Article 20
Crushing the Human Spirit in Vertical Structures
by Wendell Krossa
(From the series "Creating A Horizontal God", Copyright, W. Krossa)

At this point we are going to take a look at the contours of a more human social order. Some people may wonder what social order has to do with a new view of God. As we have noted before, the relationship is simply that social orders often reflect a people's view of how they should relate to God or gods. People try to replicate that perceived pattern of relating in their social relationships. Most contemporary social orders still reflect a pattern of relating that has its origins in early domestication when male gods controlled people in strict hierarchies. Kings/Queens and political leaders are the updated forms of that archaic pattern of relating.

Another explanation for the shape of social orders is found in the argument that patterns of social relating emerge in societies and then people gradually create suitable ideologies to justify those patterns of relating. Views of gods are part of the ideologies people create to validate the way they relate to and treat each other. We have already argued that vertical relationships originated in animal existence and were embedded in early arrangements of relating to gods. If the patterns of relating are inhuman and abusive and these patterns are projected onto ideologies and views of gods, then the ideologies and gods will be inhuman also.

Again, in using the term social order, we are simply referring to the way we organize ourselves or arrange our relationships in our families, communities, regions, and nations.

Our argument has been that to relate in our social orders as noncontrolling humans we must have a truly human and noncontrolling view of God. As Brinsmead has argued, you can never have a truly human social order until you have a truly human view of God. Only a genuinely human view of God will provide the proper ideological basis for new social attitudes and new arrangements of human relationships.

We would also note that new social orders will only become more of the same old oppression without radical changes in the way people view and treat each other. We quote Albert Nolan for his excellent summary on the change of heart needed to end oppression. "The only way to be liberated from your enemies was to love your enemies, to do good to those who hate you, to pray for those who treat you badly" (Luke 6:27-28 in Jesus Before Christianity, p.94).

What Nolan says about the early AD Jewish struggle for independence from Rome is also true of changing governing systems anywhere. "This is not a matter of resigning oneself to Roman oppression; nor is it a matter of trying to kill them with kindness. It is a matter of reaching down to the root cause of all oppression and domination: man's lack of compassion. If the people of Israel were to continue to lack compassion, would the overthrowing of the Romans make Israel any more liberated than before? If the Jews continued to live off the worldly values of money, prestige, group solidarity and power, would the Roman oppression not be replaced by an equally loveless Jewish oppression?... The root cause of oppression was man's lack of compassion" (Ibid).

The Inhumanity of Vertical Organizations

Contemporary states, and the organizations they are comprised of, are predominantly vertically oriented structures (1) consisting of vertical relationships of superiors and inferiors. Controlling hierarchy is the essential operating principle at the heart of almost all contemporary organizations, whether private or state.

We would argue that this is still widely true inspite of notable reform efforts which allow more citizen or member participation. More input from members or more speaking time for citizens, or lowering walls and shifting furniture around in offices, or calling everyone an 'associate' does not change the vertical relationships of control which continue to exist even in many of these reform situations.

These old structures of control simply do not suit the demands of emerging humanity because at heart they embody a vertical animal-like arrangement of relationships. Such arrangements can never produce the horizontally oriented and egalitarian type of relating that promotes the freedom for true human development. To the contrary, hierarchy inevitably encourages the expression of animal drives to control which have caused immense damage to human well-being and development. Joining any organization should never require accepting damage to human well-being or the loss of fundamental freedom and equality. To be required to accept any diminishing of freedom or equality is to accept the destruction of the human self and its essential development and progress. Therefore, vertically oriented institutions simply can not serve the task of organizing relationships and cooperation in a truly human society.

Emerging humanity now demands the full freedom to relate in a truly horizontal or egalitarian manner. Humans have reached the historical point where they have little tolerance left for the domination and control of vertical relationships or institutions. People everywhere are now demanding more radically horizontal forms of relating and existence which alone can encourage and support the emergence of true freedom from control and proper human development. This demand for more horizontally oriented existence is most notable in the worldwide grassroots frustration and anger being expressed toward political and other social elites, as well as all controlling institutions.

Much of this grassroots anger is expressed toward the centralized control of contemporary nation states and government at all levels. These centralized government institutions have robbed citizens of control over the most critical issues affecting their lives and destinies. This loss of control has left people feeling helpless to change important things in their lives. It has devastating impacts on their emotional, mental, and physical well-being.

Studies in psychology have shown that the humanity of both powerholders and the powerless is destroyed in vertical relationships (2). There are devastating impacts on both parties which preclude the emergence of love and other human emotions necessary for human well-being and relating.

Bernhard and Glantz argue this same point in stating that human nature simply is not suited to life in vertically oriented organizations. People are not made to live and work in formal hierarchies which tend to bring out inhuman types of behavior.

Very bluntly, they argue that modern organizations are making people sick and driving them crazy. In their words "They are not good for people" (4). The way we currently organize human cooperation and enterprise is simply too destructive for human well-being. Contemporary human organizing is too often based on archaic and quite frankly wrong views of the human self which in turn leads to the use of defective types of organizational structuring.

Specifically, the negative effects of such organizations arise from the loss of control people experience in the vertical arrangement of relationships they are forced to engage in. The loss of respect, identity, power, status, and the coercion they experience, makes people feel neglected, rejected, and resentful, according to Bernhard and Glantz. It creates a sense of alienation, helplessness, and even cynicism.

Organizational hierarchy, they say, is an unnatural arrangement which does not meet the basic biological requirements of human beings. One of these basic needs is to have a sense of control over one's life and destiny. Hierarchy undermines this sense of personal control by moving it into the hands of elites in the upper strata of organizations. Such organizations, then, are structured in ways that deny basic human needs such as the need for personal responsibility.

Humans, they continue, are not meant to be in positions where others lord it over them, because "evolution fashioned people who resent taking orders, who experience anger and shame when they feel powerless" (5). People, they argue, are not made to be bosses and subordinates (3). Humans have evolved to a place where they must have more personal responsibility and they can no longer suffer the humiliation of being ordered about by others.

Bernhard and Glantz conclude that attempts at reforming these organizations often give the illusion of more participation but this is only a management trick to make people work harder. More participation may not necessarily increase productivity unless people feel the organization is genuinely theirs and they are really in control of the critical decisions affecting their lives.

Once More- The Origins of Vertical Relating

The vertical orientation of modern organizations and states and the vertical social order they express is directly rooted in archaic patterns of animal relating. Modern institutions are simply the ultimate and the most sophisticated form of animal-like control that humans have ever devised. While it is true that they are the "most powerful organizational structure ever developed in the history of the planet" (6), they are also quite simply the supreme embodiment of vertical animal-like domination.

This explains the devastating impact that vertical relating has on human beings. When horizontally oriented humanity, with its essential need for cooperation and relating as equals, is forced into relationships and an existence that is vertically oriented, with competition and domination as essential features, then there is severe damage to human well-being and development. Institutionalized vertically oriented relationships force people back towards animal-like relating with all the humiliating and destructive effects that such relating has on human beings. Humanity and vertically oriented structures are radically exclusive realities.

We have noted before that the vertically oriented patterns of contemporary states and institutions were shaped during early human domestication, during the broad period from 15,000 to 5,000 years ago. That early process of domestication set the patterns of vertical relating that are still found in almost all modern institutions. It is in that early process that modern formal structures of control originated.

Human mentality at the time of domestication- bicameral mentality- was still very animal-like. That bicameral mentality had emerged and replaced more primitive animal mentality, but it still functioned as a very animal-like mentality for controlling humans in strict hierarchies. Those bicameral humans then naturally shaped early states and social institutions according to the vertical animal-like worldview they held. This resulted in vertical relating and domination becoming essential features of all early societies and early social organizations.

The mentality and worldview of humans at the time of domestication directly influenced the shape of the social order they created. It led them to construct vertically oriented institutions with control as the central feature of institutional relationships.

It could be argued that human domestication was in many ways simply the formalization or institutionalization of basic features of animal existence. In the process of forming the settled communities and community structures of civilization, basic features of animal existence were included as formal elements of the new arrangements of relationships in the new institutions of settled human communities. The animal-like features were primarily evident in the vertical orientation of relationships which then accommodated the ongoing use of domination in such relationships.

That animal-like domination is now the essence of all organizational hierarchy. No matter how people try to explain and justify vertically oriented forms of organizational relationships, they still remain simply expressions of archaic animal drives to compete and dominate and are therefore no more than animal forms of relating.

As noted above, it was during early domestication that vertical relating and domination in strict hierarchical arrangement became the defining essence of all human institutions. That arrangement set the pattern for all subsequent social orders and institutions, including those of today. Such an arrangement of relating would have devastating impacts on emerging humanity in subsequent millennia. Modern humanity would eventually emerge within these structures as an entirely new and different reality free of any element of animal-likeness. It required an entirely new form of relating for its healthy development and well-being- the horizontally oriented relationships of true equality. The human self emerged as something oriented to freedom from all control and it is completely unsuited to the vertical relationships of control which exist in almost all human institutions. Tragically, the human self is constantly being violated and crushed in the dominating relationships that still operate in most organizations. Humanity is still struggling for freedom from that archaic domination.

Law eventually emerged to replace bicameral mentality. But this new written form of control continued to support the previous arrangement of relating in all institutions and states.

We have returned repeatedly to law because it is currently the dominant mechanism of human behavior control used worldwide in all types of organizations. Too often, the use of law is simply an excuse for not thinking. It becomes an excuse for not taking personal responsibility to respond in the diverse and free ways that human beings should respond to the complex issues of life.

Most contemporary states and organizations operate by law control in the form of regulations, rules, policies, or guidelines and evaluation procedures which are reinforced with systems of reward and punishment. But that form of behavior control, like all other forms of control, can never promote true human existence or development. Law control in hierarchy remains simply another institutionalized form of animal-like control of behavior. Law also introduces elements of closure, conformity, rigidity, and inertia to human response and behavior in organizations.

It may seem harsh to state, but it is safe to conclude, that modern nation states and institutions are simply refined and advanced forms of animal hierarchical relating. These organizational forms have evolved to extend hierarchical control further than ever before in terms of geographical extent. Refined ideologies of managerial or administrative science and organizational theory and practice have also been developed to validate their continued operation. But no matter how they are designed and operated, these organizations can never move beyond the reality that they are quite simply animal-like hierarchies of control. They offer nothing for the positive advancement of humanity.

In making these charges of domination and control in hierarchy, we are not arguing that people in the position to control others always do so with sinister intention. We all live within worldviews that justify and validate our ideas and behavior. A person controlling others will find validity for their behavior in the worldview they hold. They may even sincerely believe that they are acting in the best interests of others. Even more frightening and dangerous are those people who control others in the belief that they are acting out of love for others and their best interests or believe they are doing the will of God. Such people are rarely open to considering their positions as possibly mistaken, nor are they open to seeing the damage they may be causing others.

Coopting and using God to validate control may have been less culpable back in a time when god-control of life was the dominant norm everywhere. But it is inexcusable now when we as conscious humans know better. We are all now more aware of the immense damage that control wreaks on human well-being and this makes any contemporary effort to control others, positively callous and often even evil.

Efficiency Rules

We noted earlier that controlling institutions, whether nation states or other organizations, have developed subtle and refined ideas to validate the way they are structured and the manner in which they operate. For instance, many contemporary state and social institutions are commonly constituted around the principle of competitive dominance. Competition, not cooperation, is the effective operating practice which is fostered by hierarchical relating. Competition is a natural animal response in the struggle for control of resources. This aggressive animal-like response of competition is inspired and supported by vertical forms of relating. It works in a feedback manner.

A convincing ideology of efficiency has been developed to support competitive hierarchical dominance. This ideology urges efficiency as the supreme value taking precedence over many other human values (7). In this ideology, people must be tightly controlled in order to maximize production, irregardless of costs to them as human beings. Legal and political frameworks have also been developed and refined to validate this competitive ideology and the structures that support it.

Efficiency and maximizing productive capacity have now become the central goals and the very reason for existence of many societies and institutions. Bill Rees states that "Economic efficiency is the main ethic in our (Western) society. We operate on a system called scientific materialism, which says nothing really matters unless it can be measured or quantified. This worldview disallows questions of obligation and duty, not only to the environment, but to people" (8). ). The author of "The Economists Blind Eye" said the same thing in stating, "prices and products, conditions of ownership and work, (are) predominantly shaped be the laws of economic efficiency... the economy overshadows every other reality; the laws of economy dominate society and not the rules of society the economy" (New Internationalist, June 1992, No. 232, p. 16). These economic values have horrific human consequences, as well as devastating environmental consequences.

