On "Reinventing Organizations"

[Fabio Cecin]

Yes, this. Very very very good.

1)

This helps explain my shock. When I went for my "job," I knew I was
going to get "serious." I knew some things would not be ideal. It
would be one of these "workplaces" I heard about. I was ready to
compromise: I was expecting "companies" to be serious, "structured,"
adult places: to be the "Level 5" things the Reinventing Organizations
presentation is introducing as this "super new thing." Being an
immature prick pretending to be an adult I would have to grow up quite
a bit so I would nail this "job" thing...

*Sigh.* Not even close.

Instead I go on pseudomilitary duty to serve at a giant company that
dabbles at pretending it's all a big family, everyone's a
"stakeholder", you get a badge with "values" printed on them (top-down
values used for top-down shaming only) etc. ("Green" company, Level
4), but in reality it operates at the "Orange", Level 3 model (1950's
company, MBOs, etc.) and the regular, dreaded meetings make you feel
you're in an "Amber Level 2" church or army.

When you realize the place you're in has at least two levels of
propaganda in it, and the ideal pictured by the most idealistic
version of the propaganda is already obsolete.

2)

I for one would probably fit into such a Level 5 company, but the
"Level" from this model has something orthogonal to it which I,
personally, think is vital, which is how the organization sees itself
as a member of a wider society.

We change organizations internally (change the people, change the
story, change the structure, etc.) so that:

a) People in them suffer less and less; and
b) Everything outside of it gets better and better.

But item (b) is often limited at outer gains in "capitalistic" (best
word available, or perhaps "statist") terms. But there's a whole swath
of (b) that never ever seems to be discussed by people involved in
management, entrepreneurship, etc. It's always "safe" in that respect.
We "change" because it is going to be "more efficient" or "more
lucrative."

And this is not just for business management reinvention, it is for
everything under this culture. In Basic Income, the argument is also
usually presented as a "safe" thing, because it saves money, because
it is virtually immune to corruption -- and it is, but it is not the
point. The point of these transformations, to me, is that even if they
were _not_ obviously good for "business," they would _still_ be the
_right_ thing to do, for other equally objective and verifiable
reasons, at a much more important, moral or ethical sphere, but that
are outside of the cultural capacity to see or discuss them.

Fabio