We're always going to be stuck with hierarchies to an extent, but yes, the basic pyramidal hierarchy of the workplace determines for us more than just some abstract social position or set of rules or amount of material resources, it also determines (to varying degrees) the activities of our immune system, stress levels, self esteem, general happiness, and so on. Of course, institutions exhibit a variety of organizational structures, some more egalitarian than others, but it is worth emphasizing that entry into a workplace generally leaves us with a fairly stark choice: remain at the bottom of the hierarchy where we suffer from low status and its physiological as well as material effects or try to climb up the ladder to risk becoming more enmeshed in and more consumed by our organization.

And that leads to your questions. Regarding harm, I think work hierarchies are harmful generally. Though those who make to the top reap certain benefits, sometimes massive ones, and the shortfalls are going to vary wildly, the majority in a pyramidal structure will be relatively powerless and suffer for it. How to deal with this? For starters, more egalitarian team-based organizations in which hierarchical interconnections are more fluid and the proportional benefits of being at the top are therefore more equally shared should be encouraged where possible. This can work well in tech and other creative-type institutions (though it tends to translate less well to manufacturing, service industry, governmental ones etc, where executive functions need to be more clearly defined).

I say "should be encouraged" but really we're at the mercy of economics. As long as companies compete in a market they'll compete for the most efficient not the most egalitarian or fulfilling type of organization. Where the two meld; great; where they don't, wages and qualifications will decide who'll have to suck it up. So, the creation of hierarchies will always be a part of human nature but occurring within the context of the prevailing paradigm or culture which itself may be more or less hierarchical. If that paradigm was something other than run of the mill capitalism / neoliberalism then this hierarchical harm we're discussing could very well be mitigated. How to get there is the difficult question. Historical alternatives hardly seem preferable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_aggression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_undermining

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abusive_supervision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_deviance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism_in_the_workplace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_retaliatory_behavior

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_harassment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_bullying — schopenhauer1

Oh? You made a list of the reasons why I've decided to work as self-employed? X-) That's kind of you.

I don't see how something being communist (or anarcho-communist) would prevent institutional harms such as the ones described. — schopenhauer1

You are right to extend your criticism of the workplace to include communist/soviet and fascist societies and their work places, because hierarchies, institutionalized work rules, routinization, diminished executive agency, alienation, boredom, frustration, simmering rage, etc. are common to all systems, whether capitalist or communist.

Work sucks -- that's why people have to be paid to do it.

It isn't just that workers are exploited. Even if the value of their labor were not being extracted for the benefit of a cabal of capitalists or commissars, the urge to control is always present. Silicon Valley notwithstanding, employers usually don't want to see too much individuality in their workforce. Lots of behaviors are policed: Clothing and how it is warn, time and how it is used, work style and how it is governed, toilet breaks, regular breaks, lunch breaks--all rigidly set. What can be said at work is often monitored closely. Free speech does not apply to the workplace.

IS THERE ANY ALTERNATIVE?

Per Agustino and like minds, one can work for one's self. That presupposes that one has skills, interests, and temperament that are conducive to self-employment. It isn't a moral or intellectual failing to either lack these traits or just not wish to work for one's self.

One of the problems with "work" is that we really aren't able to self-sort effectively.

If one loathes detail work, highly structured work environments, close supervision, close proximity of too many other people, limited mobility (stay at your desk), etc., they won't do well in that kind of job. For those people, a loosely structured job, minimal supervision, freedom of movement, executive agency, opportunity for creative effort, free expression, a major challenge, etc. will yield very good results. Some people prefer detail work, predictability, regularity, and all that. In that kind of job they really do well.

There simply isn't much variety in work environments for people to self-sort. The exceptions to the rules are too few and far between.

Besides the formal constraints of work, there are the informal elements--all the craziness of individuals that are brought into the workplace and cultured in an environment where the worst traits rise to the top.

Every morning I thank god that I am retired and don't have to go to work today.

I could write a book about this topic. I quit my corporate job 2 1/2 years ago, due to a lot of the issues you listed.

