degeneration of the work of man, The

Back in the Ice Age, around 30,000 B.C., people lived in tribal societies in which the principal occupations were hunting and gathering. The hunters hunted animals that varied in size from rabbit to wooly mammoth and the gatherers collected all manner of wild vegetation such as berries, nuts, and roots.

Today, hunting and gathering are not thought of as occupations. The former term evokes images of macho-men shooting Bambi and the latter makes people think of unshaven granola-types looking for psychedelic mushrooms. But 30,000 years ago hunting and gathering were noble professions because when the hunting and gathering efforts were successful the tribe got to eat and that was important for their well being. So men and women honed their hunting techniques carefully, worked to improve their gathering skills, and conscientiously imparted that which they had learned to their children so that the knowledge would serve future generations.

Around 10,000 years ago, agriculture replaced hunting and gathering as the primary method of obtaining food. Crops were planted, animals were domesticated, and the nomadic existence of the hunter/gatherer gave way to the more stable one of the farmer.

Farming, too, had a lot to do with eating and was therefore a noble profession in its own right. Farmers constantly tried to improve their methods and enhance their abilities. They experimented, they worked hard, and they also took pains to ensure that their children were imbued with the knowledge that would allow them to farm and produce the food that the population depended on for survival.

THE COTTAGE INDUSTRY

Farming was a much more productive way of obtaining food than was hunting and gathering. Because of this, fewer people were needed as farmers than had been needed as hunter/gatherers. More people were able to break away from food production and concentrate on producing other things that were needed (or at least desired) by the community. Primarily, these individuals took natural materials, such as clay, metal, and leather, and crafted them into products, such as pots, tools, and clothing. The crafts were traded or sold for food or for other products.

As civilization evolved, crafts became more popular. Eventually, because of this, cities developed. Cities were originally nothing more than groups of little cottages where craftsmen lived and worked. They may have had a room or two of the cottage devoted to their craft or they may have had a shed in back of the house. Regardless, they were working at their cottage and it is from this situation that we got the term "cottage industry."

How did these cottage industries operate? If you worked with metal as a blacksmith, for example, what would you do? In a word, everything! You would be responsible for purchasing the iron and steel. When it arrived, you would be responsible for maintaining the inventory so that you didn't run out. You would be responsible for getting the fire going so you could work the metal. You would be responsible for determining what products needed to be made to sell. You would be responsible for pricing and selling them. You would be responsible for keeping records of your orders and sales. And especially, you would be responsible for creating the best possible product you were capable of.

The word responsible was just mentioned seven times. Responsibility was a key factor in cottage industries because except in instances when tasks were parceled out to apprentices, there was no such thing as a division of labor. If a craftsman was irresponsible, the result was much the same as when the hunter failed to bring home the rabbit or the gatherer failed to bring home the nuts. He didn't eat. So craftsmen were responsible. They took great pride in their work. And, like the hunter, gatherer, and farmer, they trained their children to be useful and productive members of society.

REVOLUTIONIZING INDUSTRY

One person making things by hand is inefficient. As the population grew there was more demand for goods than craftsmen could readily supply. Ingenuity took hold and machines were invented that could make the pots and tools and clothes. The ultimate result was something that historians have called the Industrial Revolution.

Most people who think about the Industrial Revolution think about the fact that instead of laboring in their cottages, people went to a factory where the machines were and labored there. While that is true, and while there were certainly ramifications resulting from that change in people's lifestyle, the Industrial Revolution was far more serious than the mere addition of a commute. The Industrial Revolution is so named because it revolutionized industry. It changed the nature of work.

Since the dawn of civilization, people had been using tools. In an incredible reversal, the tools were now using the people. The only production tasks that were given to the workers were the ones that the machines could not perform. These tasks were analyzed and broken down into simple subtasks and each subtask became a job. No longer was a worker a craftsman. No longer was expertise necessary. No longer were responsibility and pride factors in the work. And perhaps most significant, no longer would skills and techniques be passed down from parent to child.

Factory jobs were simple. They were so routine and rudimentary that an illiterate person could do them. A stupid person could do them. And those were exactly the types of persons companies wanted. Because if an individual was illiterate or stupid, he had few job alternatives. He would work long hours for low pay under horrendous and often life-threatening conditions. And generally, he wouldn't make any trouble.

Eventually, the union movement developed and the worst of the working conditions were improved so that people were no longer treated like beasts of burden. But what did not improve was the managerial attitude that had fostered those conditions in the first place. A worker was considered to be little more than an appendage to the machine. A person was just another interchangeable part.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WHITE COLLAR

Office jobs developed concurrently with those of the factory. Office workers did not make the manufactured products; they handled information. Of course, since people tended to apply somewhat more mundane terms to things in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was not called handling information at that time. Those who would today be labeled information handlers were referred to as white collar workers. If you worked in an office, you wore a white shirt.

