Freedom, Inc_ - Brian M. Carney [15]
To the early-twentieth-century German sociologist Max Weber, the success and dominance of the “bureaucratic organization” was perfectly logical. It was, he argued, the result of its “technical superiority over any other form of organization.” He claimed that the demands of the “capitalist market economy” could be met only by a “strictly bureaucratic organization” that was capable of discharging its “official business…precisely, unambiguously, continuously, and with as much speed as possible.” Other forms of organization would only slow down the fast-moving world—of 1922.2 And to this day, some management scholars continue to think that companies have to be bureaucratic tyrannies to perform well. “Of course they do,” one author wrote recently, “if we want speed, flexibility, and above all profit in a competitive world. Our ability to create wealth depends at least partly on managerial authority. Top-down power and its potential abuse are here to stay in corporate America. It is foolish to think otherwise.”3 But since Weber’s day, a long line of management thinkers have come forth to dispute this view and argue against bureaucratization.4
Critics of capitalism are right that the unprecedented economic growth achieved by traditional companies has come at a price—a human price. In the early years of the Industrial Revolution, the working conditions in all but a few of these traditional “how” companies were akin to those currently found in the sweatshops of the world’s poorest countries—with child labor as its inevitable consort. But even after basic workers’ rights and working conditions were protected, the human price remained high. Frequent friction between labor and management, work stoppages, and even wildcat strikes and deadly violence are still around. Of course, militant unions and arrogant management may explain some of this conflict, but not all of it. Neither compliant unions—or no unions—nor less arrogant management can change the day-to-day experience of too many people who are constantly told how to do their jobs and compelled to comply.
There is a reason, in other words, that the television show The Office has been a hit on two continents, and Dilbert has become a cultural touchstone. At the same time, the idea of humanizing large corporations is not new. A whole host of management theorists and gurus have come forward over the years with this or that proposal to ease employees’ senses of futility and alienation.5 The continued existence of the cottage industry devoted to reforming companies is proof that much still remains to be done. But even so, these efforts have not been totally without effect. Highly efficient, yet “humanized,” mainstream companies do exist.
Take Toyota. When you enter one of its plants, you are struck by the way everything there ticks like a Swiss watch. Identically dressed employees know exactly what procedure they must follow to accomplish their tasks in the most efficient way. These procedures may entail pedaling a tricycle to deliver specific parts at precise times to particular operators, or detail which bolt to use on a given type of wheel and even with which hand to drive it home—all operators are trained to be ambidextrous and have two pneumatic screwdrivers available at any moment. A procedure may even specify eye—yes, eye—movements, so that operators will not unnecessarily turn their heads hundreds of times per day and risk straining their necks. Everything is performed according to standard procedures in which employees are well trained and everything is measured and controlled.
Thousands of industrial companies have adopted a similar Japanese-born procedure-based approach, known as “lean manufacturing.” Lean manufacturing reduces waste, inventory, space, human motion, the tools needed, and product development time. And many industrial,