inconsistency of diversity Page 15 12.The myth of management development Page 17 13.The horizontal and egalitarian track in structuring the organization Page 22 14. References Page 26

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 2

From a vertical and hierarchical order to a horizontal and egalitarian order in structuring and shaping the flow of power

in the organization. Getting things done at work – myth and realities.

1. Myths and realities in organizing the workplace Our contemporary organizations have throughout history been used to organize the workplace in a vertical and hierarchical manner, as though this type of organization is the only natural way of getting things done. This vertically-oriented reality is based on a belief in domination, control and command, and has provided a powerful source of validation for hierarchical relationships between human beings in organizational life. The source of control generally refers to some authority from outside the human being that dominates and exerts control over the person by the virtue of the power connected to rank and position. It is usually the power exercised by one person over another person, where the subordinate person is coerced into following the decisions made by the superior person in charge. As Markus Reihlen (1) states in his paper: “One major characteristic of hierarchical governing systems is the general decision power a person receives from his or her position in the hierarchy regardless of the expertise the person possesses for solving a given problem”. One can be tempted to say that the higher up in the organization’s layers we get, the more power (the authority to make decisions on behalf of position and rank) we find and the less competence (problem solving ability) we find. That is because decisions make in the higher level in the organization are made on the basis of a fair number of assumptions, presumptions and notions, and not so much on the basis of actual knowledge of the matter at hand. This is caused by the long distance between the decision makers and the outside reality of the organization. The lower down in the organizational layers we get, the less power we find and the more competence we find. That is because the decision-making power is concentrated in the top and higher levels and diminishes downward and throughout the organization. Competence in the lower levels however, is based on personal knowledge and experiences caused by the short distance between the people at the bottom and the actual reality they work and live in day after day. During the last decades the extent and range of human competence (knowledge, skills, abilities, capabilities) in the workplace has grown to vast and immense proportions. The working force of today has knowledge and abilities that we would have assumed inconceivable just 20-30 years ago. From a logical perspective, we should expect that because of this knowledge revolution, organizational life in the workplace would have adjusted and adapted to this huge development in human competence. We should have good reason to anticipate that the need for control and command of workers would have been reduced parallel to this explosion in knowledge and in intellectual capital. Furthermore we should also have reason to expect that the need to encourage and generate personal freedom from control, would have accelerated at an equivalent rate. But what has happened in this context between the development in human competence and in personal freedom from control? We have regrettably been witnessing quite the opposite actions in regard to the relation between control and freedom in the workplace. It seems that organizations are organizing the workplace as if people know less and less, in spite of the

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 3

actual fact that people know more and more. Therefore we have been witnessing an enormous development in controlling systems in the workplace, and a corresponding diminution in the movement for personal freedom from control. This state of affairs in the workplace is a great paradox in regard to the relationship between how things are getting done at work (as regular and usual) and the extreme alteration and growth that have taken place in human competence and capabilities during this time. Instead of investing in the liberation of people from the imposed systems of control and command, organizations have continuously been investing in reinforcing, strengthening and tightening the vertical and hierarchical order, with the help of more and more advanced and sophisticated systems of control and command. A vertical relating structure is known by the more common term “hierarchy”. Hierarchies are by their very nature systems of domination, command and control. They are essentially systems and structures of institutionalized domination. They place people in ranks of superiors and inferiors. Positioning some people above others activates primitive drives and steering mechanisms to arrange and legitimize someone’s control over others. Researchers have noted that whenever control, coercion, use of submission and domination in the name of the rank and position occurs, an inhuman relationship evolves between human beings. This relationship inevitably happens when relationships are vertically orientated (hierarchical structured). Hostile and destructive forms of interpersonal relationships are the accumulated results of the circumstance. The researcher David Kipnis (2) concludes in his works that when people are given the opportunity to control others (because of the built-in controlling-mechanisms in vertical structures) they will inevitably do so with the intention of both legitimizing their own roles and functions as superiors and maintaining their base as power-holders. Kipnis (2) states that power seems to unleash in most people cruel motives to manipulate others. Such condescending and abusive motives emerged even if people did not believe that they exist inside themselves before their power over others had occurred. By placing people in legitimized ranks and positions of formal authority over others, the vertical power structure and the hierarchical power system tends to bring out the very worst residual drives and primitive personal characteristics in people. How did domination, control and commanding mechanisms progress along with the development of humanity? How did these authority features become so deeply embedded in our belief-systems, in the mass-consciousness, in human societies and in our organizations? How did human mentality emerge to view life as a vertical reality and consequently lead human beings to relate to one another in a dominating, controlling, and commanding manner as superiors and inferiors? We have, for example, used our language to cover up for this non-equal treatment of fellow human beings in the sense that we have felt the necessity to transform terms in our vocabulary from uncomfortable words like control and command, to more acceptable words such as influence, leadership and empowerment. However, the essence remains. The vertical order in our society and the hierarchical power-structure in our workplaces have been a reality for centuries and are our reality right now. That is because they are viewed as sacred or a natural order in which to arrange relations between people, and rank people according to their positions in their organizations. The formal authorities in our societies and in our organizations are given the authority to exercise their domination, their control and commanding power over their subordinates in the name of this vertical and hierarchical order. The use of the idea of someone above to control someone below in the name of the vertical order, have promoted the development of primitive dispositions in the workplace through the authorization of people in charge. The belief that not everyone is able to take responsibility for his or her own actions in the workplace, is an excuse to take control over others by commanding them.

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 4

The consequences of vertical structures and hierarchical systems in organizational life are the destruction of human dignity and personal freedom and are, in the end, the main cause of the dehumanizing of human relations. The creative contributions of all persons in the vertical order are an impossible option because of the suppressive and oppressive mechanisms that are built into the vertical ranking in the workplace, and are expressed in the form of relations between individuals above and individuals below – from the sense that some are more trustworthy than others to ranks and positions. “I am tired of being told what to do by others”. This statement is illustrative of the underlying thoughts and feelings of many people as subordinates who are considered inferior persons in the hierarchical context. They are subordinates based on their inferior rank and title, and do not therefore deserve the same privileges, advantages, respect, freedom and trust as their superiors. This pronouncement is a profoundly expressed reaction from a human being submitted to domination, control and command, and it is obvious that the person has become immensely tired of the whole situation. Regaining control over our own lives and our own situations in the workplace will require some fundamental alterations in our belief-systems. It will require the transformation from a vertically reality (hierarchical) in the workplace to a horizontal (egalitarian) reality at work. Such change will mean a shift from a belief-system of domination, controlling and commanding others, to a belief-system of personal freedom and mutual trust. In this context, the term “egalitarian” means relating to each other as fellow human beings, as equals, as peers, as individuals who deserves respect because of our nature as unique individual human beings who have the capabilities and abilities to take responsibility for their own actions. 2. The origin of the vertical organization and hierarchical power-structure The author Wendell Krossa (3) says in one of his texts: “Our contemporary forms of hierarchy originate with the predatory domination of our animal past. The vertical form of relating has continued on through the various stages of human evolution, from primate to hunter/gather, and then into the institutions of early human domesticated society, and thereby into the present. Hierarchical relating is ultimately an ancient expression of animal nature and animal behaviour. It is therefore originated in the deep past of humanity when people were still more animal-like than human. The vertical relationships of hierarchy express quite simply the ancient drive of competition for resources and the domination required for survival in a competitive animal environment”. The core element according to Krossa (3) is that the hierarchical arrangement of relationships in human societies is simply a refinement of versions of animal-like methods of domination. Hierarchical organizations are quite simply a formalization of animal structures implemented in humanized institutions. According to Krossa (3) the human mentality was simply swamped by the surrounding animal environment and shaped into a vertically oriented reality of domination and control. With the belief-systems of vertically orientated realities, it was quite obvious that people from the beginning of civilization, would form structures and institutions based on the only reality that they was aware of - namelly the vertical relationship of domination. Those early institutions with their dominant/subordinate and superior/inferior patterns of organizing, became the main system for all subsequent forms of relations between human beings. As Krossa (3) says: “We are now human and there is no excuse to continue acting like animals. If we are ever going to remove the destructive element of control from human relating then we need to understand that institutionalized vertical forms of relating are