Tragically, these economic values have become the primary and often the only criteria for all decisions and operations in many institutions. As a result, we now commonly see such things as the laying off of thousands of workers in the name of restructuring for increased efficiency. Such restructuring would almost sound like a positive thing if it were not so cruelly inhuman. But in a world of corporate profitability, competitiveness, and winning, the well-being of human beings often matters very little.

Abrahamsson also argues that the usual defense for the hierarchical arrangement of relationships in organizations is an appeal to greater efficiency. However, he says "the appeal to efficiency is largely a guise to conceal the control function that hierarchy performs" (8). Efficiency, much like appeals to the sacred were used in the past, is now widely used to validate hierarchical arrangements of relationships. But at heart these vertical arrangements continue to reflect control which is their essential nature.

The above basic operating principles of hierarchical organizations- control and competitive dominance- make these structures essentially animal-like in nature. These principles are completely incompatible with true human existence and human relating. The free cooperation essential to human relating can not coexist with the competitive drive for dominance which hierarchy promotes. In fact, free and horizontally oriented cooperation is inevitably buried by such competitive animal domination.

In arguing for competitive efficiency, modern economic ideology is following a very animal evolutionary trend. Competitive efficiency suits very well the animal drives of competition and domination. This is why we argue repeatedly that people have developed ideologies, much like they create gods, to validate the worst of human behavior.

We too often unquestioningly accept efficiency as a supreme value and essential goal for any project or institution. Agencies like the IMF pressure entire countries to make sacrifices to attain more competitive efficiency and productivity. This has often led to unbearable hardship for the poorest members of these countries as the cost of basic commodities has risen and many have become unemployed. While efficiency is an important issue to face in many human enterprises, too often it reflects a slavish drive to meet only material goals, leaving in its wake overworked, stressed out and impoverished people with little time for life or leisure.

Man As Animal

In an effort to validate continued use of controlling structures, people have not only created ideologies such as those of economic efficiency, but they have also constructed views of human beings suited to such vertical existence. These are views which promote the idea of humans as rational, competitive, and dominating beings.

Mary Zey makes the point that contemporary organizations operate by these false views of the nature of humanity and therefore violate basic human nature (9). She says that instead of enhancing human relating, contemporary organizations are structured to encourage selfish inhuman responses and types of behavior which damage human relating and cooperation.

A careful analysis of the nature of organizing, she says, shows that contemporary organizations operate by a view of people as fixed rational objects. Such people are viewed as primarily self-interested and rational. The core human value is seen to be competition and it is argued that such rational people will always evaluate and make decisions based on reason.

But in reality, Zey argues, evidence shows that people are nonrational. Nonrational, she says, is a preferable term to irrational which carries a negative connotation. The very use of the term rational, says Ley, "pre-empts the way we organize our views" (10). Whoever first claims rational, forces opposing views to be seen as irrational and therefore negative.

However, what nonrational simply means is that people draw on values and emotional involvement's that do not follow rigid organizational law, culture, or reasoning.

In most humans the self is love, says Zey. Most people possess some innate empathy or some desire to love. Not being able to express this love is costly. Therefore, she argues, people need structures which enable them to act on these nonrational but fully human impulses. Her conclusion is that this will involve the building of cooperative, interdependent arrangements which assist the expression of love.

Contemporary organizations, built to assist rational, self-interested, and competitive humans, only operate to extinguish the nonrational expression of love, says Zey. The key organizing issue then becomes how to keep selfishness from extinguishing unselfishness. What sort of structuring or organizing, she asks, will best operate to support compassionate human relating and not foster selfish competition?

Zey raises vitally important issues that point to the need to shape radically new forms of institutions and social orders for human cooperation.

This is the great tragedy and the root of so much conflict in human existence- that we create structures that keep us from being human and relating to each other as human. The structures we make, force us to act against our human feelings of love and mercy and to, instead, be tough, competitive, and even harsh with each other. This is so because in our structures (in the ideologies, systems of law and operating procedures) we embody values and behavior that are inhuman. We enshrine competing not cooperation, domination over others, not serving and helping others. These values and practises that we build into our ideologies and social structures force us to live as inhuman.

We create to govern our structures and then institutional authorities demand loyalty and faithfulness to the ideologies as though they were lords and masters. We need to remember ideologies are only bodies of ideas that should serve as tools to assist human relating and endeavor. In demanding loyalty and faithfulness to ideology, institutional authorities are requiring us to separate ourselves from and oppose others. They are requiring us to act in predetermined and often inhuman ways toward other human beings.

Religious ideologies and institutions are the worst offenders in this regard because they claim to be representing and demanding loyalty to God and how can that noble idea be wrong? In reality, such ideologies and institutions often embody some of the worst forms of inhuman behavior and treatment of others.

Loss of Personal Responsibility

There is another manner in which contemporary nation state institutions and organizations operate effectively to crush the human spirit and to destroy true human existence. This is accomplished by denying people personal responsibility for critical issues affecting their lives. In the hierarchical arrangement of contemporary states and social orders, an elite few often control most of the decision making processes surrounding the critical issues and resources affecting the lives of the majority of citizens or members. This elite control effectively excludes most citizens from any real influence over important things affecting their lives and destinies.

States are by their very nature mechanisms designed over time by elite minorities to control people and resources primarily for the benefit of the elite few. Cohen states very bluntly that "the state is the instrument for maintaining this control and for protecting the privileges of the ruling group" (11).

Cohen continues, pointing out that states are centralized and hierarchical systems of authority relations in which local political units lose autonomy and become subordinate to central governments (12). States are basically systems of institutionalized inequity in which elites have special privilege, special power, and special and often exclusive access to various resources. The very nature of the hierarchical arrangement permits and encourages the special privilege of the dominating few over the majority. This is what is so inhuman about hierarchical systems.

While many people hope that their organizations and states represent something more noble than elite privilege and control, the harsh reality is that these structures have quite often been developed simply as tools of control to serve and to protect the interests of ruling elites (13). This is still true inspite of the ongoing effort of political elites to present the myth of the state existing to serve the people.

States and state institutions were originally formed by ruling groups during early domestication to assist in their control of resources. Such states and organizations were based on a system of stratification (hierarchy) which represented the different rights of access by different members to resources. These organizations, says Cohen, are "the formal organization of power (which) has as its central task the protection of the order of stratification" (14).

That was the original purpose of formal state organizing and it has not changed over subsequent millennia. As noted above, in recent centuries there has been much effort to present governments and institutional organizing as things which exist to serve people. But the vertical orientation of relating in such institutions and the operating practice of most structures shows that control is still their central function. Such control can never serve the well-being of people in the lower strata of these structures inspite of all the loud protestations that they exist to serve people. There is growing grassroots awareness of this everywhere and growing grassroots resentment of such elite control.

Modern corporate leaders and government officials now respond to charges of elite control and enrichment with the argument that companies are no longer owned by wealthy elites but are now owned by all members of society through share holding in stock markets. But they conveniently gloss over the fact that elite powerholders still control the critical decision making processes and that means modern corporations are still effectively elite controlled. More token participation does not mean more equality. That elite control of decision making processes is also what makes contemporary government institutions elite controlled enterprises.

Centralized control allows and encourages too much corruption among governing elites and there are damaging consequences to all from such corruption. Elites in control naturally look after themselves first, often creating laws to make legal what they do for themselves.

Contemporary states are simply the culmination of millennia long processes in which the control of decision making on critical issues has been highly centralized in regional and national governments and their institutions. This control of decision making is embodied in the many ministries or departments of which states consist. Most states now have a department to cover every area of life with endless rules to cover every possible situation that might arise. And the rule books of these institutions only grow fatter and fatter with the passing of time.

In following these centralizing processes, states have effectively removed from their citizens the personal responsibility for control of their own lives and destinies. That control over critical decisions affecting people's lives is essential for proper human development. As humans we must have full responsibility for our own choices on important matters affecting us and responsibility for the consequences of those choices if we are to progress and develop into true decisional selves.

By denying citizens the opportunity to take responsibility for many critical decisions affecting their lives, governments and other organizations are effectively violating and destroying the development of the human self. Centralization of decision making responsibility is a dehumanizing and demoralizing trend. It also expresses a basic lack of trust in people to manage and govern themselves.

Evidence of the demoralization of people under centralized control has been noted in the fact that many citizens of modern democratic states are refusing to participate in common democratic processes. In an article in a local Canadian paper entitled "Citizens have lost control" (Tri-City News, Aug. 30, 1998, p1), it was noted by researchers that "citizens have already lost control of their local governments and have opted out of the local democratic electoral process". The researchers noted that the larger the number of people under a municipal government, the fewer the number of people who vote. Citizen participation is dropping significantly in larger municipalities. This is one among many similar situations where people feeling no longer in control of their situations, simply quit participating out of discouragement.

In recent centuries the trend to centralize power and control has been driven by the desire to command and control industrial production in urban centers. While various forces have more recently operated to disperse and decentralize production throughout nation states and elsewhere, elite control of production, critical resources, and decision making processes is still the common reality everywhere.

Rothschild says that "The master trend of the twentieth century has not been toward greater democratization of organizations- quite the contrary. It has been toward growing concentration both in the economy and in government institutions, with fewer and fewer economic units having control over an increasing share of the assets. Trends of this magnitude, however, often set into motion social forces that oppose them, countertrends that eddy against the main current. The desire for self-determination is such a countertrend. As the autonomy of the individual diminishes in ever-larger organizations, and as control becomes increasingly remote, some individuals recoil. Joining with others, they try to build communities, families, and workplaces that offer autonomy and control. What all the examples discussed in this book have in common is this simple, but profound, desire for self-initiated, self-paced, self-controlled work. Given, too, the necessity and desire for meaningful group life, individual freedom becomes a value to be maximized within the context of local, collective control" (Joyce Rothschild, The Cooperative workplace, p.183).

It is also now becoming more widely recognized that it is very inefficient to try to manage and control people from centers of power. It is much more efficient to let people manage their own local areas and resources, and to grant them full power and responsibility to do so. Primarily, this is due to the fact that people more fully support what they control and are fully responsible for. Local and personal responsibility will go a long way toward restoring a sense of control and thereby remove the helplessness and anger that exists under current forms of centralized government.

Interesting in this regard is the emerging research which shows that granting personal control to workers is better for business. Where workers have more control there is better morale, less turnover with all the expensive retraining costs of turnover, and therefore better long-term performance or productivity due to the efficiencies gained from experienced long-term workers.

Rothschild notes that "evidence has been mounting that small-scale, decentralized, participatory, and labor-intensive organizations may be just as productive and efficient- and by some criteria, moreso- as large-scale, hierarchical, and capital-intensive modes of organization... more participatory organizations oriented to human relations stimulate greater worker satisfaction and thereby produce goods and services more efficiently" (Ibid, p.111, 113).

The simple fact is that when people are treated like human beings they perform better and that is good for business. In light of this fact, I have never understood the mentality of managers or government officials who insist on ruining their business or programs by dominating and controlling people under them.

We remember the story of one dominating business owner who kept driving employees away with his tyrranical approach to management. His dictatorial approach was responsible for huge levels of employee turnover and consequently great cost to himself.

While there are numerous problems with nation states and organizations, we would suggest that hierarchical relating with its associated domination and control causes perhaps the most serious damage to the essence of human well-being. The vertical arrangement of relationships in hierarchy removes responsible control from people and places them under the demeaning control of others. Such an arrangement does not allow humans to freely relate as true responsible equals. It does not encourage and support true horizontal relating or the development of true humanity through personal responsibility. It is becoming clear that while claiming to serve people, most state and social institutions by their centralized decision making, are undermining and short-circuiting true human development and growth.

A vertical orientation of relationships also does not allow humans to live according to the essential nature of truly human consciousness, which involves the expression of reflection, questioning authority, and personal responsibility for choice and behavior. True human consciousness simply can never involve the exercise of control over others nor being controlled by others. Consequently, all forms of vertical organizing are extremely dehumanizing. The human self simply can not survive as truly human in such vertically oriented relationships.

The animal-like control of hierarchy has been so deeply embedded in our societies and institutions for so long, that many people have come to accept it as a natural feature of life in human society. Millennia of control by the few at the top of hierarchical arrangements has even been called a natural law- the iron law of oligarchy (15). But it is not natural nor healthy in any way for human relating or well-being.

The ongoing emergence of human consciousness and emerging humanity has led growing numbers of people to see vertical relating for what it really is- animal-like and dehumanizing. This has led to a growing struggle against this vertical animal-like reality that humanity has emerged into.