People handling information were doing so in a secondary capacity. In a manufacturing organization, for example, the primary function was to manufacture things and that was done by the workers on the factory floor. Office workers performed functions such as purchasing, billing, and payroll, but only as needed to help the manufacturing process operate more efficiently. There was never a doubt in any office worker's mind why the manufacturing organization was in business. It was in business to manufacture things. There was also never a doubt in any office worker's mind why he or she was employed. The generic term for the various functions said it all--administrative support!

And yet, the work that was done for support was considered to be on a higher plane than that which it was supporting. Given the general contempt in which factory work was held, this is not surprising; it is hardly conceivable that anything could be considered lower. But why would office work be considered to be at a higher plane? Why not consider the jobs to be equal?

It all has to do with that white collar. The white collar was starched and clean, and therefore represented superiority. It was the complete opposite of the factory worker's overalls which were greasy and dirty and therefore represented--well, dirt. Man, in the course of developing his civilization, went from hunting/gathering and farming, all of which were completely dependent on dirt, to manufacturing, which is equally dependent on dirt, albeit a different kind, and dirt, in the process, somehow became not only unacceptable, but representative of a lower societal caste.

In reality, office workers, were not functioning on a higher plane at all. Mostly, in fact, they were functioning on a plane similar to that of the workers on the factory floor. Because there had been so much success in the factory by breaking a job into its smallest possible components, that system was carried over into the office for the handling of information. Regardless of the nature of the business, be it banking, insurance, or transportation, public or private sector, repetitive jobs were created. The worst were in clerical organizational units, such as the "steno pool," but the methodology was pervasive throughout, and professional and quasi-professional units, especially those with the word "processing" in their names--claims, applications, orders, payments--were organized the same way.

In essence, office workers were nothing more than clean factory workers. The grease, the smoke, and the noise may have been eliminated, but the work patterns and procedures were maintained. The white collar, however, made all the difference.

By the mid-20th century, office workers had all but forgotten their place. Administrative support functions came to be seen not only as higher plane activities, but as more important than the activities they were supposed to be supporting. This ultimately led to the establishment of fief-like entities, such as personnel and data processing departments, which took on lives of their own and which grew independent of the needs of the overall organization.

As the administrative support monster grew, it also managed to disguise itself in the cloak of credibility. As we edge ever closer to the 21st century, we see that administrative support functions have evolved (mutated would be a better word) to the point where information handling is considered to be an end unto itself instead of just being a means to some greater end. In some instances, administrative support personnel in organizations actually outnumber the workers making the primary organizational product. In this euphemistically-termed Information Age, businesses, governments, and academic institutions are overrun with forecasters, planners, and policy formulators--the types generally categorized as "wonks"--none of whom make anything.

DEGENERATION, NOT EVOLUTION

It is common to speak in terms of "evolution" when discussing the change from a hunter/gatherer society to an information handling society. And perhaps the process of going from hunting and gathering to farming and then to crafting was truly evolutionary. But it is hard to see the steps that have been taken since the start of the Industrial Revolution as steps forward.

Yes, one can point to automobiles and airplanes, indoor plumbing and central heating, radio and television. And certainly those are improvements over horses and carriages, chamber pots and open fires, town criers and "Gertie the gossip." But in the context of the work environment, the change from killing a mammoth at a hunt to killing time at a meeting can only be construed as degenerative. Reviewing again the characteristics that were essential for success in hunting/gathering, farming, and crafts making is illustrative.

* Pride in craft--Office work does not engender pride in craft. To be sure, there is fear of error, and a certain sense of relief when no error is found, but that is not the same as pleasure in accomplishment. To have pride in one's work, one must be in control of it. The pyramidal hierarchy, which is based on the philosophy that orders are given at the top and carried out at the bottom, and which was developed to manage armies, does not lend itself to delegating control to the troops. Little control--little interest.

* Responsibility--Office work does not foster a sense of responsibility. To the contrary, within a bureaucracy (and it does not take very many people to establish a bureaucratic environment) avoidance of responsibility becomes a primary survival technique. Because praise is scarce, condemnation abundant, and initiative and innovation suspect, nothing is often a good thing to do and always a good thing to say. Paradoxically, as one's organizational survival is enhanced through responsibility avoidance, one's self-esteem is diminished. Offices are filled with safe and miserable workers.

* Transference of skills--The skills learned in the office are not passed from generation to generation. Of course, if the skill involved is the avoidance of responsibility, that is probably just as well, but there is always the possibility that something more positive may have been absorbed. The sons and daughters of office workers will, in all probability, grow up to work in offices. Yet each succeeding generation starts out knowing nothing. This is not the way to have a society progress.