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 5

destructively animal and a serious hindrance to human progress”. Krossa (3) points out further: ”There has been little effort to distinguish the fact that while animal evolution selected certain traits such as competitiveness and domination for its ongoing existence, the emergence of modern human consciousness is leading humanity in an entirely new direction away from competition and domination and toward cooperation, equality and freedom”. But when we study the reality in our contemporary organizations, we find to the contrary that the way from competition towards cooperation still meets severe problems and hindrances from the plain nature of the power-structure in our so-called modern and civilized organizations. Krossa (3) states further. “The key point to remember is that a vertical orientation expresses animal-like domination and control, while horizontal relating serves to describe non-controlling cooperation and the free interactions of true equals. What inspires the formation of vertical relationships or hierarchies is the instinct or drive for advantage over others. In this struggle for ongoing existence those who cannot dominate by brute force are coerced into cowering submission. Animal relating has become deeply entrenched in human ideologies, social orders, and institutions. We as developing human beings are becoming more conscious of the nature of humanity as free, inclusive, and egalitarian, but we still exist within controlling organizations. We continue to exist within primitive structures that orient us to the drives of our animal past” The main inspiration behind vertical relationships and hierarchies is the instinct or drive for advantage over others by control and through command. This disposition assumes competition for power and the struggle for control and command as natural and normal, and is regarded as the only way we can get things done in our organizations of today. On the other hand this disposition for vertical commanding structures makes collaboration, cooperation and mutual understanding between people impossible. If all employees had access to equal possibilities and opportunities and were appreciated and acknowledged for their competence and their knowledge, skills and experience relevant to the operation of the organization, there would be no rational basis for hierarchical authority. The system of control - the main mechanism of hierarchical authority - offers security, certainty and predictability at the cost of the loss of freedom to become a truly human being. Hierarchical relationships demand unquestioning submission and obedience. The words in terms of the relation between “command and obey” and between “control and submit”, therefore have therefore significant and substantial meaning for how we get things done in our modern working life. 3. The myth and reality of human relationship What does it means to be human? It is simply freedom from control. Competitive pursuit of personal survival and personal advancement is quite the opposite driving mechanism. Therefore there is a fundamental difference between animal mentality as competitive, and human mentality as cooperative. The urge of cooperation is the factor that makes us human and it is the primary mechanism that forms human relations. Competition on the other hand is the factor that makes us non-human and creates non-human relations. Freedom from control and domination requires an inter-human relating in horizontal equality relationships with others.

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 6

Horizontal equality (an egalitarian power structure) inclines equal opportunities and possibilities to:

1. Challenge control 2. Resist domination 3. Exercise choice 4. Question authority 5. Refuse command

The core of horizontal organizing is a relationship based upon free and responsible equals with no outer and outside elements of control, command and domination. Personal freedom is encumbered with uncertainty which is frightening to people long used to the supposed security that emanated from a commanded and controlled existence. So, ignoring the possibility and opportunity to be free, many people find it safer to retreat into the security of the hierarchical existence by persuasion and their submission to the traditional and the presumed familiar order. That is because people are used to doing just that through their workplace history, and because people find submissive behaviour as their only real option in their workplace situation. Freedom means responsibility to make choices and to live with the consequences of those choices. It can appear in the first round more secure to be handing over the responsibility to others, and letting others take responsibility for personal actions, rather than risking the uncertainty in making our own choices. The retreat to being controlled, however, is a denial of our essence as a human being and a choice to move into the animal-like existence of a commanded creature. The primitive desire to be controlled can to a certain degree explain the drive in people to place themselves under leadership by others and to be led by others. But this drive and disposition is not a human trait and not at all an ingredient in a human relationship, but instead an animal-liked instinct to fall into the fold of being controlled by authorities. Such subservience to leadership alleviates the fear of insecurity that accompanies true freedom, and undermines the personal responsibility that is essential to human development. To choose and make choices are in their essence insecure and unpredictable matters. But freedom is actually about making free decisions. Responsibility is about making decisions and taking the consequences, whether the consequences are good or bad. If we however resist freedom and want to avoid the consequences of freedom, we at the same time do not accept the responsibilities which are embedded in the nature of freedom. Then we also deny our human abilities to act as the responsible human beings we certainly are. The question of being responsible or not, is to do with the question of being able to take responsibility for own actions. It is certainly not the question of not being able to take responsibility. This is just one of the great deceits that fool us in thinking that we are in need of outside authorities to take responsibility on behalf of our selves. 4. The human character As human beings we all have the unique ability to think and feel. To reflect, analyse, value, estimate, decide and evaluate. Because of these characteristics all human beings are able to function 100% responsibly and independently if the circumstances in the workplace provide real opportunities and possibilities to do just that. People are by their nature as human beings quite able to make their own decisions in their own situations. It is therefore a contradiction to assert that some people must lead and others must be led, that some people must make decisions and others must be decided upon. Modern human beings have sufficient personal

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 7

consciousness to make their own choices and decisions, and the ability to take personal responsibility for their actions. When people, however, are deprived of possibilities and opportunities to self-determination and self-decision making, they are at the same time deprived of their abilities to take responsibility for their actions. When people are decided upon by others, these others must also take the responsibilities for their decisions over others. And that is not a humanized way when responsible people are deprived of their responsibility by the control and command of others. The author Jack Zwemer (4) has said: “In a truly human existence, control of choice and behaviour must never originate from outside of the self because external control effectively destroys the essential function of the human self as a responsible entity”. The hierarchical relationship between dominate/subordinate, superior/inferior, boss/worker, leader/follower reflects the perverse human drive for prestige, status and power over others. Rights and privileges are apportioned according to one’s rank and position through the vertical and hierarchical order. 5. Loyalty with or without compassion In human relating we find mainly two types of loyalty:

1. Singular loyalty. Coercive volunteering (forced loyalty). Connection to an outer authority who is in charge and have the power to make decisions upon others below. In a vertical structure it is a compulsory tool to force the employees into conformity, rigidity, uniformity through pledging their loyalty to the masters. The demand of loyalty is all part of the effort to control people and keep them subservient to the hierarchical order. 2. Mutual loyalty. Chosen volunteering (self elected loyalty). Connection with the personal responsibility for one self and others in mutual trust, understanding and respect for individual diversity.

People show loyalty to decisions which they have influence and control over. People will especially support the outcomes of processes if they feel that the outcome is genuinely the result of their own decision making and has not been handed down to them from superiors. Instead the decisions are the result of their personal influences and joint efforts to attain common goals. Jack Zwemer (4) has said that true compassion is only possible between persons on the same level. It is not possible to have true compassion up or down to others. To be truly human means existentially relating to others horizontally. To fully realize true self-hood there must be other persons relating to each other equally. Personality and individuality cannot develop in a relationship between a subordinate and a superior person. Each other must be capable of the same possibilities and opportunities for choices and decisions. The relationship must be committed to human equality. You cannot command compassion or commitment. The self must be free to cooperate or not-cooperate. External control exercised over the human self will destroy the very nature of the self in its relationship with others’ selves. Free peoples are always committed to cooperate as equals when they are treated as equals. This is because they will become free equals as a result of gaining and preserving individual freedom, responsibility and decision making capability. Then they must have equal access whenever they choose to operate as free individuals. The freedom from outside control and

