Why are people ready to resign? — Part II Section 3/3
What is a life in complexity as a digital human in the infosphere?
Original ideation writing title: The Great resignation & the Great gig in the sky (Ref.: Pink Floyd).
Full series reference at the end.
Introduction — the condition and betterment
Coming to the end of the 3-part series it is obvious that the great resignation is not a secluded phenomenon and has already been in the making for decades exemplified by different outlier behaviour — as any change is most often seen as deviating from the normal (see e.g. Edgar Morin “Seven complex lessons in education for the future, Unesco, 2002, Part II-section 2/3).
Maybe a better mindset is to observe this as that of early adopters of the emerging and small mindset changes that are taking effect in the world — COVID, Environment, Climate, Inequality (and micro mortgage), MeToo (expecting a counter-movement of SoWhat at least in regard to the culture of feeling offended by everything) and let me apologise on behalf of myself, being a Dane with Viking ancestors, to the Brits for our behaviour some time back in history, I guess we would behave differently if we had to do it all over again, wars, technology-induced attention to fundamental ethical topics (a revival from the least expected place-technology), and on and on. The simple conclusion is that the world is rarely black or white, but rather more often black and white, and most of the time scales of grey.
When we dig deeper, we often find better and more substantial answers — there is only ONE life. Reinforcing the silos between private and professional existence will inevitably enhance dichotomies and feed the ignorant surface talks of either/or over both/and.
Mitigating “hurry sickness” is symptom treatment it is not a cure — it takes different methods and approaches to identify a cure, some are lightweight others are heavy, but they do exist if we start looking for them.
This last section of the last part is about human existence and (ancient) structural constraints that are still in place and thriving, and about what alternatives could be to the existing “normal”. These are typically not a one-man job, which is also why this is about developing a relational philosophy and the relational value of aggregation (to use the words of Luciano Floridi). Heavy lifting is needed — and I invite everyone to pitch in!
(How) Can work be a human condition?
When work becomes work for the sake of work (financial survival) we have lost the working spirit (curiosity, creation, passion, service etc.). The working spirit is not only about producing the most in the shortest span of time, in the capitol of the working spirit resides human ingenuity, creativity, innovation, potentiality and the ability to find affordances in constraints and detect constraints in affordances in complex contextualities.
The neurotic obsession with growth has created a global state of self-deception, that it is ok to ignore our own nature and burn ourselves to the ground — because we are smart humans, we think we can beat our own odds (how stupid is that?)!
As indicated in the quote by Floridi (part II Section 2) it is a kind of symbiosis (technology, resources, culture) we are looking for. The human condition cannot be fixed with functional solutions only because functional solutions first and foremost pertain to structural structures invented by humans. Solutions to our (human) condition as humans must also be human — it is banal and self-evident;
it is pure logic.
Looking for these solutions must then also have an outset in the human condition and not only the functional structure. The twist is that both the human condition and functional structures are at interplay, they are the constraint and affordances of natural and artificial life — so instead of dichotomising them we should embrace both and create a united approach. In short, viable solutions are preconditioned by the co-existence of the natural and the artificial — and we (humans) are in the middle.
Instead of asking “What do you need to be successful in your job” we must be asking “What do you need to be successful in YOUR life”. When we do this, we are asking towards the individual human condition, and only then can we uncover the fruitful compromises, the compromises that go beyond consent, those that are mutual more than based on reciprocity, those that create connotations of consensus and perhaps true consensus — by the simple fact that they are reached in joint exploration. These types go from being semi-forced (fear-based) consents to creating commitment and if we are good at this, we may even create engagement. Secondly, and equally important, we should start asking ourselves what I can do to make others successful in their job and life, here the knitting analogy (Luciano Floridi) is perhaps more purposeful than the weaving analogy (Edgar Morin) talking more to the networked our relations constitute and translating the “wholes & parts” relating to the right context (the right level of abstraction) in a constructionist sense.
“Finally, the personal fabric is the “inter-temporality” of an individual life, that is to say, the fact that human existence, individual and social, is like a knitted thread, whose loops must relate correctly with each other according to a coherent design. For example, if one invests in higher education one should then find a place in society to work. There must be inter-temporal links that give meaning to paths, trajectories, expectations, individual and social human projects (more on this later), and so on. Politics must know how to take charge of the “inter-temporality” of people’s lives and of the intrinsic relationships and connections between the phases of human existence, addressing not only individuals’ interests but also their hopes, by means of a human project, as we shall see next.”
[Luciano Floridi: The Green and the Blue] [i]
Yet, our individual existence is very much temporal, and at the same time stretched to those who came before us, those who are among us, and those who come after us — physical existence may be defined in a number of years, but not our existence as an “informational” entity because we leave traces and residue of who we were, are and will be — a species of living inter-temporal hermeneutics, which also enables us to relate and contextualise, creating coherence and congruence — so we may actually understand ourselves… and others (in Buberian terms).
Perceptions and structural constraints
Let’s for a moment assume life is a gift, at least in the sense that the one who has it is given some sort of capital to spend in a given timeframe (the live life and the residue of that life for the after-living). The thesis that we are masters of our own house is of course partly wrong, no matter how appealing the idea may be in its absolute conception it is absurd. Living on borrowed time is more precise in this context and then the question from economic theory pop-up, as to how do we repay or give back what we have borrowed? This can seem off track but pertain to one of the most problematic topics of human existence: The perception of ownership and hence wealth (The wealth of Nations by Adam Smith is a remarkable piece on both topics, of ownership and wealth).
In recent years we have seen a shift in perception with e.g. sharing economy and leasing, renting a software solution is absolutely hyped still, known as “cloud solutions” or “SaaS” Software as a service”. The idea of rent and pay makes much sense for many items and for many reasons — utility and convenience being two predominant factors. The basic idea is to increase economic/financial independency and act environmentally sustainably.
However, when we look at the heavier structural topics in human life, like buying a car or even heavier a house we have an ancient structure in place still. Of course, we can lease or rent, but in these scenarios, the face of profit always emerges. Another face that pop-up is the biological inherited idea that we need to gather provisions to survive, so we end up busting our buts so we can save up — many being wealthier in their 80s than when they needed financial room in their 30s! A simple yet effective part-solution would be to view the mortgage as a highly efficient positive-sum game, borrowing the needed money and paying interest only — the value is still present and although with flux, in general, appreciating in value (contrary to contemporary vehicles, until they potentially become antique and a collector’s item, it depreciates in value — for a vivid and insightful tale of this in the frame of semantic capital, see Floridi: Semantic capital: Its nature, value and curation [ii]).
If politicians wanted to, they could even put a limit on the interest rate by providing security in the form of virtual capital (state bitcoins) and hence ensuring that this major acquisition would be easier attainable for more individuals in society creating leeway for humans to live a human life with less financial stress (after all it is the citizens of the world that own the states). As the real estate appreciates it builds margin to any compliance amount and generates opportunities for parties involved to explore and exploit as deemed prudent. One could say that the relation between the parties, the money and the collateral become (almost) mutual and symbiotic. Potentially also diminish the competition of making a profit off us commoners' struggle to house and feed our families. Such a move could be said to be an operationalisation of Floridi’s term of “Infraethics” that societies must provide through politics for their citizens to enable flourishing lives. In more technical terms we could claim the Level of Abstraction (LoA) has diverged and the interfaces are solely controlled by financial institutions, and as such only function one-way by dictation and only holds the lowest level of relational value, namely that on the purely transactional level and at best a zero-sum game. Revising these types of fundamental structures is part of a relational philosophy, supporting what Floridi states as the “relational value of aggregation” and holds the potential to form virtuous cycles because relations are the medium for contagions — that is also the case with the positive virus (the virus is in fact ignorant to specific hosts, but not the generic! — also a discussion of types & tokens… for another day along with figuring out if positive virus exist?).
The basic problem in this context is the case where the fear of losing your job for financial reasons (your ability to support your life and family) outweighs the “joy” of having a job because this will impact behaviour, integrity, authenticity, in the sense that you risk compromising values out of fear of being out of a job.
Although not defining the average worker Koestenbaum makes a structural point:
“Work, for the average employee, is external to his or her life; therefore, work is experienced as a constraint imposed from outside the self. The self must cope with a medium that, like a foreign protein, is alien to itself. And that is time, for it exists in time. Here, the self lives from outside in” (Ibid.p.85)
The fear of losing one’s job is grounded in survival and maybe also in parts of the loss of identity. It should be obvious to see the danger in living outside-in e.g., identifying so strongly with your job that it defines you! For the sake of repetition, there must be a both/and state creating a healthier balance, Koestenbaum continues.
“What can you do? Direct your life (and your organisation) so as to make work part of your life — part of living from the inside out, part of your inner production of time. Do not separate work from home or leisure. Do not compromise your full self-disclosure. Know your meanings, and commit yourself to them.” (ibid.p.85, my emphasis)
If we are to better the world we must take a serious look at the heavy structural constraints e.g., abolishing mortgage slavery because it does not really serve the individual, the institutions, the nations or the world — circulating the artificial in an artificial system for the sake of profit is not a valid argument (humans struggling and suffering so that an ancient setup of a financial model can persist!)
What does all this mean in an organisational context for the organisation and the individual?
As indicated in Part 1 ½ -section 2/3 here we also need to reverse and revise our mindset of humans as commodities (COTS even) that we can buy, use, and discard at our leisure and further the perception of the so-called (battered and bruised term) “whole person”.
Firstly, because all humans have inter-temporal relations, secondly, most have other people in their lives (family, friends, acquaintances etc.), and at least thirdly, everyone deserves to live a good life (good life in the sense of being good for the one who lives it). To enhance comprehension the neo-capitalism notion of investment can serve to bridge the gap between economics and humanism. The basic idea of investment as a positive-sum game serves us well again as it did with the mortgage example, that in case we can only muster the courage to have a transactional relationship, then that should at least be of a positive-sum nature. The mutual investment perspective has a higher potential than pure transaction and hence through open dialogue about constraints and affordances the relational connection can enter a transmissional state through the realisation that it is based on a mutual obligation more than a codified contract. It changes the LoA from single dependency investment toward dual and mutual interdependency investment — the proverbial “we are all in the same boat”. (both parties should reach a level of talking about the present and future that is not constrained by the sentences of the past, and talk about the past in an inter-temporal fashion — in Floridiean terms tempus require re-semanticisation because it is relational to context…new context = new semantics, but not as a novel but equally recomposed welcoming the event of what could happen and also what happens (in technical terms we could say that semantics interface to context and can only truly be individual — that’s why we have dialogue, and even though the tower of Babel was destroyed we still communicate).
So, Luhmann was right about nudging — we do not plug and play knowledge and Floridi is right in the sense that we negotiate knowledge with the world and from the world. We also negotiate with ourselves as to what is semantically possible and feasible without endangering stability too much, because instability for prolonged periods stresses us (it can alter us), as also indicated in Part II — section 2/3, we need permanence, the dynamic stasis.
Practically we then also enter the realm of wonderful HR terminology of processes that really are lived life e.g., onboarding, talent acquisition, talent management and what have we of nice segregated and separated processes to maintain and manage what we call the employee lifecycle.
The cardinal point is of course that these are as much if not more about everything else than HR — it is an organisational task that should be bestowed on all members of an organisation — to welcome the new kid on the block. Sadly, in too many places there’s no time for a decent 3–9 month intro program, in many cases, you have to hit the ground running, only to catch up on organisational coherence at coincident (prolonging the identification process between organisation and individual, but then one can always keep to the performance targets and play ignorant — not entirely sure what the long term value in that is).
When a new employee arrives what you get is an investment (it is funding), he/she invests human, social, relational, knowledge, and semantic — capital in your organisation, the social construction you have driving your business output and outcome. A vital part of one’s life is being invested often a third or more time is used at work and with commuting it becomes even more. As an employer, it should be trivial, that you would want your investment to grow, and that requires creating an environment where people thrive from a “One Life” perspective, so Koestenbaum is right — let’s not separate work from home or leisure, let’s find ways of joint mutual existence.
Here it is also fair to mention that the “Survival fear” is also an employer topic, the fear of people leaving is real, perhaps not so much from an individual perspective, but rather from an organisational perspective — because it always impacts those that stay when somebody leaves. And let’s not pretend, organisational stress is always individual stress, the reverse I’m not so sure (it can spread for sure and “aggregate” in relational philosophy terms — grabbing the right LoA becomes important).
How to open the door to this realm of shared fear, to make it acceptable to even say: I don’t really like my current job; I think I’m better at something else; could I try something else; or concretely why don’t we build a research function (can be in the widest sense); would a moral officer support organisational coherence; could you for the next 3 months also take care of X, Y, Z etc.
Based on my meagre +20 years of experience many things have changed for the better and many haven’t. We still seem to be struggling with some fundamental structural challenges to mention a few:
o Time-2-Effort
o Us & Them (internally and externally)
o Fear of committing to ourselves (individual and organisation)
o Fear of committing to each other (individual and organisation)
o Ad hoc environment based on operational urgency (no positive future in sight)
o Leaving organisational coherence up to the individual to figure out
o … (You fill in the blanks and next bullet point)
We all know the proverb “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” and I think it is equally true that “Operation eats Development for lunch” is especially true for what we could call organisational development. Breaking that heuristic is difficult and often requires a significant existential crisis (both personally, professionally, and organisationally). I’m still amazed that we keep doing the same mistaken things and continue to expect a different result in many of our change efforts (Einstein's definition of insanity). I’m no longer so sure that urgency is the only driver, the idiocy of the burning platform is de facto also pushing the panic button. Real and deep understanding is usually the only way we really change — when we don’t really understand the need for change, we most often change parts of our outer layers to accommodate an induced new way of living outside-in (to reuse Koestenbaum).
