Liberals and Conservatives Fuel Conflict
An incident happened at my friend’s job the other day that perfectly demonstrates why liberals and conservatives are ultimately doomed to fail in their efforts to resolve conflicts.
One of the employees is a very young woman. She’s not particularly mature. It’s her first job. She was getting upset because some of the other employees were showing up late in the mornings, leaving her the only one there.
To give you a bit of background. This business was run by a woman who had only one rule, that there were no rules. Employees had been led to believe that they had a very chill policy about being a few minutes late in the morning. Nobody had ever been spoken to about tardiness.
This young woman, rather than speaking to her coworkers, went to the new management. Management instituted a litany of draconian new policies for people who are late. These policies don’t effect everyone equally, as some people have children or live farther away. And one employee has an illness that makes things particularly hard.
I have no doubt that the manager primarily responsible for the new policies had good intentions. In her mind, no doubt, she is looking after the complaining employee – a very sweet girl who I’m sure made a compelling case for paternalism.
The problem is that every other employee was feeling beat down. Moral sunk. A small wall was put up between the other employees and the complainer. A wall was put up between the employees and the management. They’ve gotten over that incident, but their relationships will always be a little bit different.
It didn’t have to be that way. The people at this place are all kind and conscientious. Had the unhappy employee went directly to them, I have no doubt they would have changed their behavior. They could have worked something out. But that opportunity was lost.
If you believe, as I do, that the management had good intentions and were just trying to look out for the person they thought taken advantage of, then this is a great example of how liberals go wrong. Liberals have good intentions, but they are constantly erecting walls with their paternalism.
If you are more skeptical and think that the new management was just exercising their authority, imposing discipline to get people in line, then this is a great example of how conservatives go wrong. Conservatives think people are only motivated by consequences. But all they create is fear, distrust, and resentment.
Liberals and Conservatives have been unable to resolve any of our fundamental problems, because nobody can solve somebody else’s problems. The longer we rely on mommy or daddy to deal with things for us, the fewer problem solving skills we develop.
It doesn’t matter if you are approaching an issue with the intention to help people or to scare the piss out of them. Putting a third party representative or authority in the middle of conflict degrades relationships and ensures future conflict.
Ayup. That's one reason that rank-and-file organizations, even if not a full-blown union, are really helpful.
Although we don't like a lot of rules, in my experience absent rank-and-file solidarity, very lax rules basically serve the interests of management in the guise of being cool or laid back. They give management maximal room to maneuver and maximal plausible deniability.
Buuut…that cuts both ways. A low-rule workplace is also very fertile ground for developing worker solidarity for people who see the opportunity and take the initiative.
1I'm all for agreed upon rules. I just don't agree with imposed rules from above.
The best solution is worker management. Workers should agree to the rules they will all abide by and the consequences for not abiding. Then they need to work out any problems themselves.
2Wrong, Wrong, Wrong..
Its the batshit crazy Right thats fueling the fires. Both the Liberals and Conservatives want to get the hell out of this mess the Crazy Right keeps faning the flames.
3Hmm. I think you may be responding more to the title than the article, but that's o.k.
You can't really believe that. Liberals and conservatives both supported invading Iraq. Liberals and conservatives both supported the Patriot Act. Liberals and conservatives both championed the destructive drug war. I could go on, but I don't think I really need to.
4Sorry, Melanie, no one would have changed their behavior simply because a disgruntled colleague laid out the case for them doing so. It's natural for people to think, "Well who the hell are you?" and with Americans, it's basically a de facto religion. Good worker management recognizes this and spells out rules in advance, as you point out.
5To be honest, your friend's colleague doesn't have to be mature in order to have a point. But she didn't. If workers don't have a set starting time, they'll make up their own. If she's unhappy, there's nothing wrong with a third party getting involved in certain limited ways.
This business had been operating for years without those rules and went along just fine.
I know one of the individuals involved very well and for many years. That person most definitely would have changed their behavior.
People do things all the time in order to accommodate others. Have you never covered for a coworker? Helped somebody out? Changed your behavior because you were made to see how it negatively affected those around you? I certainly have. And where that is not effective, people are amazingly responsive to social pressure. Nobody wants to be ostracized.
The idea that the employees could have handled the issue themselves does not preclude them agreeing to some set of rules and consequences for breaking the rules. What I am objecting to is the little sister tattling dynamic and the paternalistic swooping in to resolve things. That destroys relationships.
There are thousands of cooperatively run organizations in the world. The workers make their own rules and it works. They don’t need someone to impose order on them.
In fact, people follow their own rules much more willingly than they follow other people’s rules. This is a principle that management generally accepts. They don’t, of course, accept that there is no need for managers. But anyone trying to get employees to do something will talk about “buy in.” When managers talk about buy in, they mean getting employees to embrace a change or project as their own. The best way for that to happen is if it IS their own.
And I don’t pull these claims out of my arse. This is based on my twenty years of working. I’ve been an employee and a manager. I’ve worked in labor law and HR. I’ve written and enforced employee policies. I’ve read the theory. In short, I have some experience in this area.
6How do we know "no one would have changed their behavior" if they were never given the chance? Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to propose more layers of authority than is required — to say nothing of basing the decision on a "hunch."
7she should gone to the latecomers instead of going to be boss first.
you're website make me think, i don't know if i like that. :O)
8Thanks Winston. Saying I made you think is the best compliment anyone can give me.
9I got the whole “good intentions” “consequences” liberal/conservative mind set point you were trying to make.
I couldn’t help but think why no one told the manager there was no rules. Whatever happened to the no rules rule. And if that was working so well why was little Missy not taking advantage of that .
She needs to be fired!
What does that make me? Liberal or Conservative :-0
10LOL. I think it makes you very appropriately named, No Nonsense.
Why didn't anyone tell the manager there were no rules? The new manager was changed by power. Power does not lend itself to being confronted without consequences. Nobody wanted to take the chance of suffering the consequences.
Why was Missy not taking advantage? Not everyone does whatever they can get away with. People are motivated by things other than fear of consequences. Lots of people get self esteem from their jobs. In her case, I think she has a teeny bit of a martyr complex.
11