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 8

freedom for personal control is the essential factor for becoming and being a human individual. There should never be any element of upward or downward, above or below, inferior or superior, domination or submission in any relationships, if the relationships should be human and humanizing. Vertically oriented power is corrupting and depraving in regarding the human conscientious. Kipnis (2) has stated that outer control of power in any relationship will corrupt the attitude of the person holding the dominant position. Externalized power changes the perception of the persons in charge and their perception of others. Externalized power gives the one in charge a perception of those below as less worthy to freedom and trust, and legitimizes manipulation in a commanding and condescending manner. The powerful perceives the powerless more as productive objective factors and less as individuals and human beings. Krossa (3) says. “There are no such things as nice bosses”. Control is by its essence damaging and destroying to self-awareness, self-esteem and self-respect whether or not the boss is nice or bad.». The vertical structure and the hierarchical system is there anyway with its controlling and commanding mechanisms. People who are treated as genuine equals feel more secure about expressing themselves as unique persons and feel less obliged to perform in standardized ways according to organizational rules and regulations. 6. Tokenism as a way to create myths in justifying control and command Tokenism is the way managers create an illusion of trying to humanize the workplace. The author Andrew Oldenquist (5) has done research on the reform efforts of corporations for improving work-results. He states that “Corporations are seemingly used to improve the quality of working life, but (in reality) they are pursued only to the extent that they serve management and corporate goals- maximizing profit, improving efficiency and raising productivity”. These token efforts are often only disguised manipulation, and serve only to create further resentment and resistance from those at the bottom. These efforts as alternative ways to organize the workplace end up promoting the same old vertical structures which does not create real participation and self-control, except in a token way. Oldenquist (5) says further: “Authority is still distributed hierarchically with decision making power concentrated at the top of structures. This leaves the majority at the bottom powerless. This is not in any way about freedom, but simply a form of modern slavery. If anyone doubts the reality of this modern slavery, then just note the fear, hesitancy, and subservience of line-workers in any organization when they are in presence of bosses or other superiors. Note the hesitancy of people to really speak their minds on many subjects to the prize of fear when superiors are around for controlling and supervising the behaviour of the subordinates”. We do not get control from others. We take control by ourselves whenever we get control. Therefore are equal opportunities in gaining control fundamental to all people. If we are given control from others, we are only manipulated to believe that we have control as a token effort of participation. Control is something we achieve in gaining personal responsibility. The author Ellen Langer (6) says: “Control is essential to human functioning and if people are given a sense of being in control of their lives, then this sense of control can bring clear mental and physical improvement to them”. She also states that instead of giving people decisions to make, we should encourage decision making as an ongoing process for development of self-esteem and mutual trust. It is therefore important to realize that personally taking initiative and exerting control has more impact than when control is given by another. Giving control implies that the person giving still has control and can withdraw it according to Langer (6).

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 9

However, if we view control as an ongoing process, then it cannot be given – it can only be taken. Langer (6) stated consequently that people must not be given control as though it were an object to be given and taken back. People must instead learn to take personal control as an evolving process of learning personal decision-making. Giving or delegating authority creates a superior/inferior relationship between the people involved. One person is the dominator who controls a resource to be delegated to another person below. Our authority as givers automatically grants us power over others who do not have the same access to the resources. Therefore, this practice of giving - as a form of domination and main threat in the vertical and hierarchical organization – is always encumbered with the feeling of humiliation from the receiver’s point of view. The receiver suffers the humiliation of not having personal control and not being able to take personal responsibility for the transaction. It is a dehumanizing and demoralization sense of lack of control and of being imposed upon even though to some extent “the offer” may be benevolent for the receiver. That can make it even harder to bear, if the giving is a so-called a positive benefit. But by granting power to people to gain personal control and become personally responsible for their actions, we are at the same time granting them real freedom to become true equals and fully human beings. It is not difficult to understand that being an object of delegation and a recipient of giving (as a token of shared power), a person can naturally feel the humiliating bitterness engendered by being a powerless and subservient receiver of the mercy from the benevolent benefactor. The result of this type of submissive role-behaviour, entails the undermining of self-esteem, self-worth, and self-respect. Subservience will in the next round most likely lead to an inferiority complex within the subordinated individual because of the steering-mechanisms in the suppressive vertical and hierarchical power-structure. Managers control power which they may choose to give or to share with their subordinates, but only if this does not detract from their own authority or ability to exercise power. The most obvious flaw in the context of power concentration in the hands of managers, is that it assumes that power is analogous to a commodity that can be shared among individuals or groups. This presumes the vertical and hierarchical power-base in organizations as a fundamental factor in the organization’s structure so that power can be kept in the hands of the givers. Giving, delegating or sharing power in a vertical and hierarchical structure, is just a disguised way of pretending that people will be empowered by the managers good will to give some of their power away occasionally. This is a deception in the sense that managers are not actually entitled to give away any power because their power is connected to the managers’ positions and ranks. Therefore the managers’ power cannot be given away as some personal gift or commodity that managers privately can choose to give away, because this power is a integral part of their job and occupational status. If they still give some of their power away, the managers will undermine their role as superiors and encounter problems with their own authority in exercising their power to control other persons. A major characteristic of vertical and hierarchical ruling, is the general decision power a person receives from his or her position in the hierarchy. To get things done in a hierarchy with ranks and positions, people must be subject to an obligation to serve the rules in the vertical systems as superiors and subordinates. Superiors give orders and subordinates follow these given orders. In the sense that the words “giving” and «receiving» can be understood to mean portioning a sense of power between managers and the managed, these expressions can correctly be characterized as «delegating power». Delegating refers to the movement of power from the superior to the subordinate and back, and always on the authority of the people in charge. The superior cannot and will not give real power away, because of the limitations in the hierarchical system. The superior can only give away an allowance as a perceived notion and symbol of getting the subordinate empowered.

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 10

7. The consequences of humiliation in the workplace The humiliation and desperation that arises from loss of control over a person’s work-situation, can lead to tragic reactions and responses. When people are not allowed to express themselves to a superior because of fear of losing their job, people can suffer illness and damage their own immune system. The human being is expected to behave conform, submit and oppress his or her personal feelings and needs, as a production factor in the pure interest of the organization’s economic self-interest. Therefore upper hierarchical positions demand the type of persons who are callous, aggressive and cynical in their treatment of others. These traits are believed to be necessary in order to coerce subordinate people to function efficiently according to the organization’s standards, norms and values. If people do not obey and submit to these management standards, they can be, according to the standards, rules and regulations, “justly” exposed to punishment and sanctions. The desire to climb over others, to compete and to win over others is described as being ambitious and is a main value in the hierarchical and vertical organizational structure. This climbing behaviour is rewarded by promotions, higher ranks and more advanced positions. This climbing does not concern the conscience of the organization, even if the climbing over others seriously dehumanizes and damages both the passed-over and the run-over person and the climber as a person. When callous individuals aggressively climb the organizational ladder to gain personal advantage, power and control at the expense of others without any concern or conscience at all, they are- through their promotions - taking part in the shaping of organizational practises and standards. This “vertical flow” movement up the hierarchy then forms a type of institutionalized psychopathy. Contemporary economic ideology justifies this practise of competition in the self-interest of man in the vertical based organization. This type of practise is beyond comprehension in the sense that decent people who join up in vertical organizations adhering to such policies, are forced to follow these callous practises in order to survive in such organizations. To get rid of these suppressive and oppressive forces, we must reach down to the root cause of the control and domination patterns in work-life. Just to change the name «competition» to «cooperation» without making fundamental changes in the power-structure, does not change the essence of the relationships at all. These terms do not remove the existential fact that as long as someone exercises control over others, then we will never get collaboration and cooperation with its essential equal access and equal influence over the decision making process. As Krossa (3) says: “Denying shared power over decision making processes that affect people, violates peoples’ sense of equality and freedom and therefore violates the basic humanity of all involved in a process or organization”. If a decision comes from people who are affected by the decision in their daily work-life, then those people will support and will take responsibility for the implementation of the decision as they will feel ownership of the decision and its implementation. People naturally will take responsibility for the consequences of decisions that are their own, but will resent and resist decisions that are imposed on them from others. 8. The myth about potential chaos at work In regard to the mutual decision making process and individual responsibility for taking the consequences of decisions made by independent persons, the argument from superiors is often that there will be chaos and anarchy if control of decision making is loosened or simply is turned loose. A change from hierarchical leadership (a few in charge) to horizontal leadership (all in charge) may appear to be chaotic. It will naturally seem to be chaotic to

