I've developed a bit of a theory on the matter. I think that the common
idea that all of this change is to increase competitiveness in a global
economy is symptomatic of a much deeper problem. . .a problem that is not
easily identified or reconciled.
Here's my theory in a nutshell:
Corporate change was mandated as the economy/job market became deluged
with the baby boomers.
My reasoning? My theory? From 1946 to 1964 76 million people were born in
the US; 1 billion people world wide. The economy, and Corporate America,
simply didn't have jobs for 76 million new workers over a period of 18
years. But those 76 million people had need of a job. The 1970s with its
high inflation and unemployment rates was the natural effect of so many
new workers entering the economy. It took the economy almost a decade to
expand itself to accommodate all these workers.
The baby boomers grew up with the idea that success in corporate America
was achieved by moving up the corporate hierarchy. After all, this is what
their parents taught them. Today, 42% of the work force are baby boomers.
It simply isn't possible for every baby boomer to move up the
organization. The baby boomers definition of success is now erroneous.
This has caused tremendous frustration in the work place: How do I achieve
success? I can't move vertically? What do I do?
This problem was compounded when corporate America began to realize that
it simply couldn't integrate and effectively use so many employees. BPR
turned into downsizing, sending many baby boomers back into unemployment.
Workers became demoralized and frustrated. They found little hope, and
even less meaning in their work. They began to stagnate, and
organizational atrophy quickly set in.
Executives perceived that their organizations were not as efficient or
competitive as they should be; something had to be done. Here's the
mistake: Inefficiency was identified as the problem. . .you see, the baby
boomers were a collective Zebra, and corporate America was a Tse Tse fly.
. .
Corporations began to implicitly deal with the problem by restructuring,
by flattening themselves. This was thought to increase efficiency, but
what it really did was allow employees to perceive themselves as
successful without having the climb the corporate hierarchy. A solution to
a symptomatic problem inadvertently touched the root of the problem. . .a
rare occurrence.
Advances in technology, which began prior to and throughout WW II allowed
such a restructuring to be effective. And the innovations/discoveries in
social psychology provided the glue that held the organizations together.
Whew! I'm going to stop here. If people respond to what I've written, then
I'll finish with my theory in another post. If not, then I'll keep working
on it in private. I just don't want to take too much of everyone's time. .
.needless to say the theory does continue, and has an interesting
conclusion.
Any comments on my thinking? Am I anywhere near home base? Or am I
standing out in left field?
--Benjamin B. Compton ("Ben") | email: bcompton@novell.com Novell GroupWare Technical Engineer | fax: (801) 222-6991
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>