This is the great contradiction of modern organizational life. The foremost and central purpose of life is to become truly human, yet we permit and even encourage the continued use of animal-like structures which are hindering and even destroying the very humanity we all seek so desperately.

Modern Organizational Control

Before moving on, it would be helpful to note here that control in modern organizations does not often consist anymore of the direct use of brute force. Rather, "control operates more often through monitoring, evaluation, and a system of rewards/punishments" (16). Modern organizational control is often exercised through a process of evaluation according to systems of law or rules which is followed by either reward or disciplinary action. David Kipnis has outlined something of the complexity of these control strategies in his book 'The Powerholders'.

It is important to note in this regard that any effort to truly regain control at the bottom must include moving the functions of monitoring and evaluation back under the full control of people in the very bottom strata of organizations. This alone will remove the debilitating threat and fear of punishment from among lineworkers, a fear which undermines morale and degrades long-term performance by increased turnover.

Regarding monitoring and punishment as tools to control workers, there is some valuable research coming out of the US on countering error in hospital emergency rooms and on airline flightdecks. Some of the main points made by researchers such as Robert Helmreich (17) are summarized below:

1. It is inevitable that people will make mistakes. You can not eliminate error from human performance or human endeavor. Why? Because you are dealing with imperfect human beings, and they will continue to be imperfect. Why get stressed out about this inevitable human reality?

There are among us what are called perfectionist types, and it is a real tragedy when these persons gain roles in management and are able to take out their frustrations on those below them. Perfectionism is a tragic inability to understand normal humanity and live in a human way with that imperfection. It is inexcusable and petty inhumanity which simply does not know how to relate in a decent manner to others. The perfectionists also make mistakes, but do not know how to accept themselves as normal imperfect human beings or how to forgive themselves and others. When in management, these people can often hide their mistakes and avoid the punishment they are so quick to mete out to others.

2. Eliminate the punitive response to mistakes. A punitive response to human error is counter-productive as punishment only increases stress which then impedes the ability of people to absorb information and make good decisions.

There is a widespread acceptance of punishment as somehow a normal and natural part of human existence. But it needs to be said that it is a barbaric and inhuman practise. We will note Brinsmead's research on this below. Fear and threat may appear to work in the short term as a means of motivating people, but they will backfire eventually and undermine organizational programs. They create resentment, resistance, and worsened long-term performance.

Progressive companies are moving toward more humane ways of treating people and are no longer punishing their employees for mistakes. Punishment only forces people to develop an underground cover-each-other culture. It does not enhance the learning process or improve performance. It is just another crude and humiliating way to try to control human behavior.

3. Create openness toward reporting mistakes in order to learn from them. Again, this requires the elimination of a punitive response toward mistakes and error.

4. Deal with recurring error (where error can have critical effects) by building redundancy into your system of checks. Add more checks- second, third, and fourth backups if necessary.

Remember that increasing checks can also backfire by increasing the potential for error. This happens as increasing paperwork leads to people 'signing off'- they sign required check forms even when they have not done the work, because there is simply too much paperwork. Make sure redundancy in checks is only where error can have critical effects. Much error is harmless and does not need excessive checking.

Punishing employees is an archaic approach which only humiliates and breeds resentment. It damages morale, leads to increased turnover with all the retraining costs of such turnover, and impedes long-term performance. It is not a helpful way to treat adult human beings or human beings at any age. And it is a poor approach to use to control behavior.

Researchers have pointed out that the entire evaluation/monitoring function in organizations with its consequent reward/punishment response has too long been used as a key management tool to control employees, with all the damaging effects of such control. This function must now be placed in employees hands. Kathy Iannello has argued that truly empowered employees monitor and evaluate themselves on teams. Such a powerful organizational function easily subject to abuse must become a team controlled function. That will provide the necessary checks and balances against potential management abuse of this function.

It also needs to be asked if punishment of employees is just another leftover practise from an archaic past where social patterns were based on what was believed to be the divine order. This divine order included a punishing God who measured all human performance according to his system of law, and any failure to meet his requirements led to punishment. It is time to reject that distorted view of God and move into the freedom and humanity of the present. In this regard, we encourage everyone to read Robert Brinsmead's excellent article "No Atonement" which includes a great outline of the dehumanizing history of the payback justice belief.

Brinsmead notes that "Matters that appear to be solely political or economic in nature and are thereby assumed to deal purely with practical matters are in fact linked to deeper religious, moral and philosophical affirmations of faith that are informed by very specific understandings about the nature and destiny of the human species. It is this unconscious worldview, this hidden and usually unconfessed metaphysics that structure our consciousness about life and colors, in turn, our policy values and decisions" (Religion and The Penal System, p2-3).

One of the prominent underlying religious beliefs that shape our contemporary views on punishment is that of blood sacrifice. As Brinsmead says, "The practice of blood sacrifice, both of humans and animals, runs right back through history to the most premature cultures. It has been found all over the earth... The blood sacrifices were linked to primitive notions of pay-back justice. It was thought that the order and balance of the cosmos was maintained by a justice which demanded 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Nature demanded it. The gods of the cosmos demanded it. If a head was stolen from a tribe, another head had to be stolen back. It there was no retaliation to balance the order of the cosmos, the gods would be angry. The Old Testament also said that God required this same 'eye for eye' justice" (No Atonement, Essay 1E, Verdict, p.3).

"Much of the popular culture of our day shares this primitive idea that justice means 'getting even', 'getting whats coming', 'what goes around comes around'. The school science class even proved to us that this is natural: 'Every action brings an opposite and equal reaction'. So also the conventional wisdom says, 'You reap what you sow', 'You get out of life exactly what you put in', 'everyone eventually gets what he deserves', 'there is no free lunch', 'pay-back time comes sooner or later'" (Ibid, p.4).

"Whether it was the gods or spirits of the cosmos or the God of the Old Testament, they were all seen as the enforcers of pay-back justice" (Ibid, p.4).

This view of pay-back justice reached its epitome in the Christian theory of atonement where it is argued that sin must be punished and paid for. "There must be penalty, payment, compensation, satisfaction, atonement.... The judicial sentence against sin must be executed. The law must first be satisfied. Justice must be done. The wrath of God against sin must be propitiated or appeased. Only then can God forgive sin" (Religion and the Penal System, p.4).

This common religious view is stating that God has given a system of law and whenever we break those laws we have sinned and God is angry with our sin and must therefore punish it. A penalty must be paid which is blood sacrifice.

Brinsmead argues that this belief in pay-back justice leads to a harsh attitude and treatment of human beings toward each other. "This (belief) sanctions a just revenge- but revenge nonetheless. So the theory of atonement declares that God receives his just revenge for sin. He fully pays back. If anyone doubts that this religion of 'blood atonement' legitimizes the spirit of nonforgiveness, revenge and violence, he should look at the corollary of this theology of Christ's death- the popular Christian doctrine of Hell" (Ibid, p.4).

Then in a brilliant summary Brinsmead states that "Joshua ben Adam (the historical Jesus) sets himself to pull down the entire world order which has pay-back justice, retaliation, getting even, revenge and blood atonement at its heart" (No Atonement, p.8).

"Ben Adam stood in the tradition of Old Testament prophets who repudiated the blood sacrifices. They called for human compassion and social justice. So did Joshua, but he went to the heart of the matter by setting aside the whole notion of atonement. You will not practice pay-back justice, says Joshua, because God does not practice that kind of justice. He showers his gifts on the just and the unjust alike. He keeps no score of wrongs, holds no grudges and does not balance his accounts by returning evil for evil. He does not keep a black book to record our debts, and does not expect repayment for his scandalous generosity to the least deserving. Like the father of the prodigal son, he abandons concern for his own honor. He throws away all caution about his good reputation because he is moved totally by love, a forgiving heart and a reckless generosity that tosses out all known canons of justice" (Ibid, p.8).

"If you behave like God, says Joshua, you will genuinely love and help those who try to harm you. Instead of even a thought about pay-back justice, you will freely forgive. There must be no limit on how many times you forgive, nor any limit on the size of the debt you forgive. Furthermore, you must not wait until your debtor repents for his wrong and begs your forgiveness, but from your heart you must forgive him even while he rains his blows upon you. This Joshua did in his dying agonies when with his last breath he asked God to forgive his heartless tormentors" (Ibid, p.9).

This teaching of Jesus profoundly and radically undermines and destroys all views and practices of punishment according to systems of law. It calls all such organizational practices into question and condemns them utterly.

Reforming Animal Reality

Inspite of many commendable efforts at reform, little has really changed. Almost all members of our societies still live under a controlled existence at the bottom levels of hierarchical organizations- whether family, school, work, religious, or other social institutions. Hierarchical animal-like domination is still the dominant form of organization in almost all human institutions.

There has been some geographical decentralization in modern states and organizations, but power over critical issues which shape the future direction of most organizations still remains in the hands of elite powerholders.

We live in what are known as free democracies because of the political freedom our states have promoted in the past few centuries. However, it is questionable whether the majority of the people really experience genuine freedom to be human because of their existence at the bottom of domination/submission relationships in the varied organizations of our societies. These relationships are totally incompatible with true human freedom.

Benello, for instance, has argued that if you do not have democracy in the workplace, then you do not have it in the rest of society. You can not isolate the effects of the economic realm from the political or social realms. He says, "people must always be considered as ends in themselves, never as means... It means that even if one voluntarily sells one's labor to another (work), this does not abrogate the right or responsibility to participate in deciding what is produced and how it is produced. Voluntary servitude is still servitude, and it violates the categorical imperative which, when applied to work, means that one can not use another person as a tool for one's own ends. Work must be performed in freedom, through voluntary cooperation" (George Benello. 1989. "Workplace Democratization" in Building Sustainable Communities, p.87).

"One can not safely delegate one's political rights and duties to others... one can not cede one's rights of political participation any more than one can sell one's rights to participate in the control of the labor process... If democracy is to be authentic, it must apply equally to the workplace, as well as to the political arena. Democratic rights can not be arbitrarily abridged in the place one spends much of one's waking hours. When democratic rights are limited to the public sector, the private sector escapes accountability and its unrestrained influences skews and limits the political democracy of the public sector" (Ibid, p.87). He continues arguing that it is important to extend the principles of political democracy to the economic domain.

Many people will not question or challenge such dehumanizing relationships out of fear of losing their jobs or other important benefits. But the very existence of the threat of job loss and the inability of people to obtain job security is a key indicator of how powerless people really are within such vertical organizations. That fear of job loss keeps people subservient in dehumanizing situations which often differ little from the slavery of the past.

It is questionable if genuine human freedom and humanity can exist at any level of a hierarchical organization. Not only is humanity denied to those at the bottom of such structures, but it is also denied to those at the top who do not relate humanly to those below them. People who dominate from the top positions of hierarchical organizations are also not relating as true human beings and therefore suffer all the negative consequences of such inhuman relating.

It is simply not possible for human relating to be oriented upwards or downwards to others. True human relating can only be expressed in relating horizontally toward others as equals. True human relating is an expression of free cooperation between equal persons. The hierarchical arrangement of relationships and genuine horizontal human relating are two completely incompatible realities.

The reform approach assumes that contemporary hierarchical structures will remain intact, but that more participation from the bottom can be allowed. This creates the impression of egalitarian existence within corporations and governments. But it is often merely an effort by elites to pacify an increasingly angry public and membership and it is therefore only a token measure. In retaining the old vertical arrangements of power and decision making (at least on critical decisions), true human responsibility and freedom are still being denied to members.

Attitude and Structure

It has been argued by some that it is possible for people to have genuinely egalitarian attitudes while still existing in vertical structures. However, this is highly questionable. Vertical relationships inevitably tend to activate and encourage the expression of animal drives to dominate others. There is a natural tendency for animal-like drives to overwhelm emerging humanity in such a controlling context. This is very clear from Kipnis' studies on powerholders (18).

Further, we would argue that the moment you take a horizontally oriented reality- humanity with its essential freedom and equality- and give it a vertical orientation, making some people superior and others inferior, then you have destroyed the human element in relating. You have then created an inhuman and demeaning relationship for the subordinate parties. People can never relate vertically as true human beings. Such relating is simply not human.

The attitude versus structure argument is a very interesting one. It questions the manner in which structures influence people's attitudes. It also raises the interesting question of whether you can develop truly human relating and existence while still existing in inhuman vertically oriented relationships and structures.

Rothschild has made some interesting comments in regard to this attitude and structure debate. She says that "It is a fundamental premise of sociology that people's behavior, attitudes, and personalities are to a great extent shaped by their environment. If work encourages, or sometimes requires, people to be competitive, narrowly specialized, obedient to authority from above, and willing to give orders below, then it should not be surprising that people accurately receive and act on these messages. Indeed, Kanter argues that it is the structural features of the modern corporation, much more than individual attributes, that determine the organizational behavior of men and women...In the face of these pervasive behavior shaping institutions, it is difficult to sustain (cooperative) personalities" (19).

The whole communist experiment was in many ways based on the belief that by changing structures you could change the attitudes of nations of people. By forcing people to live in communes and cooperatives, it was believed that you could eventually develop more egalitarian attitudes and existence among people. But it failed utterly and it was right that it did fail because of its coercive approach to human beings.

You can never use an inhuman animal-like method to achieve a more human end or result. You can not achieve a more egalitarian human existence by force. It simply violates the very essence of noncommandable, free human beings. And it always produces countercoercion.

Rothschild makes some interesting comments on the power struggle which occurred during the 1872 Communist International and how that struggle shaped the direction socialism would take in our century. She says that anarchists at that conference, such as Bakunin, challenged Marx's leadership over the issue of state authority. They charged Marx with being an authoritarian and centralizing communist. This led to a split in socialism between those who supported a central-management model of socialism and those who supported a decentralized popular-control model. The anarchists lost.

The anarchists were unwilling to accept authority relationships in the workplace while the Marxists argued that it was impossible to eliminate authority relations in work or industry. The Marxists were also unwilling to relinquish state authority and bureaucracy as an instrument of power and wished to use it to implement socialist authority. Anarchists, on the other hand, believed authority relationships violated individual liberty. A revolution, in the anarchist view, must dissolve the structure of authority, not just switch who controls the structure.

Bakunin, influential among anarchists, argued that employing state power would lead to a communist bureaucracy that would be damaging to socialist ideals and ends. He warned that it would produce an overwhelming centralization of property and power and lead to bureaucratic despotism. His main argument was that you can not use force and power to achieve egalitarian ends. But Marx argued that you needed state power to assert your will and suppress adversaries who may stage a counterrevolution. Marx, forceful as he was, won.

Consequently, state force and coercion riddled the entire communist approach to seeking a more egalitarian future. Communism, as we knew it, embodied some of the worst forms of totalitarian control. It used egalitarian ideals, much like religion uses the ideals of God and love, to control minds on a massive scale. Consequently, all that communism produced was alienation, resentment, humiliation, resistance, and violence. The coercion used to establish communism produced the widespread countercoercion that eventually brought about the downfall of those regimes. Writing on the forced collectivization in the USSR, Warnock states that "the 'coercive model' used there led to high costs and low productivity in agriculture, sabotage by the peasants, and the loss of rural markets" (The Politics of Hunger, p.77).

The communist approach failed to respect the old adage that a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still. And such coerced people will resist and undermine any ideas or programs forced on them. You can not achieve a human goal through inhuman means. Communism embodied some of the worst inhumanity we have ever seen.

This study is arguing for a radical change in the orientation of structures in order to support more egalitarian human relating and existence (not after the pattern of communism). But structural change must be a natural consequence of freely changing worldviews and social attitudes. You may inform and educate people. You can provide voluntary examples of more egalitarian processes of decision making and systems of cooperation in order to inspire people. You can even show people that such systems can work as a new social order in an efficient, healthy, and sane manner for the good of all. But at all times, change must be the free response of free human beings seeking to freely cooperate in new ways.

It is important that we grant social attitudes time to shift, however glacial the shift may be. We can never violate free human persons who may not be ready for change. Some people may need decades and some cultures may even need centuries of more suffering before they are ready for change.

Yet, on the other hand radical change may occur with surprising suddenness. Who would have expected such a sudden and widespread collapse of totalitarianism such as that which occurred in the Soviet Union in recent years?

By way of caution, it should be noted that people not used to being trusted as adults or not used to being in control of their lives, such people will need time to gain experience functioning as true humans in more egalitarian arrangements of relationships. After millennia of control, we will not adjust suddenly to freedom and equality. We can expect ongoing problems.

Others will still argue that you need not change current structures, but rather, all that is necessary is to change people's attitudes so that they will behave more humanly even though they still live within vertically oriented organizations. While it certainly is possible for people to behave humanly within such archaic structures, it is rarely seen in normal human experience.

The vertical orientation of relationships in modern organizations seems to inevitably activate the worst animal drives in most people. Kipnis has provided convincing evidence of this (The Powerholders). That vertical arrangement of relating inevitably encourages people to express animal drives to dominate and control others. Few people have been able to continue to relate as genuine human beings in such vertical relationships. The development of new egalitarian attitudes will require radically new structures designed to support the cooperative relating of equals.

Still Afraid of Change

Inspite of a long history of liberation movements and reform efforts, our societies and their organizations are still basically animal realities displaying basic features of animal existence. Our nation states claim to honor freedom, but there is still much evidence of human bondage in our social institutions. The vast majority of our citizens continue to exist at the bottom of hierarchical institutions suffering all the damaging effects of their powerlessness and lack of control over their lives.

One of the central forces working against genuine freedom from controlling relationships is the fear of freedom itself with all of its attendant uncertainty and chance. Freedom carries with it the responsibility for consequences of choices made in an undetermined and often chaotic environment.

Governments and corporate elites exploit this fear of freedom to build and maintain the tightly controlled institutional existence of modern hierarchy. On one hand, with an animal substrate brain and residual animal drives we prefer and accept this vertical existence as somehow natural. On the other hand, as emerging humans we struggle against this domination and control in our desire for true freedom. The result is ongoing alienation and conflict.

With a new millennium rapidly approaching, we need to seize the opportunity of a historical turning point to create and build entirely new processes which will encourage people to move into freedom from all control and to take more responsibility for their own lives. These processes must ensure that power elites are worked out of their positions, as power is passed to those at the bottom.

Human Organizing As Process

One further point to make here concerns something we have touched on before. Much of past organizational theory and practice has been based on a closed and deterministic Newtonian view of life and the universe. This view holds that life operates according to fixed, unchanging, and eternal laws. These laws are not subject to randomness, diversity, or change.

Based on this view of life, human organizations were often constructed and operated with systems of rules and regulations to organize and govern members in a similarly strict and controlling manner. Those rigidly controlled organizations were a natural consequence of viewing life as governed by rigid and unchanging laws.

But a new view of the universe and life has been emerging in the past century. We are discovering that the universe is open, growing, and changing. Life, the universe, and even elemental matter are subject to randomness, chance, spontaneity, and change. Nothing is fixed or eternally unchanging, not even basic laws or patterns of order.

As Davies has said, the old scientific view of eternally fixed laws leading to foreordained outcomes- determinism- is now considered myth. He argues that the general trend of life toward richness and diversity deserves to be called a fundamental law in its own right (20). He says that "We seem to be on the verge of discovering not only wholly new laws of nature, but ways of thinking about nature that depart radically from traditional science" (21).

While some elements of determinism appeared to apply at the molecular level, they certainly were not as applicable at higher levels of life where complexity and randomness more clearly come into play as the norm. Western scientific thinking for the past three centuries has been governed by reductionist view which believes that if you break anything down into its constituent parts at a microscopic or molecular level, then you can understand that particular thing and life in general (22). At that micro level it appeared that laws were very deterministic. Consequently, that view of reality- deterministic, mechanistic- has led to the belief that you will find similar laws operating at higher levels of life.

But at higher levels of organization of life new laws and complexity operate. You simply can not design laws for these higher levels based on the apparent determinism of the molecular level. Higher levels of life require new laws which encompass complexity, diversity, and the randomness of the whole.

Human cooperation and efforts at human organizing must be based on this new view of life. Rather than thinking of organizing in terms of rigidly determined objects- such as organizations and institutions- it is more human to think of organizing in terms of open, flexible, and quickly changing processes moving toward more creative and spontaneous diversity. This approach is more supportive of true human nature, relating, and life as moving toward increasing complexity, diversity, and spontaneous creativity. We noted earlier Zurcher's insight that the human self is not static object oriented to institution, but rather is changing, developing, and oriented to dynamic process.

Law Violates Process

Also, the common organizational use of rigid and archaic law-oriented or rule-book organizing has only resulted in dehumanizing conformity among naturally flexible and diverse people. When people are coerced to conform to such systems of law or rules, essential elements of their humanity as free, spontaneous, and creatively diverse, are destroyed.

Hall has called this rule book approach 'formalization' and notes that organization members often follow rules simply for the sake of the rules since this is the basis on which they are evaluated (23). Rules become more important than the overall goals they were designed to accomplish. This introduces a distorting rigidity into organizations and organizational culture.

Rules prescribe the decisions to be made and rule makers tend to create more rules when situations arise with no precedent. It is an endless process of legislating responses to new situations and thereby freezing people's ability to respond as free and personally responsible humans. Rules then become a security for members and autonomy becomes threatening. Consequently, people become less free to operate on their own initiative and, says Hall, they actually try to reduce the amount of freedom they are subject to.

Organizations, in the above manner, are training members to respond in regularized and routinized ways. They are developing bureaucratic personalities, according to Hall, with a trained incapacity to adapt thoughts, feelings, and actions to new situations. With increased conformity and a concern with strict adherence to rules, there is a growing timidity and conservatism in the organization. This makes it very difficult for organizations to quickly adjust to change and to prepare for the future.

Our states, and the institutions they are comprised of, need radical reorientation toward forms of organizing which embody flexible, changing process. Human beings are evolving and progressing rapidly toward more freedom but our social orders and their structures lag far behind.

In any movement or organizing process there is, with the simple passing of time, a tendency toward increasing rigidity. This often occurs with the increasing sacralization of ideas and practices into final and permanent governing systems of law. This tendency toward freezing or rigidity leads inevitably to the loss of humanity in organizations and the decreasing possibility for true human relating and response.

This is why we would argue for the necessity of ending old institutions, processes or projects and the encouraging of continual breaking forth with new processes or projects. Encouraging a process of fresh starts will allow for true freedom for new ideas and practices to continually emerge. This is not to disparage the need to learn from previous experience, but it is simply an effort to avoid the calcifying trend in human organizing- the tendency to freeze around past successful response or practice. It should always be understood that new processes will also inevitably undergo the same calcifying trends as any past effort at organizing.

In this regard I am reminded of a practice used among tribal groups in the southern Philippines. During the year there are a variety of temporary tasks to be done for the benefit of the community, such as hunting forays. At the time of the task a community member who has expertise in hunting and is respected by others, will come to the fore to lead the others during the particular foray. But that person's leadership does not become a permanent office or position which can then be used to perpetuate power or control over others or over resources. At the end of the task, the members disband until another task or foray requires group cooperation or leadership. This same pattern of disbanding after task completion could be used more in modern societies and then we could spend less on preserving and maintaining old institutions which may have already served their useful purpose and need to be ended. This approach would also assist in ending unnecessary institutional control of others.

 

Works Cited

 

1.        Fulton, Murray. Ed. 1990. Co-operative Organizations and Canadian Society: Popular Institutions and the Dilemmas of Change, p.4, 41.

2.        Kipnis, David. 1976. The Powerholders.

3.        Bernhard, Gary and Kalman Glantz. 1992. Staying Human in the Organization: Our Biological Heritage and the Workplace, p.2.

4.        Ibid, p.122.

5.        Ibid, p.87.

6.        Cohen, Ronald and Elman Service, Eds. 1978. Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution, p.1.

7.        Fulton, Murray, Ed. 1990. Co-operative Organizations and Canadian Society, p.40.

8.        Abrahamsson, Bengt. 1993. Why Organizations?: How and Why People Organize, p.76.

9.        Zey, Mary. 1992. Decision Making: Alternatives to Rational Choice Models, p.27.

10.     Ibid, p.89.

11.     Cohen, Ronald and Elman Service, Eds. 1978. Origins of the State, p.40.

12.     Ibid, p.3.

13.     Ibid, p.3.

14.     Ibid, p.36.

15.     Iannello, Kathy. 1992. Decisions Without Hierarchy, p.3.

16.     Ouchi, William. 1977. "The Relationship Between Organizational Structure and Organizational Control" in Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, p.99.

17.     Helmreich, Robert. 1997. "Managing Human Error In Aviation" in Scientific American, May, Vol. 276, p. 62-67.

18.     Kipnis, David. 1976. The Powerholders.

19.     Rothschild, Joyce. 1989. The Cooperative Workplace, p. 66-67.

20.     Davies, Paul. 1990. God And The New Physics, p. 55, 144.

21.     Ibid, p. 142.

22.     Ibid, p. 135.

23.     Hall, Richard. 1987. Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, p.79.

 From the series 'Taking The Vertical Out Of God'
copyrighted material. Contact Us