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 11

those who believe that their ideas embody the only correct way to get things done. This is because they are used to having their own way in the matter, and are used to having the power to command and control others and coerce others to obedience and submission. The author Wanda Marie Pasz (20) states in this matter: “The vast majority of people who work for a living do not know their history. They don’t know why the command and control model of management evolved nor do they know its purpose. All they know is that there have always been bosses. In a workplace without bosses there would be chaos and anarchy and that is something that they accept as a premise. This state will reinforce itself continuously in a myriad of different ways in the workplace, in popular culture, in educational institutions and by management theorists.” But we will not create chaos and have anarchy if we remove the system of command and control. This is because when we let people decide for themselves in matters of their own work, people will come to perceive themselves as responsible persons and take responsibility for their own actions. This will mean that when responsibility is built into the individuals, the individuals will take control over their work-situation by themselves. In doing so, people will prove that chaos and anarchy will not develop on the work-stage just because of their inner responsible self. On the other hand when people are exposed to outer control, people are neither permitted nor allowed personal responsibility because that responsibility is placed in the hands of others (superior/bosses/representatives) in their names as formal authorities. Bernhard and Glanz (7) argue that human organizing is to often based on wrong and outdated views of the human self in the sense that these vertical organizations encourage the use of force and coercion to control the behaviour of people. This type of steering-system leads to demoralization, alienation, helplessness, resentment, and is the contrary to personal responsibility through individual control. The result of force and coerciveness is irresponsibility and this is what creates irresponsible human beings in the workplace. According to Berhard and Glanz (7) attempts to reform these organizations are just a management trick to make people work harder, while such reforms are pretending to be modern methods of participation. They say that “Evolution fashioned people who resent taking orders, who experience anger and shame when they feel powerless. People are in their nature of human beings not made to be bosses and subordinates”. The human being emerged in its history to freedom from outer control, and it is in its nature not suited to being controlled like a machine. Therefore it is tragic when the human self is violated and dominated by external control through commanding relationships. This is more vital in our contemporary vertical hierarchical organizations than we like to believe. Kipnis (2) has exposed the callousness of power-holders. He states as earlier mentioned that people in positions of power are inevitably transformed into viewing themselves as better than those below and tend to devalue the people below as inferiors to themselves. According to Kipnis (2) it is impossible to move up through a hierarchy without being corrupted as a human being, by the power to control and command others. People in superior positions tend to treat others as mere objects of manipulation. Control over others in any form is therefore one of the most perverted and unworthy human elements to which people can be exposed and subject to. There is no way that control over others can be validated as less humiliating by labelling it leadership. According to Krossa (3) it is a great waste of effort and expense to constantly send managers and leaders to training seminars in attempts to make them better leaders, in the hope that this might improve employee relationships and thereby improve company performance. This only dodges the essential issue at the root of organizational conflicts which are caused by inhuman competition and the cynical struggling for power.

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 12

9. The myth of efficiency Vertical and hierarchical organizations are constituted and institutionalized around the principle of competitive dominance. Competition is the driving mechanism in hierarchical relating. The ideology of efficiency has been developed to support competitive hierarchical dominance. This ideology urges efficiency as the supreme value taking precedence over all other organizational values, including human values. Efficiency is used to validate and measure all types of hierarchical arrangements. Efficiency as a central element in human enterprises reflects a one-sided drive to meet only material needs and goals. For example efficiency overrides all concerns for the human being and creates structures that keep us from being human and relating to each other as human beings. Our vertical structures embrace values based on competition between human beings, with the result that someone must win and someone must loose. That is the nature of competition. Therefore efficiency encourages values that are contradictory to cooperative human relationships such as primary inter-human values as mutuality and equality. Inter-human values support and encourage cooperation and collaboration between people as opposed to the values of competition and rivalry between people that turn people into competitors instead of co-operators. Our vertical and hierarchical organizations enshrine competitive dominance over internal and external actors, as the main way to survive and stay in business. The efficiency ideology is the main belief system in our contemporary work organizations. The tragic outcome of the driving forces in the efficiency ideology is that people are forced and coerced to compete with each other, to fight each other for better benefits, advantages and survival conditions, even if those people in their nature as human beings are disposed towards cooperation and collaboration as a means to develop their human capacities and abilities. The result of this forced loyalty (instead of releasing our natural potential as co-operators and colleagues) is that we are coerced into behaviours that can be compared to an animal-like struggle as competitors with each other in the workplace. Consequently the best combatants and competitors will win the battle and disparage and eliminate the losers. This is the law of efficiency. The myth of efficiency is that efficiency implies cooperation among employees by promoting friendly competition through a mutually desirable contest of each others capacities and abilities. 10. The myth and reality of participation The author George Benello (8) states that workers are motivated to participate in the control of their workplace and will develop personal responsibility when the opportunities exist. Enhanced participation increases worker satisfaction and commitment to their work. He says: “There is a circular reinforcing process so that as competence is increased, greater confidence develops. This leads to a greater willingness to exercise personal control, leading in turn to increased competence. Just as the inability to make decisions breeds lack of confidence, so the opportunity to participate increases confidence”. The tokenism of sharing power and inviting employees to participate is creating a reluctance to join these participative processes. People are seeing through the delusion and deceit of participation while under the charge of others. In such token processes the superiors have often already made up their minds about the outcomes of the process. In these cases the participation process is experienced as an insult and just another form of manipulation. The difference between pretended participation and real participation is fundamental for motivating people to join up and get their full support and dedication in the process. When people experience pretended and token participation they will classify this type of method as coercive and compulsory, and the result can be a blocking and sabotage of organizational

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 13

action. The real participation process is not about whether it goes downward or upward. It is just about voluntary joint efforts between equals on the same ground, sharing power to get the job done. Real participation will acquire mutual trust between people in their individual ability to take responsibility for their separate tasks and functions. Only through this type of participation will creativity flow as it unleashes individual capabilities, abilities, competences and the willpower to do one’s best and to help each other to do everyone’s best in getting the job done. When on the other hand the organization is preoccupied with getting the job done by motivating people to do the job better than others (and not helping each other), this attitude will destroy real participation and undermine personal responsibility and creativity. Conflict and hostility between people in the workplace have always had something to do with a competitive attitude, while cooperation and mutual support are on the other hand linked to equal control, mutual trust and sharing of power. Due to the vertical and hierarchical structure in organizations, people tend to feel the ascending vertical order as something natural and normal - as the assumed and presumed way to get things done in an efficient way. This is only because the practise has always been in that way. Therefore organizations experience inefficiency and deterioration when people resent and resist participation, but still put the blame for disappointing results on people’s behaviour and not the organization’s own attitudes, values, systems and practises. The organizational problem and paradox will inevitably strengthen organizational behaviour around one version or standard as a cause of the deteriorated results, which in the next round will demand further effective control through conformity and subservience for those involved. Organizational features and patterns are therefore frozen into ingrained organizational structures and fixed procedures. This freezing of processes into rigidity and conformity, contributes further to enslavement of people as objects. And finally the organization stands as a monument of obedience and coercive loyalty where the dominant measure is the ability to obey the masters through rules and regulations. Then the so-called participation process is transformed into a conservative institution where people are included as objects, and not as subjects and human beings. The author Joyce Rothschild (9) stated in relation to participatory habits in organizations: «Where people do not have participatory habits, it is because they have not generally been allowed any substantial control over important decisions.» The power-holders dread the loss of control over others and therefore they are devising numerous excuses for refusing the distributing and sharing of power. That is the background for the managerial tools with the purpose to get control and maintaining the power-base in favour of the people in charge. The main excuse for implementing control devices is that the common human beings can behave stupid and lazy and lack a sense of cooperation. Furthermore people are unable to take responsibility for their own actions. The managerial systems of control are therefore in place to supply and provide for the unforeseen and unpredictable consequences of the actions of the common people. The lack of real participation in the workplace leads to a lack of implementation of decisions, because the people that are needed for the implementation of decisions do not feel themselves a part of the decision making process. Therefore they will be reluctant to take part in the implementation of decisions in practise. When pretended participation is put into action, people will feel that they inevitably are forced and coerced to participate and will do so in a contradicting and resisting way. As Kipnis (2) says: «The use of even moderate power in persuading the employees to join a decision process, stimulates opposition. The use of coercion inevitably generates resistance in those being forced when they are obliged to commit themselves to a type of coerced persuasion.» The demand for submissive loyalty is

