Why we need more humane use of systems and technology, not just sytems aimed at profits
The size and complexity of modern corporations increases the use of systems to manage them. Since the nature and use of systems depends on what they are designed to achieve—making ever larger profits, or creating better, more civilized workingsituations—there€™s no contest in our Hamburger Management world. Quick profits win hands down—even when the resulting working patterns create misery for many. Yet if systems are the key to efficient, profitable operations, they can also improve working life for everyone.
In his book In Praise of Slowness: Challenging the Cult of Speed 
This creed of subordinating human needs to systems designed for quick profits has become the norm in industrialized societies. We€™re told that time is money; that the key to growth—even survival —is to be the lowest-cost producer; that better, more mechanized systems are essential; and that reducing the number of people employed is made inevitable by competition.
More . . . or better?
The truth is more complex. Faced with a choice between using technology to increase output or reduce input, organizations have chosen the former. We use it to produce more, not to maintain output and lessen work. And since it€™s assumed people are an expensive resource, we€™ve added the notion that cutting numbers is the the very first choice to increase profitability.
Do more with fewer people is the modern mantra. For work that cannot (yet) be mechanized, this means:
- Making fewer people work faster, harder, and longer hours to produce the same amount—or better still, more—for less cost.
- Finding ways like overseas outsourcing to pay people less overall.
- Using systems to make the work demand less experience and know-how, so you can employ younger, cheaper, and less well-qualified people. Look at the attempts by politicians to impose standardized education, based merely on teaching to pass known tests.
- Lowering quality and customer service, so that you can employ fewer people, pay them less, and offer less to your customers.
As usual, as a nation we want it all: greater production, more profit, fewer employees, and full employment. How we propose to square that circle isn€™t clear, though current actions suggest we€™re trying to do it by increasing consumption through taking on more and more debt.
The Hamburger Management feedback loop
What we€™re creating is a feedback loop. To raise profits, jobs are cut. That means fewer people with enough money to increase spending. But sales must rise, because output is increasing and lower sales will once again limit profit. Those who have money must spend more of it on consumer goods. THose without must borrow more. Profits go up, but—since no one is satisfied with any level of profit—the process returns to cutting or outsourcing more jobs.
Is it any wonder the riich are becoming fewer and richer while the poor are becoming more plentiful and poorer. Keep this feedback loop going long enough and you€™ll have all the conditions for widespread social unrest and alienation. Isn€™t that what we€™re already seeing in large parts of the world?
There€™s an old story about a Roman emperor who was shown a wonderful harvesting machine. €œIt can do the work of at least 100 men,€ the inventor proclaimed. €œWith just 10 of my machines, you would need no people at all to collect the harvest.€
The emperor congratulated him on his ingenuity, admired the machine —then ordered it destroyed utterly, the plans burned, and the inventor put to death. When the stunned inventor protested, the emperor said: €œI must see that my people have work as well as bread.€
Can you imagine the reaction of a CEO today?
What do we want our technology to achieve?
This story isn€™t told to launch a Luddite attack on technology. Technology is great. What causes the problem is how it€™s used—and that€™s down to people.
Is it better to use our technology to make a few people very, very rich, even if the bulk have to work harder then ever? Or to allow more people to live good lives with less effort? The same technology can do either—but not both at the same time. It€™s a matter of choice.
Elephants are large, slow, and live long lives. Shrews are small, incredibly fast and active, and die within two years or so. Giant tortoises move incredibly slowly and live for centuries. Nature has fixed a link between speed and shortness of life. In our rushed and harried world, we rely more and more on medical technology to fend off the diseases caused by the stress our lifestyle produces.
I wonder how healthy and extended people€™s lives would be if we devoted our know-how to that objective, instead of patching up our walking wounded to squeeze a few more dollars out of them?
[ratings]
Technorati Tags: humane use of systems and technology, more civilized working, working patterns, human needs, outsourcing, overwork, burnout, excessive hours, profits versus people