I think that the workplace, like any other arena in life, is largely consistent of factors/variables entirely out of our control ... much like you can't choose your family members, you don't have much of a say in your workplace, unless you're Mr./Mrs. CEO.

Also, at the end of the day, the primary function of work, for most people, is to have running water, electricity, food to eat, and a place to poop. My former manager told me this, and it was one of the wisest things anyone has ever pointed out to me.

Once one realizes these things ... really realizes them, and keeps them in the forefront of one's mind, I think that the workplace can be a great opportunity for self-growth and even enjoyment.

The problem most people have is their expectations of what they "deserve" and what they think they should be able to control/influence. Expectation is the root of all suffering. Drop it and see what happens.

The evils you mentioned are just a function of human nature, and will not go away anytime soon. So, what, then, can be controlled ? Only our outlook towards work and the workplace.

Again, this is with any aspect of life.

The problem most people have is their expectations of what they "deserve" and what they think they should be able to control/influence. Expectation is the root of all suffering. Drop it and see what happens. — Aurora

What you have said is an ideology I embraced almost a decade ago and it has indeed made my life so much less volatile and much more peaceful. I dropped all (as many as I could see and since keep away from) expectations that I would impose on others and decided the only person I can really have any expectations of is myself. It has limited my disappointments in life to those I can chose to see inward rather than holding another accountable.

Clothing and how it is warn, time and how it is used, work style and how it is governed, toilet breaks, regular breaks, lunch breaks--all rigidly set. What can be said at work is often monitored closely. Free speech does not apply to the workplace. — Bitter Crank

Yep, and what would managers manage then?

Per Agustino and like minds, one can work for one's self. That presupposes that one has skills, interests, and temperament that are conducive to self-employment. It isn't a moral or intellectual failing to either lack these traits or just not wish to work for one's self. — Bitter Crank

If everyone could start their own business and make it, they would. I don't buy into either the idea that it is just a secret that is there for the taking, but people are not trying for it, nor the idea that just good hard work will make a business prosper. There are a lot of factors, including luck involved. Also, not everyone can afford to do this.

If one loathes detail work, highly structured work environments, close supervision, close proximity of too many other people, limited mobility (stay at your desk), etc., they won't do well in that kind of job. For those people, a loosely structured job, minimal supervision, freedom of movement, executive agency, opportunity for creative effort, free expression, a major challenge, etc. will yield very good results. Some people prefer detail work, predictability, regularity, and all that. In that kind of job they really do well.

There simply isn't much variety in work environments for people to self-sort. The exceptions to the rules are too few and far between. — Bitter Crank

Everything needs to be delegated apparently. Hierarchies exist so that people have incentives. But this just perpetuates the system.

Besides the formal constraints of work, there are the informal elements--all the craziness of individuals that are brought into the workplace and cultured in an environment where the worst traits rise to the top. — Bitter Crank

Many times it is the worst personalities that get these managerial positions. Why do you think that is?

Many times it is the worst personalities that get these managerial positions. Why do you think that is? — schopenhauer1

Because aggressive narcissism is one of the things that makes people both unpleasant and successful in hierarchies. The A-type personality. Excessive self-esteem. All that.

"Csikszentmihalyi writes:

An autotelic person needs few material possessions and little entertainment, comfort, power, or fame because so much of what he or she does is already rewarding. Because such persons experience flow in work, in family life, when interacting with people, when eating, even when alone with nothing to do, they are less dependent on the external rewards that keep others motivated to go on with a life composed of routines. They are more autonomous and independent because they cannot be as easily manipulated with threats or rewards from the outside. At the same time, they are more involved with everything around them because they are fully immersed in the current of life." -- Autotelic (Wikipedia)


The words above describe me.

It is a matter of learning to work around all of the rules, commands/directions, structure, etc. and do good, fulfilling work.

I could be wrong, but I think that some managers/supervisors are relieved when they have a self-starter and they know that there will be productivity, efficiency and good results with minimal intervention/supervision.