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 14

naturally a part of the effort to control people and have them nicely adapted into the fold of the hierarchical order without any protesting and demonstrations at all. Snyder and Fromkin (10) states that most contemporary organizations tend to a operating practice in which they destroy the uniqueness of people. They say: “On entering organizations people are shaped into an object that fits the institution, to assist in the smooth running of routine operations. This process leads to the loss of the unique self”. Employees are forced to fit their behaviour to match some standardized general profile. This is achieved through conformity to rules. Any deviation from the organizational standard of behaviour is dealt with by disciplinary action in ways that reinforce and strengthen conformity performance and behaviour. With the loss of individual uniqueness, there is a loss of creativity which is the price organizations are willing to pay for conformity to rules and regulations. The standard argument for conformity-practise is that the average person is somewhat irrational and unpredictable, and therefore must be controlled and coerced in order to do something useful and productive. This coercive practise reveals a belief that the human being cannot be trusted to freedom and responsibility before the human being has proven itself to be trustworthy. This practise is an elegant way to establish the rule as a burden of proof in a form of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Therefore the human being must be commanded and controlled until this belief is proven wrong. 11. The inconsistency of diversity Diversity is one of the greatest paradoxes in the working-life. On the one side our organizations are encouraging diversity between people, but on the other side our organizations are also working against diversity amongst people. Why so? What is the cause to this the inconsistent and counteractive behaviour? In spoken and written words we have no problems in finding lots of fine and honourable expressive views about the importance and necessity of diversity in the workplace. At the same time we find that the practice in implementing these nice words lacks foundation and anchoring in the workplace reality. To unleash diversity in the workplace will acquire and demand absolute tolerance and respect between human beings. Firstly, we have to accept that the differences between people are natural and normal features and will not be dismissed by coercion and force. Secondly we have to accept that inter-human differences in one way or another, are basic conditions in developing organizations and individuals. If however, we are working against inter-human differences (by promoting conformity and subservience) and diversity between human beings, we are contradicting the very essence of human relationship and the human nature. This contradicting of diversity will also consequently end up with us working against the main condition of developing our organizations and ourselves as human beings. And then we as individuals and organizations begin to deteriorate and dissolve our entity and undermine ourselves as valuable contributing members in the society. When we go back to the question about why we are contradicting the mere existence of diversity, and why we are contradicting differences between human beings in the workplace, we will find some queer answers. Some people cannot tolerate the thought of others differing from themselves. Differences can signify that there are actually common people that have more insights, knowledge and competence than their superiors, and because of this experienced unbalance in the relationship, this fact can be perceived from the superiors point of view as very frightful and scary in regard to the superior’s own self-esteem. If we are in a superior position and positioned above those with more capabilities than ourselves, we have however the legitimate right to use the necessary power to get control over our subordinates capacities and capabilities. Then these subordinates are coerced to behave in a submissive and

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 15

subservient manner regardless of their abilities and competences. And through these demands of conformity and loyalty, because of the vertical relation and hierarchical power-structure, the organization loses its ability for prosperous evolution. And in the end the organization loses its ability to transform, transition and change - all in an absurd and senseless battle against the free human initiative, individual creation and personal enterprising skills. This loss is of course a tremendous waste as these human resources just lay there as untapped reserves and unused potential just waiting to be put into action. This lack of understanding for the diversity complex in organizational life has led to a long history of effort to destroy diversity and substitute it with conformity. This is caused by of our difficulties in accepting and respecting other human beings as different from ourselves, and this lack of understanding is further brought about through our ambitions to mould other individuals in our own image. We are firstly inclined to see others as the persons we want them to be (as blueprints of who we think we selves are), and secondly we are not inclined to see others as the persons they actually and really are. If a relationship is based on control and command over others, this specific viewing can be very harmful for the persons who are exposed to treatment at the mercy of power-holders. Because of this paradoxical need to have other people become copies of our selves, we will neither understand the necessity nor value diversity in our organizations. Richard Pascale (11) notes in relation to the struggle involved in getting rid of polarities in the workplace: «Ironically, the old mindset encourages us to devote a great part of management energy to maintaining equilibrium, eliminating tensions, enhancing consistency, and achieving a happy medium. But when you eliminate the polarities, you sacrifice vitality (life in itself).» Modern organizational structures have been established to suit the ideal rational personality type who can live in an orderly and predictable way with no problems whatsoever in behavioural conduct and in terms of organizational adaptiveness. Irrationality or non-rationality (as the essence of the true human nature) which are pejorative terms of human emotions and feelings, are viewed as anomalies to be suppressed and preferably eliminated from organizational life as inefficient and as non-existent. Under these circumstances we must understand that organizations are just people-made and not holy-sacred-made as unchangeable establishments. It is people who create organizations and institutions through the power they get from their ranks and positions. The organizational creators then imbue their creations with authority in order to get and maintain power over their employees. The power-holders then effectuate management tools to implement control over others by systems of command and domination. These systems are frozen around the values and personalities of the controlling managers, and are built into organizational structures, rules, regulations and procedures. These institutional patterns urge conformity and uniformity which militates against freedom for diversity and individual uniqueness, as the patterns become tools to rigidly dominate and control others in the best interests of the people in charge. The effect of this institutional pattern with the venerable idea of people submitting to or blindly following their leaders is dehumanizing because it leads to serious abuses of human freedom. Blind loyalty to outside leadership and human-created authority have caused great misery to humankind, have made our organizations and societies deteriorate and have been the main cause to the fall of earlier civilizations on earth.

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 16

12. The myth of management development Management development programs are presumed to create greater involvement and participation in the workplace. As we have talked about earlier in this paper these efforts are first of all modernized ways to disguise the need for more advanced and sophisticated forms of controlling people in their workplace. The difference between what management programs pretend and what they really intend are substantial. Take for empowerment programs. They pretends as follows: 1. Delegation of responsibility from management to employees. 2. No-hierarchical forms of work organization. 3. Sharing of information between and within different levels of organization. The specific workplace-mechanism through which these pretensions shall be realized are: 1. Autonomous work-groups (teams) 2. Decentralized information systems Different research studies have stated that these measures represent relatively minor and marginal modifications to dominant, pre-existing, organizational forms and practices. Cunningham et.al. (12) found in British studies that «empowerment fails to give employees much in the way of increased power and influence.» Warhurst and Thompson (13) state from their workplace studies that: «The hollow laugh received when mentioning the word «empowerment» in most organizations is the true test that employees at many levels experience this great «innovation» less as the opportunity to exercise extra discretion, and more as the necessity to undertake more tasks.» Bill Harley (14) states in his research that: «Employees who work in workplaces with any of the empowerment mechanisms in place, do not report any difference in their level of autonomy from employees who work in workplaces without the mechanisms. This is a very significant finding. It is consistent with the claim that practices allegedly associated with empowerment do not contribute to employee autonomy.» Harley (14) continues in his survey: «Being a member of a management group is positively associated with autonomy, while being a member of other groups tends to be negatively associated.» Harley states the following conclusion in his survey: «The relative capacity of individuals or groups to exert control over production is determined primarily by virtue of their respective positions within organizational hierarchies. Positions within hierarchies are defined in terms of their relationship to other positions. Managers are managers by virtue of their positions within hierarchies, which affords them the capacity to exercise power over their subordinates. Unless hierarchy disappears, it is extraordinary unlikely that we will witness a generalised shift in control from managers to employee. It is this fact of organizational life that provides the most compelling explanation of why empowerment does not empower workers.» The use of work-groups as a method in developing the workplace in a more autonomous direction can back-fire on this effort in the sense that group pressure instead works as a contributing factor in creating another form of conformity and servility. Markus Reihlen (1) states this paradox in his research: «The group-think effect emerges in strong coherent groups where group members attempt to realize unanimity, consensus, and harmony of their efforts. At the same time, the ability for creative thought and rational judgement are negatively affected by the group pressure». Reihlen (1) concluded with the following statement concerning the effects of cultural control in a group: «Excessive cultural control leads to the elimination of the pluralistic character and deprives the organization of its innovative abilities. Moreover, the organization will degenerate into a belief system sacrificing its creative

