It is salutary for organizations to undergo periodic
renewal and reset. Pruning away obsolete concepts, shedding contradictory
values, and eliminating improper activities help the organizational tree grow
healthier and stronger. Organizations that resist change are doomed to live a
mediocre existence, and eventually join other relics in the dustpan of time.
The Vietnam War unleashed pent-up demand for reforming
our social, economic, and political system. Since then we have made inroads in
our search for a more equitable society and a more transparent political modus
operandi. But change has been too slow and the job is far from complete. Much
remains to be done. And for many, progress, in addition to being too slow, has
been uneven.
Organizations, similarly to humans, evolve. Attitudes
change and laws are amended to reflect contemporary realities. What worked
before may not be appropriate today. Folks have no stomach for repression,
unfairness, cruelty, and dogma. They clamor for real change, and they demand it
immediately. Reforming the entire system, however, can be a daunting effort.
For the past 50 years, the country has slowly shifted away from the founding vision of “to each
according to his/her capabilities” toward a more egalitarian vision of “to each according to his/her needs.”
Some argue that nirvana is not in either, but it might be in melding the two.
Rather than attacking each other’s vision, we might be better served to examine
the benefits of each and construct a new paradigm that benefits all.
The Founding
Model
Based on the free enterprise model, America was built
on the strength of the rugged individualist. This terrain was perfect for the
capitalist model to flourish. Along with its many benefits came major
abuses. Profits became the end rather
than the means to success. People soon became suspicious of the capitalists’
motives and offended by what they saw as excesses.
The emphasis prior to 1960 was on integration. Newcomers were encouraged to assimilate, to learn English, and to be
self-reliant. They were promised the American Dream. You work hard and you
have a chance to advance. There would be minimal economic and social barriers to
advancement. It was all based on merit. Sure, pockets of little Italy, little Poland,
little whatever existed, but patriotism was extolled. Racial discrimination however was
swept under the rug.
Experience in other countries has shown that it does not
have to be that way. In the face of the total collapse of the Marxist/Leninist
model, folks realized that there might be a middle ground where the two opposing visions
could merge and give rise to a more equitable and compassionate model.
Scandinavia was the laboratory where these two competing models have come
together to provide a more balanced approach. Is this reconciliation perfect?
Possibly not, but it has moved the yardstick forward.
Emphasis has lately shifted to differentiation.
Fissures in the meritocratic model exposed racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia
and religious intolerance. Whites have been accused of privilege over other
races. Women have bumped into artificial ceilings. Unregulated immigration has given
rise to a large pool of residents with nowhere to go for refuge except their ethnic
barrios. While many espoused the benefits of diversity, in practice, diversity might have hurt those who have not learned to speak English or assimilated. Diversity seems
to have morphed into separation.
Changing the
System
Changing a large system before we fully understand it is a folly. Yet many so-called proponents have suggested just that; moved by
impatience perhaps or urged by political opportunism. Large systems change when
they are ready to change.
Examples abound that illustrate this point. The civil
rights movement continues its battle 50 years after Doctor King’s death. Its
job is not yet complete. Women have been clamoring for equal pay for equal work
for decades, yet the issue is not fully resolved. Harassment based on gender is
not new. As the gap between rich and poor grows so has anger toward what people
perceive an unjust and unfair system.
Change management theory teaches us that there are
three main strategies for change; each has its pluses and minuses. Some people
advocate the incremental, go-slow method. Contemporarily people clamor for
transformational change. The problem for
many is that both methods are way too slow. So what’s left might be a third way …
revolutionary, albeit peaceful, change. The downside with the latter is that
revolutionary change is hard to control.
Oscillation
versus Advancement
In my view (I could be in the small minority), our political
system, as it has existed for much of our history, is responsible for slowing
the change process. Every eight years or
so the other party takes control. The incoming party shaves off any gains made
by the previous party that do not conform to its ideology. Advancement of the agenda is immediately followed by reversal. This periodic oscillation
reduces the forward movement made by the prior administration.
