The Mechanical Myths
In the mythos of modern leadership, all problems are solvable with the right algorithm and all future directions are discernable with the right data. And it is the Mechanical Model that allows the “information and calculations” to drive successful outcomes. Unfortunately, that
“reasoning” has created a number of myths that permeate organizations in Mechanicsville. Out of the technocratic mindset emerges a slavery of the mind that creates the illusion of control without consideration for the real inputs and variables.
Of the various Mechanical Model Myths, three are the most pernicious:
1) The Model is Non-Religious. The core of this myth suggests that the Mechanical Model rids an organization of biases and contortions created by any and all “systems of faith.”
2) The Model is Sufficient. This myth posits that as the Mechanical Model is pursued to perfection, it becomes the complete answer to organizational leadership and future success.
3) The Model is Objective. Embedded in this myth is the idea that the use of the Mechanical Model eliminates the vice of subjectivity that is driven by frail emotions and passions.
Working in concert, the Mechanical Myths form the basis for what Human Replacement Theory describes as the “Eliminate and Replace Approach” to organizational development. It is the underlying philosophy that emboldens leadership within Mechanicsville to eliminate the “unreliable” human parts of their organizations and to replace them with more “predicable” machine parts. It takes little time, however, for that approach to begin to sever the connections that attach human institutions with their successful futures.
The Critical Linkages with Success
There is no more important question for any leader to address than “What factors determine whether our organization will be successful, or not?” And while the answers to that question can take many forms, the “critical linkages” that are implicit within the question are approached very differently within our two cities. As might be anticipated, the linkages found within Mechanicsville are found inside their systems and processes. The linkages with success in Anthropolis are rather connected to their beliefs and natures.
(Placeholder for table)
It is important to note that the linkages with success within human institutions are directly related to passions, understanding and trust. At least that is how they see things in Anthropolis. This is in stark contrast with Mechanicsville where they link their future successes to “How well we execute against our plans.” In the former city, they see plan development and execution as an obvious and rather primitive “givens.” In Anthropolis, the idea that the fate of an organization rests in the loving arms of the execution of their stated plans appears sadly misdirected and even comical.
The “Crushing” of Dehumanization
As the mechanical myths are propagated and as the critical linkages with success are squandered, the drumbeat of dehumanization can be heard. As each of the elements of the Anthropic Profile are dismantled, the organization’s members are removed further from any sense of belonging and commitment to the stated “mission and vision” of the organization. Theprocess unfolds as a function of the response of humanity to being both trivialized and commoditized. The response can be seen in each level of the Anthropic Profile – and with two levels of intensity.
(Placeholder for table)
What is most amazing is that it is so brutally apparent, and this to even the casual observer, that the dehumanization of modern institutions creates these very human responses. But, in Mechanicsville, all the attention is being paid to measurable results and completed tactics. To be concerned whether the organization is turning into a mass of belief-based contradictions is just not on their radar screen. The end result is a “team” that would rather be any place else. As importantly, organizations that are just beginning to make the turn toward dehumanization suffer these same symptoms, but they largely go unnoticed or are simply ignored as “Well, that’s just the way things work.” But that is just not true. It really does not have to be that way.
The Cost of Organizational Life as a “Game”
There are two operating “motifs” that can readily be observed within the life of all humaninstitutions and of various shapes and sizes. The selection of motif, or the artistic design, of theway organizations see themselves is of paramount importance in the way their futures unfold. The designs deployed in Mechanicsville and Anthropolis provide an important insight intothepath of dehumanization – or in its avoidance.
1) Mechanicsville – Games with Rules and Scores. This is the operating mode where anorganization sees itself on a playing field and pitted against an opponent. It is best conceivedasbeing in a game with a set of rules defined by someone else, and with a scoring systemthat
determines who the winners are.
2) Anthropolis – Quests with Purposes and Destinations. This is a “way of thinking” that seesan organization as on a journey following a set of prescribed purposes. It is best conceived as a quest with a deeply embedded sense of purpose and directed towards an end-state that
provides the actual definition of winning.
Organizational life in the game mode provides another avenue towards dehumanization. Whenthe other team is defined in terms of the enemy, when the rules of game are always inquestion, and when winning is arbitrarily conceived, the opportunity for dehumanizationis
always present. It is fascinating to note that most of the world’s greatest sports teams, thoseplaying games with rules and scores, see themselves rather as on a quest with purposes anddestinations. It is not the game that is the problem, it is rather how the field of play is conceived.
“Our modern organizations are simply compelled to keep up with most recent advances in technology. Recognized or not, our organizations must also keep up with the most recent challenges to our humanity.” – Brian Nygaard