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 17

potential to a uniform dogma.» The author Louis Zurcher (15) notes that individuals easily define themselves in terms of an organizational group in which they are included. He says: «The individual tends toward rigid adherence to conventional values; submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities in the group, tendency to look for and punish people who violate conventional values, opposition to the subjective, imaginative or tender minded, tendency to think in rigid categories, preoccupation with dominance/submission, strong/weak, leader/follower categories.» Wendell Krossa (3) says in his papers: «We are in need of new structures for human organizing that will support new cooperative forms of human relating – truly egalitarian forms of relating.». Max Weber (16) (the father of modern sociology), developed a contrary ideology in this respect. Weber’s (16) belief in an organizational system (bureaucratic) regulated by rules, led him to undoubtedly accept the authority of some people over others. He accepted domination as legitimate and necessary, as an administrative structure to execute command and control. Weber (16) developed his thoughts about organizations over a century ago. Fredrik Taylor (17) industrialized these thoughts through his theory of Scientific Management in the beginning of the 19th century. But the ideas and visions of these pioneers in the history of organizations are still living in the best of health after almost 100 years. And that is an immense paradox when we know that everything in working life has changed character during the last century, aside from the organizational structure in the workplace. Therefore we can say, using Krossa’s words (3): «We, as developing human beings, are becoming more conscious of the nature of humanity as free, inclusive and egalitarian, but we still exist within controlling organizations. We continue to exist within primitive structures that orient us to the drives of our animal past.». Wanda Marie Pasz (18) adds to this evolutionary perspective: “When it comes to the tools, methods and processes we use to get work done, we’re light years ahead of our predecessors but when it comes to the values, the principles that form the basis of our relationships to and at work, we’re stuck in the past – the deep, dark past.”. As for the management practices concerning decision making processes, subordinated people are needed to take part in the implementation of decisions of their superiors because of their roles as operators in this phase of the process. However they are often excluded from the decision making it self because they are not entitled to the authority to participate in this phase of the process because of their role as subordinates. Therefore the first phase - when the decisions are made - can be defined as informing, and the second phase - when decisions are being put into action - can be defined as involving. But the employees can nevertheless be characterized as participators whether they are just informed about decisions that are made (as receivers), or as operators who are involved in the implementing of the decision (as executers). In any case the employees are commanded and instructed to do so. So the term participation relates to a management practice that deals with control over the decision making process, and the power to determinate whether or when subordinate people shall be excluded or included in the process. Used in this context, the term participation refers to a management method (grounded on a vertical structure from the superior to the inferior), and not to anything mutual and reciprocal (grounded on a horizontal structure between equal people). As Bernhard and Glanz (7) stated, attempts at developing organizations often give the illusion of participation, but come down to a management trick to make people work harder. Management development is mainly focused on developing skills for competition, to be best all time, to attain the best advantage in competing with others, to succeed as winners and not be losers, to encourage promotions at the expense of others. In others words beating opponents and struggling to win the match at any cost through competition is the mantra of

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 18

management development. Competition consists of two contrary elements which are literally beating each other as conquering factors. The constructive one is that it can mobilize and unleash sealed and untapped resources inside the human being. But when these potential resources are released and unpacked in a management process, they cause severe damage and harm in the relationships between people involved. That is because the destructive one is functioning in a contradicting way and is working against the total human resources in the organization. The resources inside the winners are being stimulated and appreciated, while the resources inside the losers are being looked upon as uncompetitive and unworthy of appreciation. The destructiveness of competition arises as we earlier have mentioned from the fact that it is a primal animalistic drive focused on dominating others. In competition the winners emerge as superiors, and the losers are relegated to inferior and subordinate status. And this diversification in rank, position, status and prestige, naturally undermines relationships between people as equals, and it destroys their ability and capabilities to communicate and cooperate on a mutual and trustworthy basis. Our ability to communicate and cooperate is determined by our degree of equality. This is because people must be on the same and horizontal level to be able to grant each other equal rights of personal freedom and mutual trust, and in that sense to be capable of communicating and cooperating with each other. On the vertical and hierarchical level people will, instead, be competing and giving information to each other, rather than communicating with each other in a cooperative manner. To develop contesting and competing skills (even if the official and pretended purpose is to develop communicative and cooperative skills) managers attend training seminars in an effort to become better leaders. The vain hope is that a management training program will result in improved employee relationship and improved organizational performance. This effort is as we have argued earlier, an exercise in futility for the company. Lots of research throughout the world documents the reality of the lack of improved profitability for the organization as a consequence of management training programs. Such programs include a small minority of people in the organization because of their superior ranks and positions, and excludes a vast majority of people grounded by their status as inferiors and subordinates. It is therefore obvious that the organizational effect of management program must be marginal, when most employees are kept out of these programs. These types of training programs are, therefore, only token measure. Such tokenism insults the people who are left outside as just another form of manipulation and control. Such management tools are understood by inferior people as nothing more than a means to dominate and control the many. This type of management practice is therefore viewed as tactic for securing benefits for the few at the further expense of the many. What then are the alternatives to management development in organizational life? If we look at descriptions of the known alternatives, we will find that they are focused around work methods and work organization, and that they normally stop with the ideas of how work can be better managed through improved working methods, such as for instance working in teams. These suggestions however, lack any consideration on the creation of alternatives in relation to the distribution of power. It is the case that work methods are the result of how we choose to organize the work-situation. The power-structure is at the root of the work methods that we create. When the power-structure is in place in the organization, it informs how we are going to get the job done. Either in a vertical and hierarchical way based on superiors and subordinates, or in a horizontal and egalitarian way based on equals. Rothschild (9) refers in her paper to the researcher Kanter. Kanter states that it is the structural features of modern organizations that determine organizational behaviour, much more than individual attributes. Therefore we have to start by forming the structure in one way or another, before we can develop the appropriate work methods, working conditions and working forms.

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 19

Other experts in the working field will still argue that we don’t have to change the current structures in our organizations. All that is necessary is to change people’s attitudes so that they will behave more humanly towards each other, even though they still work within vertically and hierarchically structured organizations. The author Robert W. Fuller (19) uses this argument for the preservation of status quo in regard to the contemporary vertical and hierarchical structure in organizations. He says: “The authority of rank is so commonly misused that some jump to the conclusion that rank itself is the problem and that the solution is to do away with it. This kind of egalitarianism ignores the fact that people are inherently unequal...., and that differences of rank in a particular context may correctly reflect this. The trouble is not with rank per se but with the abuse of rank. We rightfully admire and love authorities ...- who use the power of their rank in an exemplary way. Accepting their leadership entails no loss of dignity or opportunity by subordinates. Wanda Marie Pasz has some comments to Fuller’s assertion about “our love of authorities”. She states: “It is the myth of the benevolent ruler that beloved bosses use their power in exemplary ways. The benign dictator or monarch is so beloved by his subjects that they – the subjects - don´t care about freedom. Their allegiance to their ruler doesn’t cost them any loss of opportunity or dignity either (as long they continue in their brainwashed state). ...Since terms like dictator or ruler don’t sit well with people in a democratic society, the workplace rulers are called “leaders”. Accepting subjugation to them is, as Fuller puts it, “’accepting their leadership’”. Fuller (19) states further: “Given the serious consequences of confusing rankism (abuse of rank) and rank, it bears repeating that many power differentials are legitimate and that inveighing against them or against the differences in rank that mirror them is misguided and futile. Proposing to do away with differences in ranks makes about as much sense as the notion of doing away with differences in race or gender. Without a system of ranking, complex institutions might slip into a state of disorganization, if not anarchy.” To Fuller’s statement about the risk of anarchy without a system of ranking, we will refer to our earlier arguments in this matter. Anarchy, disorganization and chaos will only appear when people are not empowered and not in charge of their own self-being, and therefore cannot take personal responsibility for their own situation in the workplace (simply because they are not allowed their personal responsibility and independence according to the system of rank). In an outside based power-structure (vertical and hierarchical) individuals are dependent of superiors and the system of control and command to prevent themselves from the risk of anarchy and chaos. Fuller is concerned about the abuse of rank (rankism) but does not see that rankism depends on a corresponding power-structure in the organization which, if we follow his reasoning, should be able to remove the main causes of rankism. He states for example that individual differences and inequalities must be reflected in corresponding differences in ranks, but cannot at the same time see that the system of rank is the cause to rankism. Because the system of rank is based upon vertical and hierarchical structuring, the system is not able to remove inequality in human relationships. The system of rank maintains and even generates more inequality, and that is its main purpose: to sustain the ranking order and to reinforce unwillingness to change the current organizational structures. Wanda Marie Pazs argues to Fullers theories as follows: “He frames the oppressive system as something that is good and natural and is only a problem to the extent that certain managers get carried away with their power and do-not-very-nice things with it. Rank is good. Rankism is bad. He fails to recognize (or even to explore) that there is a causal relationship between rank and rankism. Rank not only causes rankism – it demands rankism.”. She writes further: “Superiority was bestowed on the rankist. The rankist must be superior as a condition of his employment. The concept of sorting humans into different ranks is presented as something innate – just like

