from Michael Wood (http://www.users.bigpond.com/woodconsulting/)

Control by self vs control by outside forces

I recently saw a program on television that discussed Western society’s relationship with its technology and its economies. One of the paradoxes was the fact that the expressed desire of the Western democratic countries was a free market which coincidentally produced a reduction in personal freedoms. This was linked to the culture of consumerism, as expressed by the Americans. It was also linked to reports that people feel that there lives are more controlled by outside forces than people of thirty or forty years ago. This was presented as linked to increased levels of stress. When people feel that they are not in control of their lives, they experience more stress.

There are, however, alternative viewpoints. I firmly believe that stress is a serious issue in modern Australian society. And, I believe, it is an issue that is ignored by the vast majority of businesses, managers and even staff. As was stated during the program, stress and pressure are different things. Some people thrive in high pressure environments. Some people balance high pressure at work with low pressure at home, or vice versa. However, if you are under more pressure than you can cope with, you experience stress.

What may make a difference is how you interpret the concept of self-determination versus external influences. Certainly, there has been a swing back to the concept that people are responsible for their own fates, particularly if these fates are unpleasant. Politics and politicians trumpet the idea of “user pays” as also representing “user choice”. “Blame the victim” is still a popular game for the media, business and people who want to feel better off than the victim.

This idea is also often linked to the idea that people who assign external forces as having significant influence over their lives as somehow weaker. People who take charge are in control and attribute their success or failure to their own endeavours, so the reasoning goes. My feelings are that this is simply the latest in the fad pop psychology that is used to justify the feudal system. Much like the divine right of kings, this idea suggests that those at the top of the economic scale are there because they are somehow better than others.

The sense that your life is influenced by outside forces is generally considered a problem in modern management and popular media mindsets. This is based upon the assumption that people who believe their lives are out of their control take little responsibility for their actions.

The application of historical perspective can radically change this interpretation, however. The ancients believed that their lives were run at the capricious whim of the gods. The Odyssey is a prime example of how people perceived their relationships with the gods. A similar attitude existed amongst Christians who felt that great and powerful forces moved their lives in unpredictable ways. The medieval European peasants knew for a fact that the lords and ladies had enormous control over them. One of the most frightening things about the French revolution for the nobility was the idea that common people, in enough numbers, could challenge the power and control of the upper classes.

While the idea that everyone chooses their own path has been around for a long time, the idea that every individual chooses their own destiny is a child of the Twentieth Century. For most of history, realising that there were things out of your control and making the best of things was not just a rational reaction to the world, but also a good survival strategy. And yet, many management systems in planning or in practice look down on people who are not overwhelmingly confident in their ability to affect reality (or, at least, expressing that position) – in some cases, effectively isolating these people from positions of responsibility.

The odd thing is that this attitude is bound up in addictive behaviour. Make of that what you will. In fact, the support process for many programs dealing with addiction specifically includes an acceptance that the person does not control everything and that there is a greater force out there. People with addiction problems often say that they are in control and making choices, where the reality is quite different.

People who come to a religion often talk about putting themselves in the hands of their deity, and sometimes their spiritual leader as well. Part of the process is the acceptance that there is something else controlling the world.

So, from my point of view, acknowledgement that you do not have complete control of the universe is not just a logical response but a sane response to the vagaries of fate. One of the best managers that I have ever had was an ex-Air Force logistics officer. He had responsibility for making things happen, but his attitude towards the difference between the plan and the reality was inspirational. He said, “We need to get from here to there. We will, and when things fall off the back of the truck, we will go back and pick them up later.” This applied to any project.

Forget absolute rigid control and gung-ho people who think they can negotiate the world into doing what they want. Fill your organisation with people who know what a rainy day is and know who to deal with one.

humans are capable of anything, their restrictions are only what they put on themselves.

Sappho wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 1:12am:


yes theoretically, if you knew how

unless ofcourse the prompt the discovery of flight