Some people overmanage and that can be deflating to someone who is a self-starter, autotelic, etc. The trick is to learn to appreciate the drive of the person who overmanages. It is easy to appreciate when juxtaposed with the attitude of a manager/supervisor who does not care. Nothing is more deflating than working under the authority of someone who is happy with mediocrity or failure, only cares about doing enough to keep his/her job, and/or favors personal relationships over work performance. I have never heard of poor morale under a manager supervisor who cares or cares too much.

I think that often the reason why a person in an organization is hated is because he/she does not practice favoritism, holds everybody accountable, does not tolerate nonsense, etc. I think that people confuse that personal managerial style with an oppressive hierarchy in an oppressive organization.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that most of the rules are in place to facilitate success, not to control me. The problem is, most people ignore most of the rules/policies, so you never have any way of comparing outcomes.

I would say that the stress is not inherent in the structure of the organization but is the result of workers' goals, intentions, attitudes etc. clashing with the organization's goals, intentions, attitudes etc.

The latter may be the biggest reason why companies do not hesitate to replace humans with artificial intelligence.

That's the way to go ! That is very wise.

Having expectations of other people is kind of like playing the slot machines in Las Vegas. You can always hope, but you can never be sure which numbers will come up :)

Some people overmanage and that can be to someone who is a self-starter, autotelic, etc. The trick is to learn to appreciate the drive of the person who overmanages. It is easy to appreciate when juxtaposed with the attitude of a manager/supervisor who does not care. Nothing is more deflating than working under the authority of someone who is happy with mediocrity or failure, only cares about doing enough to keep his/her job, and/or favors personal relationships over work performance. I have never heard of poor morale under a manager supervisor who cares or cares too much. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It is when it is abusive power types that care more about delegation and power than development and growth.

I think that often the reason why a person in an organization is hated is because he/she does not practice favoritism, holds everybody accountable, does not tolerate nonsense, etc. I think that people confuse that personal managerial style with an oppressive hierarchy in an oppressive organization. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I don't see why that person would be hated. It is the managers that cause division, favoritism, keeps only the people that work harder accountable and allow others to slide by, and not just tolerates the nonsense but causes it by talking about other staff, etc. That's a Trump-like managerial environment.

I would say that the stress is not inherent in the structure of the organization but is the result of workers' goals, intentions, attitudes etc. clashing with the organization's goals, intentions, attitudes etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yeah, but much of that clashing is bound to happen when you have fact that jobs without very limiting features (as Bitter Crank has described) are scarce. It says something about the human condition that we cannot think of better things to do than some of the more soul less jobs out there. People are so programmed to have tasks to accomplish, that they will take inanity over boredom. Part of the reason to not throw more people into the world is the inanity of much of the economic sphere. People are forced into a high likelihood of these types of jobs. You can turn it around and blame the worker's attitude, but how do you know that isn't just a "meme" that keeps people turning on each other than the structures itself? In other words, the tables can always be turned on blame.

The latter may be the biggest reason why companies do not hesitate to replace humans with artificial intelligence. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I hope so. I hope there is a better way than the antiquated inanity of the last 100 years give or take of the modern workplace.

Can work even said to be rewarding if taken place in harmful environments of hierarchies? — schopenhauer1

It can work in the opposite direction of this hierarchy too. I was recently employed by this really large NGO and I got promoted only six months into starting with the organisation that really, I mean really peeved off a lot of staff members who have been working there for many years. They regularly undermine and gossip about me but luckily I do not have to see them often and simply brush my shoulders off each time something gets flung into my direction, a strength I learnt after making the fatal mistake several years ago for caring about what people thought.

Indeed an organisation structure must rank staff based on the output of their activities in order to ensure a vertical chain of command, but the issue is often cultural and that relies on the cultural attitude towards the concept of power as well as whether there are adequate regulations and policies within the organisation to promote clearly defined models of behaviour. A person who is higher up the chain of command should not consider him/herself as 'superior' and those lower as 'subordinate' as the former is adequately compensated for their capacity to undertake the activities required, but rather the arrangement should be viewed as a responsibility they have to protect the welfare and influence productivity of those down the chain.