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 20

nature sorts humans into different racial groups”. Therefore individual differences and diversity in the workplace will be suppressed and oppressed when power is connected to position and rank. Individual differences will be liberated and released when power is connected to the real diversity in the organization and to the individuals as sovereign human beings. To Fuller’s excuse he is occupied with the value of “dignity” in the workplace for all employees. But he does not see that in creating dignity it is absolutely necessary to make a change in the power-structure from vertical and hierarchical to horizontal and egalitarian. The human value “dignity” can only be obtained through an organizational structure that is based upon equality, personal freedom and mutual trust between human beings on the same level. As we have mentioned earlier in this paper, subordination, submission and subservience in the relationship between superiors and inferiors, inevitably deprives the inferiors of their dignity as trustworthy persons and supplies the superiors with a sense of pride because of their authority as commanders and controllers. Wanda Marie Pasz has made some reflections about Fullers thoughts of dignity. She argues: “Subordination of human beings to other human beings, for whatever reason, deprives them of their dignity. It’s not possible to restore or bring about dignity in the workplace – not on any meaningful level. Perhaps you can make people more comfortable in their oppressed state by being more pleasant to them and avoiding overtly demeaning behaviour, but the indignity of being subject to control by others is not remedied by employing a kinder, gentler hand to the commanding and controlling.....A manager might be expected to command and control in exemplary ways but that doesn’t typically enhance the sense of dignity of their subordinates. Usually it causes converse: Fear, insecurity, intimidation. Managing in exemplary ways is about managing efficiently, improving productivity and profitability – period.” The only way to remove rankism is then to replace the ranking order (vertical and hierarchical structure) based on positions, with an order of equality (horizontal and egalitarian) based on personal responsibility and individual independence from outer control and command. The author William Bridges (20) also deals with the preservation of the current structures in organizational life. He argues: “Since the ability to manage transition is tied to the realities of an actual leader in an actual situation, mutual trust between advisor (external consultant) and leader is essential.”. Bridges focuses on the leader to facilitate change by getting people through periods of transition through control by the leader. The leader can get people to transition and in the next turn create change. Bridges (20) does not see that a connection between the individual processes inside the person and the corresponding structure will be necessary and essential to absorb and transform these individual processes to individual responsibility and personal independence. In Bridges’ mind it is the leader who prompts both transformation and change within the individuals, through a vertical and hierarchical structure, where transformation passes through the hands of the superior on to the subordinate. Bridges (20) concludes in his paper: “The best leadership programs implicitly address the challenge of understanding change, they are experiential, tailored to the needs of the leader, and based on delivering real-world results.” Developing working forms on the basis of the vertical and hierarchical structure, will consequently demand a development of working forms with superiors and subordinates as the main linkage. Developing working forms on the basis of the horizontal and egalitarian structure, will however create working forms based on true and real equality between human beings in the workplace. If we are working towards real participation and are in need of real participative methods, we have to create a corresponding structure that is horizontal and egalitarian. This development will be based on our knowledge that only equality amongst

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 21

people with the absence of ranks and positions, can create sufficient real participation in the workplace. If we do believe in true personal freedom and mutual trust as the means to create individual responsibility and personal independence at work, we have to make a complete break with vertical forms of relating and start moving toward a horizontal way of structuring the power flow in the organization. 13. The horizontal and egalitarian track in structuring the organization To describe the horizontal and egalitarian track we will start with a description of a model which gives us some alternative options in relation to power - whether we want to just be in control over ourselves or in control over others. To get the gist of this model you have to imagine that you are on a train journey and have the option of stopping at three different stations. You can also change your destination and go on with your journey to another station on the track. By choosing and selecting the respective stations, you gain different perspectives on how your personality will “match up” to the conditions at the different stations. Station 1 On this first stop you step out with the purpose of seizing as much power as possible on behalf of yourself and at the expense of others. You aim to protect all the power you get and are dependent to allying and joining forces with others who also operate as power-snatchers and power-holders. One of the main power-mechanisms is therefore to protect yourself and your fellow mates in maintaining the accumulated power-base you and your other power-associates have acquired from others. The system of control you have to establish and maintain in this first stop by your self and by your allies, is characterized as self-protecting, self-affirmative and self-preservative. On the first stop you can place yourself in a position of greed and feed yourself on the power of your respective rank and position. On this stop you will consequently get power for yourself by taking power away from others. At this stop the power-balance is based upon the principle: “Empowering some by disempowering others”. This is your offer, your choice and option on the first station. Station 2 On the second stop you step out with the purpose to share the power you acquire and obtain with others. You aim to achieve power by bringing what you get with you to others. On this stop you have to give away and share the same possibilities and options of gaining power with others on an equal basis. To get power on this station you have to build an agreement and shared understanding with others so you can be allowed and legitimized to acquire power through sharing. You are dependent on other’s cooperation and trust in allowing you to step out and have a powerful stay. You have to contribute to protecting the shared power and be focused on combating threats from outside as, for example, threats in the sense of people who want to exploit and utilize your common attained power-base. The system of control at this stop and station is characterized as self-given, self-sharing, mutual protecting and self-preservative. At this stop you consequently get power by collaboration and cooperation with others, and in contributing to keeping the station free from persons who only want to take advantage of the shared power in their self-interest. At this stop the power-base is based upon the principle: “Empowering your self by empowering others”. This is you offer, your choice and option on this station.

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 22

Station 3 In the third stop you step out with the purpose of giving away all of your powers before you are supplied with new power. You aim to give away all that you have and all that you get of power, control, status and rank voluntarily and unconditionally, before you are entitled to get power from the common power-source. You are at this stop seeking power by giving up any forms of protection and personal security, and place your power-destiny in the hands of the common interest for supplying you with the power you will need to do your tasks. The system of control at this station is characterized as self-given, mutual confidence, and self-preservative. At this stop you consequently get power by trusting yourself and others unconditionally, and with a spirit of absolute belief in what you can obtain by giving to others what you have before you can expect to get something back. The gift of giving in the sense of sharing is the most precious value in your interaction with others at this station. Therefore the gift of getting something back is only a precious value when the gift is not being taken for granted. At this stop the power-balance is based on the principle: “Dis-empowering your self before you get self-empowered”. This is your offer, your choice and your option on the third station. In my (21) article “None to command and control” I presented some guidelines about a concept for a new power-structure in the workplace. This concept is based upon the idea to transform control and steering outside the individual person in the workplace, to control and steering inside the individual person. In this way the individual human being develops the ability and capability to perform and function as a 100 % responsible and independent person in the workplace based on absolute personal freedom and mutual trust. Through this personal transition inside the individual person, the need for outside steering-systems and steering-persons to be in charge and have control over others is no longer needed and is superfluous in the organization. Through this concept of enabling and attaining real personal responsibility and mutual trust between equal individuals, we evolve a process from a vertical and hierarchical relationship between human beings to a horizontal and egalitarian relationship between human beings. To succeed in this personal transformation and organizational change, it is absolutely necessary to be ready and clear-minded for the destruction of the vertical and hierarchical order and to instead be willing and determined to construct a horizontal and egalitarian order. As I stated in the former article (21): “Without a change in structure, people will continue their current practices based on their beliefs, habits and mental patterns that these creates. Therefore a different conception of leadership (individual, personal and not by rank) is needed – one that empowers the person (inside authority and personal power) and removes the position (outside authority and positional power):” This reasoning is based upon our beliefs about the capabilities and abilities of our fellow human beings to act as fully responsible and independent individuals. These beliefs are realized when the corresponding conditions necessary for actions are created, and consequently releases the possibilities and opportunities which are embedded in all human beings as the competent persons they actually are. What do we mean by “responsibility”, “responsible” and “sense of responsibility”? When we take on responsibility we feel responsible. The person who feels responsible will give away the responsibility to others without disclaiming his or her personal responsibility. The expression “give away responsibility to others” means that we show other people trust. Then we can get responsibility from others in the sense that we can also be shown trust. When we, however, have responsibility imposed upon us from others (for example superiors) we are not able to feel the same sense of responsibility. The person who does not feel responsible will not want give away his or her responsibility to others. Without the sense of responsibility, we are not able to show others personal trust, which is the main condition in achieving mutual

