This instalment of my ‘I shall reveal unto a mystery’ series will address why collectivism impedes discretionary efforts. From Aubrey Daniels International:
“Discretionary effort is the level of effort people could give if they wanted to, but above and beyond the minimum required. Many organizations manage performance in such a way that motivates employees to do only enough to get by and avoid getting in trouble (negative reinforcement). Typically, these organizations manage by exception, providing consequences for worker’s performance only when it falls below the standard or minimum required. This approach gets immediate results, but just enough behavior to stop the threats and the potential for other negative consequences in the near future. It suppresses discretionary effort because there’s nothing in it for people to do more than the minimum required.”
In a system which eschews individuality discretionary efforts will be limited in direct proportion to the measure of conformity to the status quo promoted within this system. I know of one senior bureaucratic adviser who was asked to write an in depth report which would examine the efficiency of critical processes in the system on which this person advised. She assembled a team of international experts to advise her throughout this complex process. The ensuing report took an entire year to complete at great expense and discretionary effort. Here is the thing, when the report was completed and some of her colleagues had read it this person was warned about ‘sector loyalty’. The basic message was ‘How dare you suggest improvements that would return greater value to the end user and the taxpayers? The current status quo serves this bureaucracy very well indeed!’ This person was ostracized and had her salary reduced after the report was completed. So, I ask you, what motivation is there for someone to wish to excel at their work in such a broken system? The clear message is, ‘Do nothing more than absolutely necessary.’ If fact, she was advised by a family member to do just that. However doing such is extremely difficult if a person of integrity is intrinsically motivated. Nevertheless, for many such a system will drive out all intrinsic motivation. This is indeed why collectivism does not and cannot sustain success nor pursue excellence.
I would like to cite another example from another situation with which I am familiar. A mentor of mine was seconded to Lansing MI to manage a project on behalf of his firm. I was working as a consultant in Grand Rapids at the time and on occasion would visit him on returning to my condo in Kentwood. My friend took a great deal of care while exercising discretionary effort managing the project in Lansing. I saw him go to great lengths to ensure his project's success as he dealt with its needs while also encountering managers who resisted his efforts. Sometime afterwards he overheard a conversation back at his own facility in Ontario. Someone who had not been involved with Lansing was claiming credit for things it was not possible for him to have accomplished since he hadn’t been on site in Lansing. My mentor approached him and inquired in front of other colleagues as to how these claims could possibly be accurate. After embarrassed giggling from those who were present while my mentor called this fellow out for his prevarication the crowd melted away and the false father of success was left more than a little humiliated. Ah yes, success has a hundred fathers and failure is an orphan.
Both scenarios share this in common: collectivism. The inability to stand on one’s own two feet accompanied by the need to hide in some collective group. In a 'collective' successes will be shared by the group while failures will be blamed on whoever dared to buck the status quo. And so, I return to the definitive tome on the subject, "Manipulism and the Weapon of Guilt" written by Mikkel Clair Nissen which is available free of cost to you at this link: http://manipulism.com/ I quote from Mikkel’s forward:
“This exposure (of collectivism), based almost entirely on social science, is so controversial and comprehensively detailed that Denmark’s perceived right-wing newspaper—ironically the same newspaper that caused the Muhammad cartoons controversy in 2005 in the name of freedom of speech—will not review my book. This explicative psychological index (e.g., collectivist traits, indoctrination methods, intimidation techniques, and ways of passive coercion) is meant as a gift from me to the reader for self-empowerment through social observations, as well as a subconscious journey for the readers themselves. Please share this knowledge with friends and support my effort to alert the world.
The intimidations (threats, lies, and deceptions) in attempt to discredit me and deny this book’s honesty and preciseness are all worth my while. Regardless, this book will raise questions and effect societal changes, and the outcome will speak for itself. Wars should be fought with words—the right words—and never through coercion or terror. Welcome to my words of revolution.”
“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.” —Albert Einstein
Mikkel’s book is a game changer and a must read. His main assertions are directed toward socialism, however any form of collective thought which impedes discretionary effort certainly applies as well. We live in the age where the alleged rights of groups have replaced individual liberty under law. We need now, more than ever, to be reminded of why it is critical to be deemed equal under the law. No group has more rights than any other. No matter how many social justice warriors hit the streets in pussy hats! We need to be reminded why individuals and their individual discretionary efforts count. The needs of the many do not trump the rights of the individual. Every society and every nation which has gone down that collectivist path to Hades ended up with tyranny accompanied with shared failure characterized by an adoration of the status quo.
No comments:
Post a Comment