This response was again converted from an excerpt of notes and extended.
96 – Managerial Traditions, Extending Reach beyond Technical Realm
Premise of the approach is in parity with Taylor’s -handling of hedonistic satisfaction as currency permissive to investments.
Motives of the management -conclusively the iteration of hedonistic yields*- are derived from a class that has already established stasis within the system hence are granted means of retaining and leveraging their potency. Such class is likely to conceive objective empirical betterment as aim of improvement as their competitors, too, have fulfilled the satisfaction of cerebral dominance** over other individuals. With objective betterment, the competitors’ conceived power is to be debunked as subjective whims. Hence, per this basis, empirical betterment provides absolute yield as satisfaction solely if it retains means to empower dominion by mind.
If workers are to be handled, they retain no individuals through whom they can leverage cerebral dominance. Hence, the only power they have is in material realm. I assert that the sole means to affirm any power is putting it in stasis***, it is the utmost motive of workers -especially if bereft of any other instances of power- to place their material competency in stasis. The aggregate of subconscious yearnings in work would convey worker to slackening (or soldiering), and in this image of mediocre state of material effort, workers would tend to attribute stasis to their material power.
To elucidate, if any form of improvement via efficiency is suggested, such improvement would be stifled with steps:
1) Improvement would be demanding for body hence disapproved by the subconscious.
2) The conscious is motivated for retaining material power in stasis. Improvement hence presumed empowerment of material potency would denounce the stasis. Hence conscious would probably disapprove.
3) Overall, there is a resistance to improvement.
Such was the account against Taylor’s conception of improvement. As to conflate this with impracticality of extending beyond technical realm to enforce manager’s motives, managers on this case would be attempting to impose self’s motives upon workers, and managers’ motives bestow satisfaction not in such proclaimed objectivity. Premises of management are imperative for extracting satisfaction from these motives.
Thus, application of sole Taylorist efficiency via integrating non-technical levels of communication is impractical. That is, unless such integration retains expedient reprogramming of subconscious.
* Hedonistic yield is defined as overall betterment which ultimately would provide some satisfaction for any given individual.
** Human’s innate yearning for cerebral dominance is discussed in my previous responses, most viably to Foucault.
*** Stasis is defined as eternal retention of a given state. This has the corollary that a state in stasis is in perfect position in its preliminary form, since any instance of change would evince the fact that the state is susceptible to external parameters hence does not comprise potency in itself. Still, this perfect initial state may be subject to alteration, if this alteration occurs through subconscious motives.
102-104 Shift in Rewarding and Castigation
Rewarding: Arbitrary -> Systematical
Castigation: Systematical -> Arbitrary (through no eminent institutions)
System is the epitome of potency for these workers (this case is stasis of impotence). Thus, adoption of systematical rewarding was greatly expedient.
For means of castigation, the salutary outcome is ascribed to be due to bolstering of self-discipline among the workers. I posit that it rather was due to indulgence for workers to define their impotence without having to integrate any definitions from higher institutions. Therein, this is solely driven again by satisfaction -not by a romantically advanced sense of integrity as self discipline.
To explicate the efficiency, when these two means -systematical rewarding and arbitrary castigation- converge, they form a miniscule effigy of empowerment (in worker’s perception) in the system. Within the system, the potenates are these who do adhere by the system, and conclusively, subordinate individuals can be rendered impotent merely by whims of these potenates (thus is the similitude in arbitrary castigation). Thus, in Lee’s system, worker is granted both a likeness of potentates’ power and ability to contrive impotence. This, I assert, would be the cause of the plan’s projected outcome.