The biggest problem is that there are many many many many people who are employed in positions that they are not competent in fulfilling. Harm or violence needn't actually be physical such as repeatedly and intentionally experiencing verbal abuse or threats that causes distress and places a person' well being at risk, and this is often achieved by those who attempt to exert power over someone else (by making them feel powerless). They lack leadership qualities and because of the hierarchical arrangement vis-a-vis capacity to influence, they enable a bad or negative culture to form. The problem is thus power and responsibility.

It is when it is abusive power types that care more about delegation and power than development and growth. — schopenhauer1

I don't see why that person would be hated. It is the managers that cause division, favoritism, keeps only the people that work harder accountable and allow others to slide by, and not just tolerates the nonsense but causes it by talking about other staff, etc. That's a Trump-like managerial environment. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, but much of that clashing is bound to happen when you have fact that jobs without very limiting features (as Bitter Crank has described) are scarce. It says something about the human condition that we cannot think of better things to do than some of the more soul less jobs out there. People are so programmed to have tasks to accomplish, that they will take inanity over boredom. Part of the reason to not throw more people into the world is the inanity of much of the economic sphere. People are forced into a high likelihood of these types of jobs. You can turn it around and blame the worker's attitude, but how do you know that isn't just a "meme" that keeps people turning on each other than the structures itself? In other words, the tables can always be turned on blame. — schopenhauer1

I hope so. I hope there is a better way than the antiquated inanity of the last 100 years give or take of the modern workplace. — schopenhauer1

It's not just work.

Before people can go through all that inanity in the workplace there has to be consumer demand for the products and services being produced. Today in the U.S. was Black Friday at most retailers (even though it is Thursday; even though it is not Friday yet). How much of the goods purchased today do you think people really wanted or needed? Steve Jobs went as far as saying, "It's not the consumer's job to know what they want".

It's how capitalism works. In Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism Richard H. Robbins shows how capitalism requires several elements in order for it to work. Two of those are an inexpensive, disciplined labor force and a class of consumers willing to purchase more and more commodities. He shows the ways that cultural change occurred that changed people from being frugal to being willing consumers of more and more commodities. For example, he shows how the attractions at Walt Disney World in Orlando, FL were designed to do downplay in the minds of visitors the damage that capitalism does to human rights, the environment, etc. They were designed to mold more willing consumers in the global capitalist system. It is all thoroughly documented/footnoted. Even if you aren't interested in reading the entire book, the chapter on the creation of the capitalist consumer won't disappoint you.

Therefore, I find that a lot of the people I interact with are very boring. They have no creativity. They have no intellectual life. They might attend church regularly, but they have very little of what I would call a spiritual life. All they know is Monday Night Football, "The Big Bang Theory", trips to Hawaii and other made-for-the-consumer tourism, etc. It feels like the only thing they know how to do is be consumers, to be honest.

All of the research that I read about says that that consumption doesn't make us happier. It does make our lives extremely stressful, I think it is safe to say.

All I can tell you is that to be happy you will probably have to create your own way of life outside of capitalism. During those times when capitalism does not have a choke hold on you--such as when you are not on the job--discover things that have not been commodified and watered down for mass production and consumption, such as nature; work on projects of your own imagination while you have a break from working on market-researched, McDonaldized, uninspiring projects; learn to appreciate things that capitalism has little or no use for, such as the art of homemaking; etc.

Capitalism probably can't last forever. I know of nobody who honestly says that capitalism is sustainable.

If you need to hear something refreshing about work and economy, read Wendell Berry's essay "Christianity and the Survival of Creation". Even if you are not religious/theistic, it is a refreshing reminder that not everybody thinks in lockstep with capitalism about work and economy.

Ronald Wright points out in A Short History of Progress that hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian and that civilization is hierarchical. He calls civilization "A fool's paradise".

The work that has shown me more than any other that this capitalist misery is not inevitable is Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures, by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri-Prakash (I read the 1998 edition). The most riveting book that I have read. Their thesis is that among the world's oppressed majority--who have only suffered from capitalism--a post-modern epic is unfolding and those people are moving beyond all of the things like the issues that you bring up.

The whole global capitalist system is oppressive and unhealthy, not just the hierarchical organizations/beaurocracy that are part of its infrastructure. Things like work and business can--and may eventually be ecologically required to--be done outside of all of it. During the time that the system does not have a choke hold on you, there's nothing stopping you from behaving other ways economically.

"It's not the consumer's job to know what they want". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You probably should not take that literally. It's advertising talk; "WE advertisers know people better than they know themselves."

Advertisers are in the business of creating wants. They know, for sure, what they wish people would want, and they do their damnedest to get people to want what they are selling.

Is the person so wanting to get a big flat screen TV really unaware of what they want? I don't think so. People have been wanting TVs as sort of pleasure boxes and status symbols for a long time--like, back when color TV was a new thing, then better color TVs, and bigger ones.

My guess is that watching TV on a really nice big screen is a pleasure. If they can buy that pleasure on sale on Black Friday, well... that doesn't mean they are consumer zombies.

Sure, a big TV is a luxury item, and it can not give deep and abiding happiness. Does anybody expect that? No, I think they just like watching bigger screens. Do $50,000 or $70,000 cars give a nicer, more pleasant ride than the cheapest car you can get? Yes, they do. If first class nicer than economy class? Yes, it is. Is fine cotton cloth better than burlap for a shirt? Yes, it is.

Most people (living lives of quiet desperation as we do) don't have a whole lot of choices in our lives. Getting the big TV or not might be one of the few choices we get to make. Most of our choices are already made. Will I get up to go to work? If I want an income, I will get up. I don't like my job but I will put up with it because we need the money. I'd like a really nice car and a nice home but I don't have enough money for those things. And so on and on.

It feels like the only thing they know how to do is be consumers, to be honest. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It could very well be that their role in life, per the needs of capitalists, is to be a low paid worker and be a consumer. To what extent any of us escape that role is in doubt. A lot of us smart educated culturally sophisticated people work in the "back offices" of capitalism, helping to maintain the system in various and sundry ways, like by doing education or social maintenance jobs.

All of the research that I read about says that that consumption doesn't make us happier. It does make our lives extremely stressful, I think it is safe to say. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I totally agree that consumption, per se, does not -- can not -- make us happier, or make life more meaningful. Adding stuff to one's collection of stuff doesn't pack that big a punch. Consumption certainly doesn't compensate for the wretchedness of the workplace.

Altogether, capitalism does not -- can not -- enrich people's lives. Stuff doesn't make people happy. What makes people happy is having good relationships with other people--neighbors, friends, children, co workers, all that. And -- despite capitalism -- many people have obtained those good relationships.

Having a rich intellectual and spiritual life is gravy. 2/3 of the American population hasn't been to college, didn't develop a strong and wide reading habit in high school and are not going to be deeply involved in intellectual pursuits. For a lot of people, intellectual pursuits just aren't that interesting.

Having expectations of other people is kind of like playing the slot machines in Las Vegas. You can always hope, but you can never be sure which numbers will come up — Aurora

(Y)

My guess is that watching TV on a really nice big screen is a pleasure. If they can buy that pleasure on sale on Black Friday, well... that doesn't mean they are consumer zombies.

Most people (living lives of quiet desperation as we do) don't have a whole lot of choices in our lives. Getting the big TV or not might be one of the few choices we get to make. Most of our choices are already made. Will I get up to go to work? If I want an income, I will get up. I don't like my job but I will put up with it because we need the money. I'd like a really nice car and a nice home but I don't have enough money for those things. And so on and on. — Bitter Crank

One can have pleasure without being a capitalist consumer. Taking in a sunrise is one example.

Being a capitalist consumer is a lot of stress and headaches. You have to borrow money--and then pay it back, plus interest--to buy that TV set, car, McMansion in the suburbs, etc. You have to arrive early (you should have seen the usually empty parking lot behind my apartment at 5am one Black Friday), spend hours in line, etc. to get those deals. And then a lot of what you buy, whether you keep it or give it away as a gift, collects dust and/or ends up in a landfill. Then you repeat the process next year.