EVOLUTION STILL POSSIBLE

With it all, however, evolution may still be possible. Ironically, it is machines that may allow it to happen. Just as manufacturing equipment was originally responsible for moving work from the home to the factory, information handling equipment may be responsible for moving work from the office back to the home. Telecommuting--working at home with personal computers and telecommunications equipment--may stop the degenerative spiral.

It is not information handling per se that is bad, but how the information handling functions are structured within the office environment. It is the office environment, with its multilayered managerial morass, its ridiculously restrictive rules, its cramped confining cubicles, and its preponderance of pestering people that is so defeating to the human spirit. With telecommuting, all that will be eliminated.

As jobs are removed from the artificiality of the office and placed into a setting that is conducive to getting something accomplished, they will have to be restructured. Office work will no longer be based on the factory model.

With telecommuting, there will be fewer managers. The pyramid may still be the organizational model of choice, but the distance between the top and the base will be substantially shortened. The managers that remain will have to concern themselves with substantive issues, such as the quality and quantity of work produced, as opposed to frivolous matters, such as what time employees arrived at their desks or the number of trips they made to the coffee machine.

With telecommuting, the workspace will be what the worker wants it to be. Since it is the employee who will provide the space, the work area might consist of a room, a corner of a room, or an entire basement or garage as the individual prefers. The employee who likes to have a radio on while working will be able to do so. The person who likes to wallow in paper and old candy wrappers will have that option. There will be individual choice regarding things such as the amount of light in the room, the color of the walls, and whether the window is opened or closed.

With telecommuting, rules will be almost non-existent. No longer will there be policy directives dealing with inane trivialities, such as what pictures an employee can hang and the manner in which they are to be hung. No longer will "proper business attire" be a daily concern. No longer will taking a ten-minute cat-nap be considered a capital offense.

There are, of course, those who perceive this type of structure as organizational anarchy. Many managers believe that left to their own devices, telecommuting employees will sit around in their pajamas watching television talk shows instead of working. The fear is groundless. It says far more about the mindset of managers than of the motivation of workers.

An individual whose performance rating is based on output is not going to be watching talk shows; he is going to be working. With telecommuting, output will be virtually all that matters. Unlike the current office situation, where one's presence is often considered to be more important than one's production, presence will no longer be a factor at all. Managers, therefore, will only be able to rate people using quantifiable and objective criteria. The practice of judging people more on who they are than on what they produce will end.

When "dressing for success," is not an issue, a female writer might be judged more on her writing than on her shopping. When being a "good old boy" is not a consideration, a male accountant might be judged more on his calculations than on his knowledge of the weekend football scores. When daily employee comings and goings are not subject to intense scrutiny and speculation, it might be possible for male and female coworkers to meet for lunch--without being "judged" at all.

In a sense, telecommuting will allow us to return to a system that worked--the cottage industry. Information handlers working at home may not have the complete independence of the craftsmen of old, but they will have far more of it (along with a commensurate increase in responsibility and pride) than they have had for a very long time. It can't come soon enough.

It would be nice to think that we might ultimately see the return to some manner of farming as well. Not agribusiness, with its profusion of pesticides and its tasteless tomatoes, but farming--yeomen tilling the soil. Dirt notwithstanding, farming is still a noble occupation. We will always need food.

Hunting and gathering? Probably not. We've "evolved" beyond the turning point there. To be able to hunt and gather you must have the habitat to support the necessary fauna and flora. The habitat was long ago destroyed and replaced with office buildings. Now if we tore them all down...

AUTHOR: Ira A. Penn, CRM, CSP, is the Editor of the Records Management Quarterly, a professional journal published by the Association of Records Managers and Administrators, Inc. (ARMA International). He is a Senior Management Analyst with the U.S. Federal Government and has over 30 years experience in records and information management. In 1990 he was presented the Emmett Leahy Award for his contributions and outstanding accomplishments in the information and records management field.

Active in ARMA International at the Association level, Mr. Penn was the recipient of the coveted Award of Merit in 1985 and received the designation of Association Fellow in 1990. He was also active in the Institute of Certified Records Managers, served for eight years on its Board of Regents, and received the Institute's Award of Merit in 1992.

Mr. Penn is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia, PA. An accomplished writer, he won the prestigious ARMA Britt Literary Award in 1979 and is one of the principal authors of the Records Management Handbook, an international text published in London, England. A popular speaker, Mr. Penn is in demand for his thought-provoking, controversial, and down-to-earth presentations.

Copyright Association of Records Managers and Administrators Inc. Jan 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved