"Particle Man, Particle Man, doing the things a particle can. What's he like? It's not important. Particle Man." -- They Might Be Giants - 'Particle Man'
Organisations and their workers are most like gas particles. Not football teams, armies, organisms, or machines. Gas. From this we can infer that random, meaningless activity - from the viewpoint of an outside observer - is the natural state of organisations.
Gas, like any other material, is made up of many particles. Individual gas particles move according to well-known physical laws. They are governed by Newtonian motion which covers momentum, acceleration, and what happens in collisions. If we zoom in on a single particle, we would observe it behaving like a little billiard ball. It would reflect off other objects like a billiard ball, and it would keep moving in a straight line unless another force acted on it. This is Classic Newtonian mechanics.
However, classic mechanics cannot adequately describe what happens when we zoom out to view the whole container of gas. What we see now when we try to track our single gas particle is completely different. The well-behaved gas particle we observed before is now zig-zagging all over the place. This is because of the countless forces acting upon the gas particle by other particles. This movement is called Brownian Motion, and no attempt has been made to model it, because Brownian Motion is essentially classical mechanics, just in all directions at a billion times a second. In fact, physical laws describing gas only begin at the container's edge, ignoring completely what goes on inside the container. Pretty much the only things we do know about gas is:
Philosophising aside, humans are simple. They too respond predictably to stimuli - forces if you will. Feed them, they will smile. Cut them, they will bleed. Pay them, they will work. Freudian psychology is not new, neither are Behavioural or Cognitive psychologies which investigate responses to stimuli. It is thus possible to predict - even model - the behaviour of a single person in isolation.
But when you put a single person into an organisation, you subject them to many invisible forces. There are political forces, geographical forces, and social forces, to name a few. For instance, the CFO's favourite colour, how far the photocopier is from the workstation, and whether IT helpdesk decides to reset everyone's password are all forces that, while affecting the individual in a real and quantifiable way, are usually invisible to observers outside the organisation. The individual worker may thus be acting rationally while appearing chaotic and irrational.
It's no surprise, then, that the following observations have been made about workers in organisations:
First illustration: The CFO's favourite colour is mauve, and the CEO's favourite colour is also mauve. Both want to contribute to (take credit for) distinct sections of the annual report, which hinges on their approval. The annual report is produced with mauve text on a mauve background.
Second illustration: IT Tech support is physically attracted to females in Marketing. There are on average two IT males hanging around every one Marketing blonde. Hence, marketing campaigns are produced on time, but Customer Support's computer systems will not cope with increased demand from the campaigns.
Third and final illustration: Corporate Services has so many policies that they draft a policy on how to manage policies.
In all of these illustrations, individual workers respond to valid pressures to produce absurd results which have no direct effect on the organisation but to affirm its existence.
Executives, of course, would rather hear that their companies are like 'elite teams' or 'well oiled machines'. Unfortunately this is unrealistic.
The 'team/army' model of organisations falls short by assuming that all team members share the same goals. In most organisations, unrelated and even opposing goals are common. Organisations are thus more similar to competition games or wars than distinct teams or armies.
Similarly, the 'Organism/Body' model of organisations falls short by assuming that distinct parts will perform well-defined functions indefinitely. Organisations, on the other hand undergo frequent 'restructures' due to chaotic internal pressures and the uniformity of its components. It is not uncommon for one department to end up with another's work (and budget).
I now propose:
Given the myriad of forces acting upon workers, including a perceived need to find achievement and meaning in their work, the natural state of organisations is chaos.
In the same way that gas particles only serve to prop up the walls that contain them, so do workers only serve to prop up the structure of the organisation. Not by achieving meaningful goals, but by buzzing around chaotically.
'Meaningful' work is a red herring that is irrelevant the moment an individual joins an organisation, whether as an employee, a contractor, or a consultant. Once they are exposed to the forces within an organisation, their individual movements become chaotic.
'Achievement' is similarly irrelevant as all sense of direction is fleeting. A mission statement is only relevant to the CEO who wrote it. Achievements are only temporary and will be rolled back eventually as the chaos takes hold.
Keeping this in mind, the individual worker can walk away with the following principles.
There are many ways you can view work and organisations. Who is to say that the gaseous model is any more delusional than another? It is certainly the most pessimistic, and should fit well with those of you who like to 'aim low and exceed your expectations'. I find that the gaseous model will benefit those who are disillusioned with work and unable to fathom why things don't happen, or why things seem to happen for no reason. The answer, of course, is that nothing is supposed to happen - nor is anything able to happen. You cannot do anything about it, so you might as well surf the net and look busy.
Friday 18th July - In musical chairs, many people scramble for a limited number of seats. Those who don't get to sit down lose out for good, but no one cares about them because they're the minority. Heartless: yes, fun: maybe, but it serves to educate us about the 'free' market that globalisation is slowly pushing all world markets to; including the so-called 'job market'.
Two articles I read recently painted a depressing picture of work in the future. Employment will become increasingly part-time, biased against older workers, temporary, and less rewarding as we compete with outsourcers, fresh graduates, and 'imports' for limited vacancies. Notwithstanding the marginalising effect, or deceptive logic of this trend, it seems here to stay.
Many recruiters will try to persuade you - through soul-searching or strange psych tests - to use these uncertain times as an opportunity to find your calling, and excel at it, notwithstanding the instability. I feel this is negligent as it ignores the resulting angst when your commoditised work is inevitably - sometimes suddenly - terminated. It glosses over the fact that the employment 'contract' has been betrayed. (It leads to greater turnover for recruiters, though.)
Unfortunately, there are things you need a full-time permanent job for. And these aren't trivial either. Home loans, Life insurance, and even Visas are near impossible to get with part-time or contract work.
Conventional jobs have not disappeared altogether, they have just gotten more scarce. But there are some industries where they are drying up at a much slower rate than the norm. These industries generally contain organisations which are:
Two examples I can think of are: the public sector (including the military) and organised crime. Because people in these industries tend to look out for their own, jobs in such organisations are generally secure - you can expect to have them for life. (A short life, if gangster films are to be believed.) The stigma of working for them, I feel, is outweighed by the stable (if not stellar) pay. For instance, many Governments avoid the embarrassment of laying people off by 'redeploying' them - and paying them while a position is being found! Anyway, who cares about stigma if you'll never have to find another job?
If you want to stop worrying if your job (and paycheck) will be there tomorrow, then place working in these organisations at a premium. Lie, cheat, kill, and steal in order to get in. (Remember: you will be competing with other like-minded people who can overlook the stigma to see the benefits.)
The only way to win at musical chairs is to 'position' yourself out of the game. It's a lot harder than it looks, but what price can you put on job security? When employers myopically betray their employees by focussing on the bottom line, looking after number one - a full time job in itself - falls on your own shoulders.
Which is a pity. I would much rather be working.