If we only keep fixing the surfaces, filling potholes, stripping in place loose items, duck taping crevices’ and so on we per definition keep the structure — and nothing changes, it is de facto like pissing your pants on a winter’s day (you don’t even serve yourself)!
To change requires effort, focus and attention and above all practice and persistence over time and is also an individual assessment of investment:
- Collateral
- Depreciation
- Appreciation
- Multi-diverse contribution of a human (more than the tasks and assignments)
I feel it prudent to quote Peter Koestenbaum [iii], because he manages to touch the inner being of the time challenge:
“The solution to time problems lies in exhibiting one’s most profound integrity, authenticity, and courage, for time and integrity are one”,
(Leadership — the inner side of greatness, a philosophy for leaders, 2002, p.84)
Somewhat abstract as a stand-alone quote, and we are addicted to the concrete and the tangible, yet we know the most valuable things in life are intangible — hence this follow-on quote:
“To believe that time problems can really be resolved at the level of being in time — through discipline and organisation — is, in effect, to manage the destructive impact of bureaucracy on the individual with additional, bureaucratic measures — a traditional “scientific and “technical” business solution. It is an objective answer to a subjective question, an “outside-in” response to an “inside-out” dilemma.” (my emphasis).
(Leadership — the inner side of greatness, a philosophy for leaders, 2002, p.85)
It is obvious in the specific context of working from “somewhere” that time is a constraint, an almost generalised malaise of modern life. When tightening that knot the constraint can become claustrophobic and desperation creeps in — that’s the “destructive impact of bureaucracy…by bureaucratic measures”, it limits (constraints) freedom. Loosening the knot is the subjective answers (affordance) to the objective question (constraint) if you will. The overwhelming and brilliant thing is, that people are both able, capable, and willing to take upon them the responsibility that comes with freedom — if we provide the right conditions for them and it (revisit the Fromm quote in Part I, if necessary).
Let’s be human with humans and mechanic with machines and let’s also remember to cross-pollinate (artificial intelligence), but not without serious contemplation — we never know what hybrids we create until we have seen them in action.
Managing and leading
We are already all the leaders of the present and of the future if we choose to realise our immanent potential and choose to lead over manage. For sure we are the managers — we manage all day every day, but to a large extent it equates to “keeping the lights on”. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with management, it is highly needed and most helpful most of the time. The challenge is when the balance between managing and leading is lost. This can happen for many reasons, e.g., Hurry sickness, lack of reflection, lack of resonance, lack of parity etc. It might also be worth contemplating whether these disciplines and their behaviour hold the same characteristic as emotion contagion forming both vicious and virtuous cycles. There are millions of textbooks on this particular topic — the similarities and differences between management and leadership, and some simply see the two as synonymous. I personally prefer to view them differently yet overlapping to some extent — to illustrate this I have taken the liberty to borrow from Kirkeby [iv] :
(Kirkeby, O. F. (2000). Management philosophy: a radical-normative perspective, p.38)
Chapter 4 is dedicated to investigating “Leader or Manager” (Ibid. 31–56) and draws some distinct lines between the pure concepts of each phenomenon (here almost in pure prototypical and idealistic descriptions), and this can be a helpful guideline if we remember that it is always a both/and, not, an either/or. In Floridiean terms we would be most interested in the middle — the relational philosophy (here also basically what Aristotle in principle called “Mesotes”).
In short, we need both realism and idealism because having both also enables us to have everything in-between — most of our time we live in between, and without either, we can have neither. It should be clear that it does make a difference whether you start your morning on the left or the right side of the model, to re-quote Floridi [v] from Section II — Part 2/3:
“Models, however, are the medium, not the message.” p.41.
I hope I have contributed to both, and more importantly, that is, the inspiring reflection of the model & message, and moreover how we negotiate knowledge and create our world.
What’s a prudent exit?
Self-criticism seems prudent by now.