Think of the stress and money that would be saved if you just borrowed your neighbor's cordless drill on the rare occasion you need one rather than going through Black Friday to get a deal on something that will mostly collect dust.

But in order for capitalism to work enough people have to be able and willing to consume more and more stuff.

As some observers have pointed out, with jobs outsourced to Third World countries for sweatshop wages, and with stagnant wages at home the past 50 years, the only way that consumption has been able to keep going in the U.S. is through credit and a lot of (probably unprecedented) household debt.

I think that it would be too generous to call it "consumer zombies". Helpless fools seems more fitting.

Or is it really fulfilling to go ballistic because a product does not deliver the benefits you were promised? Taking it out on an innocent person working the phones in a call center who did not design or make the product and is powerless to do much (and is often being forced to follow a script), is that how a liberated person acts? Is that how a person empowered by having choices acts?

Being liberated and having choices would be learning to cook your own satisfying meals from scratch, make your own living room furniture with your own tools (or your neighbors), create your own entertainment, etc. Depending on other people who do not have your best interests in mind to make you happy, make you feel free/empowered/liberated, etc. and then taking your disappointment, frustration and anger out on powerless innocent people is not be anything that I would call good, no matter how much marginal, fleeting pleasure it yields.

Being a capitalist consumer is not much different from being a capitalist worker.

They might attend church regularly, but they have very little of what I would call a spiritual life. All they know is Monday Night Football, "The Big Bang Theory", trips to Hawaii and other made-for-the-consumer tourism, etc. It feels like the only thing they know how to do is be consumers, to be honest. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yep.

During those times when capitalism does not have a choke hold on you--such as when you are not on the job--discover things that have not been commodified and watered down for mass production and consumption, such as nature; work on projects of your own imagination while you have a break from working on market-researched, McDonaldized, uninspiring projects; learn to appreciate things that capitalism has little or no use for, such as the art of homemaking; etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Nature..hmm, funny you mention look for things that are not "watered down for mass production and consumption". Much of nature has been just that- watered down for mass consumption. People take day trips into national/state/local parks and go on "hiking" or "camping" excursions. They visit beautiful landmarks, etc. This to me is just the commodification of nature just the same. Everything is totalized by the commodification process. Even the "meme" you describe of "going back to nature" in itself is a consumption of nature which is restorative so that you can be productive little workers in the work hours. It is why Frederick Law Olmsted and other landscapers were commissioned to design things like Central Park. But even more "nature-y nature" like Yellowstone is a place to be consumed by travelers.

Ronald Wright points out in A Short History of Progress that hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian and that civilization is hierarchical. He calls civilization "A fool's paradise". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, I think there is something to be said for ways of managing that a more democratic than the vassal-serf model of the "benevolent manager-dictator" trying to squeeze the most productivity out of his/her workers through various sociological and psychological strategies. Besides the fact that workers are often used as a means to an ends (a moral problem), besides the fact that many managers aren't fit for their job due to nepotism, bad personnel choices (a problem of contingent luck that makes a less-ideal model even that much less ideal), besides the fact that many models cannot support continued growth of workers, thus limiting their ability to move "up the corporate chain", it would seem to me humans would inherently value more agency than a vassal-serf model in the first place.

No amount of research, organization, rearranging, or planning, is going to solve any of the problems you mentioned. These problems cannot be solved on that level of thinking.

What is really required is a shift in the level of consciousness of the people that make up the workplace. That is really the only way anything will change.

To quote Einstein, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them."

This is just my opinion, of course. Take it or leave it :)

No amount of research, organization, rearranging, or planning, is going to solve any of the problems you mentioned. These problems cannot be solved on that level of thinking. — Aurora

Yep and I advocate not starting the problems in the first place- even the problem ofovercoming the problem through some self-help mentality change. In other words, do not throw more people into the world to give them challenges to overcome (in this case, the very pervasive and necessary evil of work).