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 23

trust in the workplace. We show other people trust and can give away trust to others when we are permitted and able to take personal responsibility for our own actions. To be responsible as a human being, it is therefore necessary to take personal responsibility by ourselves. We will not easily assume and take on responsibility where we are given responsibility by others through their control over our own actions. I stated further in the article: “As I see it, empowerment of people is about creating consciousness (the way we perceive and think about us selves and about others) through transformation of the power-structure in ways that establish personal (rather than positional) authority and identity. A change in the power-structure requires a change in the mental patterns that influence how we see each other, from position-based attitudes to individual-based attitudes. The kind of leadership we are used to having will inevitably change throughout the transformation, not because of the person in the position (the rank is in any case removed), but because of a new reality (brought about by a change in consciousness) that will bring about new conditions for power-sharing in the organization and in the workplace.”. In another article “About Freedom” (21) I discussed the phenomenon “freedom” in relation to the consequences of the steering-system and the steering-mechanisms in the workplace. These reflections were applied to illustrate the relationships between individuals in organizations. The reasoning goes as follows: “In outside directed systems (steering outside the individual) we are relating to each others positions and ranks. In this type of positional based system the position and rank are superior. In inside-directed systems (steering inside the individual) we are relating to each others persons. In this type of individual-based system the person, competence and relations between people are superior. In outside directed systems it is impossible to prevent or solve conflicts between the individuals because the relations between people are not built in as a mechanism into the steering-system as such in the organization. In inside-directed systems, however, conflicts are prevented or solved because the relations between people are built-in as a steering-mechanism in the organizational system. Common arguments are often presented in the sense that conflicts are natural and normal features in organizational life, and that conflicts between individuals always will occur in one way or another. This argument can be validated by the essence of the specific structuring of power. The inner life of a relationship is shaped by circumstances and the structural context the relationship is a part of. Therefore a formal structuring of power in relation to rank and position will, at the same time, shape the informal relationships between human beings. For instance a vertical and hierarchical power-structure with relationships based on superiors and subordinates will shape the corresponding informal power-structure between persons who indirectly are encouraged to take on roles of control and domination of others on an unofficial basis. The formal power-structure therefore always reflects and mirrors the informal power-structure in the workplace. Within a horizontal and egalitarian power-structure with relations based on equality, it will only be possible to act and behave as equals members and colleagues, because the power-structure reflects equal relations and demands equality to get the work done. A formal structure of power-based relations between human beings as an overarching value of the organization will consequently be reflected in a coherent informal structuring of relations in the workplace (with no opportunity whatsoever for someone to take control and command over others). Then we can talk about two types of value-based steering-systems in the workplace with in-built mechanisms: 1. A steering-system (horizontal and egalitarian) based on personal freedom and mutual trust. 2. A steering-system (vertical and hierarchical) based on non-freedom and non-mutual trust.

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 24

In the horizontal and egalitarian power-structure there is no climbing and no need for fighting each other because of the mere fact that people do not need to compete with each other for survival. In this power-structure work is personalized in relation to individual responsibilities, coherent roles, functions and tasks. People work with an unconditional trust in themselves and in each other. In that respect people are able to cooperate with each other and ask for help when help is needed. People are used to supporting each other because they know that they are at the same time supporting themselves. The egalitarian power-structure is characterized by an ongoing communicating process between equal human beings throughout their personalities, their individual authorities and personal competencies. Based on this individual-steering power-structure the individuals understand and acknowledge their mutual dependence on each other. They are ready to share and support each other without any doubt and hesitation. In summary we can conclude as follows about the benefits and advantages of the horizontal and egalitarian concept of organizing: Through this concept of organizing the workplace in a horizontal and egalitarian way, the control and steering of the work and of workers is internalized and is inside the individual based on total and absolute personalized responsibility and independence. This inside and internalized way of structuring and shaping the power, is what creates and establishes personal control of power and the confidence to use this power to execute individual made decisions. In the next round, this structuring of power will be the basic element to create real conditions for communication and cooperation between people through the horizontal order and the egalitarian power-structure. To create a community or a unity of people who are able to act unanimously in getting the work done, the main condition is that the unanimous creation is based upon the following value and principle: The individual person must become a sovereign human being which in its essence is able to discover, experience and comprehend itself as a part of the community and understand that individuals are mutually dependent on each other as long as the individuals act and behave as sovereignty individuals”. Why collectivism did not work as an organizational form, is because of the lack of understanding that a collective consists of individuals and must base its organizational structure on this fact. When the individuals are functioning 100% responsibly and independently based on total personal freedom and mutual trust, and when they at this stage have obtained personal confidence in themselves as persons, the individuals are matured enough to seek a collective processes of working together - for example in work-groups. Then the collective becomes a reality because of the real empowerment of the individual as a truly free and independent human being. Then the individual for the first time can start to use the expression “I and me” as the person’s reference to his or her contribution in the group process, and the term “we and our” as the reference to the common contributions and results in the work-group as such. The collective drifts into a vertical and hierarchical structuring when it doesn’t acknowledge the sovereignty of the individual. Instead the collective creates ranks and positions for superiors and subordinates and systems for control and command. In that way the collective becomes an authoritarian and totalitarian regime based on fear instead of trust. In this context we can also develop a description of “solidarity”. Solidarity evolves when individuals are treated as the persons they sincerely are (and not as the persons others want them to be and become). If individuals however, are treated as persons they are

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 25

supposed to be, they will not act and behave in a united way. Solidarity is a consequence of mutuality, equality and equity between human beings based on their individuality as worthy human beings in equal access to freedom and trust in the workplace. When the horizontal and egalitarian power-structure is implemented as an actual and formal reality in the organization, people will start to relate to each other as true equals. Then they for the first time will be able to share what they are and what they have with others without being afraid of losing anything and without fear of being punished just because of the persons they really are. When this power-structure is in place, it will be a great victory for humankind as the main standard of getting the work done will be the equality of relationships between all. When this power-structure is in place, it will mean a great victory for humankind as relationship among people will be governed on basis of individual and personal values which will be the main standards of getting the work done. 14. References

1. Markus Reihlen, “The logic of Heterarchies”, 1996 2. David Kipnis, “The powerholders”, 1976 3. Wendell Krossa, “Creating A Horizontal God”, 2001 4. Jack Zwemer, “The Nature of the Human Self”, 1991 “Mankind Between Two Worlds”, 1994, The New World Order”, 1994, “The openness of Man”, 1994 5. Andrew Oldenquist,“Alienation, Community and Work”, 1992 6. Ellen Langer, “The Psychology of Control”, 1983 7. Gary Bernhard and Kalman Glanz, “Staying Human in the Organization”, 1992 8. George Benello, “Economic Behaviour and Self-Management”, 1989, Workplace Democratization”, 1989 9. Joyce Rothchild, “The Cooperative Workplace”, 1989 10. C. R. Snyder and Howard Fromkin, “Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference”, 1980 11. Richard Pascale, “Managing on the Edge”, 1990 12. I. Cunningham, J.Hyman, C. Buldry, “Empowerment: The Power to Do What?”, 1996 13. C. Wharhurst and P. Thompson, “Hands, Hearts and Minds”, 1998 14. Bill Harley, “The myth of Empowerment”, 2000 15. Louis Zurcher, “The Mutable Self”, 1977 16. Max Weber, “Economy and Society”, 1968 17. Fredric Taylor, “Scientific Management”, 1911 18. Wanda Marie Pasz, “The 21st Century Workplace: R_Evolution”, 2005 19. Robert Fuller, “Democracy´s Next Step: Overcoming Rankism”, 2004 20. William Bridges, “Leading Transition: A New Model For Change”, 2000 21. Rune K. Olsen with Wanda Marie Pasz, “None to command and control”, 2005 22. Rune K. Olsen “About Freedom”, 2004 (norwegian version)

Rune Kvist Olsen © 2006 26