We have witnessed this phenomenon this year. The incoming
administration has erased or diminished any advancement by the prior
administration in climate change, education, foreign policy, regulations,
healthcare, immigration, and so on. The
only period in our history where substantial change took roots was during the
1930-1940’s. The party in power was able to maintain control of Congress and
the White House for twenty years, thus enabling the nation to digest and
institutionalize significant changes.
Lessons from
China
Revolutions are chaotic and messy. They unnerve
people, and often lead to instability and unintended consequences. Once they
reach the tipping point, revolutions are hard to stop. They breed another form
of intolerance … against those who think or behave differently. Although
peaceful in name, impatience often leads to autocratic and violent acts.
The Cultural
Revolution in China divided families, elders from the younger, and led to
many despicable acts. Old men and women were sent to re-education camps. Professionals
were demoted and relegated to menial jobs. Perceived bourgeoisie was punished
with exile or jail. The dogma of the little
red book became the ruler of the proper way to interpret events or make
decisions. Another form of PC? Symbols were erased. So-called privileges negated.
Resistance as a form of opposition can be a zero-sum
game. Relativism takes over … the ends justify the means. Experience has shown
that revolutions breed counter-revolutions, and the winners over time might
become the losers. What goes around comes around …?
Fast Forward
In the past few weeks we have witnessed the dam bursting,
triggering an avalanche of accusations, mea culpas, and sordid details.
Luminaries, movie moguls, politicians, company executives, union executives, actors,
famous sports figures, TV personalities, and religious persons have been accused of sexual
harassment and assault. Members of the Congress have been on the receiving end
of 260 accusations, silenced by more than $ 17 million dollars of the people’s money.
In short time, hypocrisy by the political and economic
elite has been exposed and pilloried. Some folks suggest that it is only the
tip of the iceberg; that major revelations will come out regarding similar
abuses in our campuses and other institutions.
Others suggest that the opening of floodgates will usher much needed transparency.
For many women, on the receiving end, it is a time for
catharsis and cleansing. Purging the system of unwanted sexual advances is long
overdue, many say. Women have suffered
in silence for violation of their person and dignity.
Suspected perpetrators have been shamed and
ridiculed. A few have taken
responsibility for their boorish behavior while others retreat to the familiar
Sargeant Schultz defense of “I know nothing.”
Looking for redemption for their inexcusable behavior, a few elites have sought
the refuge of four-star “treatment” or “rehab” centers or taken a long sabbatical searching for redemption.
Dante, the author of the Divine Comedy, had a
special place in hell for hypocrites.
They were condemned to walk around carrying heavy capes made out of
solid (heavy) gold. The cape was a metaphor for cover-up and phoniness. This
metaphor is most appropriate today.
Much hypocrisy and “I
am holier than thou” pronouncements by our politicians, religious leaders,
and other officials have shielded offenders from prosecution, shaming, and
ostracism for years. It is their silence and cover-up that must be rejected. They
were complicit in hiding unspeakable acts of abusive and perhaps criminal
behavior.
We are all guilty of this in the end. Finger pointing is a diversionary tactic. We
cannot escape to the sidelines … time to man-up? We must admit that we knew
that it was happening and that we chose to look sideways. You can say that Pontius Pilate behavior in most of us is alive
and well.
It is time for immediate change … we have run out of
excuses.
Where Next?
We need to expose all our blemishes and defects if we are to
construct a more perfect union. Reformation brings many benefits, addresses many
inequities, and heals our wounds. But it is a painful process.
There are many overarching goals that can bring us
together as a nation. We need to shift our focus to things that matter, where
common ground and common purpose can meet.
We need
better paying jobs. We need more equitable taxation. We need a better health
system. We need to improve our infrastructure. We need to rationalize our immigration
system. We need better ways to protect our democracy and way of life.
We need, we need, we need…
There is much that can bring us together! Instead, divisive
parochial interests entrap us. We use identity slices of race, age, religion,
national origin, gender, or sexual preference to expose differences.
Let’s remember that we are all Americans, and travel
on the same boat.