I have been pounding away on the superficial approaches we are applying to our existence and how these are partly responsible for our own condition and the condition of the wider world. I have written and expressed opinions to some length, but in the end, I have only scratched the surfaces, the same surfaces I’m so deeply averse to because they make me surfe — life is what happens when you’re busy doing other things kind of surfaces. Floridi expresses this in “Soft ethics and the governance of the digital” [vi] which fits this context well, fast and new is not always better, if we neglect to reflect on how we want to design the “the human project” of the future:
“Yet this is precisely the distracting narrative we should resist. Not because it is wrong, but because it is only superficially right” p.2
I must apologise to the reader for way too much surfing — I’m sorry!
Yet, it is an attempt to illuminate that there are no quick fixes and turning a blind eye doesn’t make the challenges go away.
By now I hope it has become apparent that I for one do not think we should extract and treat the topic of “work from (any)where” in a secluded fashion. Perhaps it is the main point of this lengthy essay in 3 parts (in regard to the great resignation). I’m a true believer of work from anywhere and a true believer in face2face encounters — to me they are not contradictions, but a question of balancing what is important (C. Taylor = human significance) for the individual residing in a community and responsible for one’s own social formation (edification). In short, it must be about both the individual and the community (there will be no individual without the community, and no community without individuals — parts & wholes). In most cases we have options, and it is equally wrong to force someone to work from home if that person prefers to work in the office (just ask my wife!). The conclusion is:
“If the pandemic and recent aftermath have taught us anything about work, it’s that we have options, and those options should be judged in context and used to the best of our ability in the dynamics between the individual and the community (organisation). To preserve and create as much true freedom as possible”.
Thriving & flourishing does not discriminate between work & life (person & profession), if one aspect suffers, so does the other:
– there is only ONE life.
Epilogue — how do I desert the writing?
In 1973 Pink Floyd released a now classic and iconic album “The Dark side of the Moon” it contains 10 songs:
· “Speak to Me”
· “Breathe”
· “On the Run”
· “Time”
· “The Great Gig in the Sky”
· “Money”
· “Us and Them”
· “Any Colour You Like”
· “Brain damage”
· “Eclipse”
An interesting introduction to the album is provided by Daniel J. Leitin in his 2012 Essay “The Dark Side of the Moon” — Pink Floyd (1973)” [vii], with the comment from Roger Waters:
“ And I suddenly realized that life wasn’t going to start later, it starts at dot and it happens all the time.”
I can only urge every reader to explore the lyrics of the songs on this album. It was written and released almost 50 years ago — and the relevance seems greater than ever.
Personally, I’m particularly fond of “Time” and “Us and Them” — but then again, I’m a hybrid, part philosopher, leader, and part relationship manager — so they should “Speak to me”!
Somehow music and lyrics like these (album compositions) are not made anymore — but what do I know I turn 52 this year (so I’m ancient history)!
The model of our condition (significance) developed in Part I… and a half with a slight revision to me still supports my claim for having Social Sustainability in the centre of our potential for solving our global challenges, especially if they are to prove any kind of dynamic permanence.
(Adopted and composed, Per B. Berggreen)
Let’s remember and keep present the words of Floridi:
“Models, however, are the medium, not the message.”
From a most insightful book “The Philosophy of Information”, p.41.
References
[i] FLORIDI, Luciano. The green and the blue: a new political ontology for a mature information society. Available at SSRN 3831094, 2020.
[ii] FLORIDI, Luciano. Semantic capital: its nature, value, and curation. Philosophy & Technology, 2018, 31.4: 481–497.
[iii] KOESTENBAUM, Peter. Leadership, new and revised: The inner side of greatness, a philosophy for leaders. John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
[iv] Kirkeby, O. F. (2000). Management philosophy: a radical-normative perspective. Springer Science & Business Media.
[v] FLORIDI, Luciano. The philosophy of information. OUP Oxford, 2013.
[vi] FLORIDI, Luciano. Soft ethics and the governance of the digital. Philosophy & Technology, 2018, 31.1: 1–8.
[vii] LEVITIN, Daniel J. Ph.D. “The Dark Side of the Moon” — Pink Floyd (1973) (Added to the National Registry: 2012, https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/national-recording-preservation-board/documents/DarkSideOfTheMoon.pdf ). Roger Waters “ And I suddenly realized that life wasn’t going to start later, it starts at dot and it happens all the time.”
The series:
Why are people ready to resign? — Part I — section 1/3
Why are people ready to resign? — Part I — section 2/3
Why are people ready to resign? — Part I — section 3/3
Why are people ready to resign? — Part 1 ½ — Section 1/3.
Why are people ready to resign? — Part 1 ½ — Section 2/3
Why are people ready to resign — Part 1 ½ — Section 3/3
