POWER to EMPOWER
From the nested containers on one’s kitchen cabinet, to the organization found within formal bureaucratic structures, the emphasis upon order that facilitates control and production is a reality of life. Without some order and structure, our lives would be chaotic. Therefore, order and structure are not necessarily undesirable. However, when order supersedes its original intent, and infringes upon the value placed upon the individual, then questions begin to arise about how beneficial the organization is and its representation within one’s life or within one’s society. Organization, in its simplest form, was meant to complement our society, to aid social injustice and encourage the down trodden; to help fill the gaps caused by a whole range of situations and circumstances. So, what went wrong?
The rise of the Human Rights Movement began a conflict that endures to this day. Dissatisfied with one’s lot in life, groups band together to ‘fight’ for their rights. It began a forceful political revolution that continues in ways that were never dreamed of. The result being angry resistance and disdain for the political process, as well as for the formal, legal bureaucratic bodies that have become organizations within our society that champion these causes. We understand that no one can please all the people, all the time, so the question becomes, ‘Are these battles legitimate and will they bring about the desired social reforms hoped for without incurring additional negative consequences?’ If they do bring about the reform desired, at what expense will they have been instituted? I do question the way social change has been achieved within our society. Every group seems to have a legitimate gripe that would seem to substantiate the need for their ensuing ‘fight’ for progress and equal treatment, but can equality, in the general sense of the word, be a justifiable end in itself? What do we mean by ‘equality’ and what has already been seen to be the effect of these movements within our society? Where will the continuation of these movements take us in the future? What solutions will be attained and for how long will they be effective before another uprising within our society takes place?
Russell Heddendorf, in his essay, Status and Role, declares that, “people learn to become complete humans and social beings in their statuses and roles” (Cooley Qtd. by Heddendorf). After discussing the distinction existing between ascribed and achieved states, Heddendorf concludes by stating that “while ascribed statuses provide the security of known cultural expectations, achieved statuses should stimulate individual effort while locating the right persons in appropriate social positions” (Heddendorf 93,94). Unfortunately, this does not often occur so other problems continue to exist. Status and role are dynamic and involve power and influence. They also involve the basic value of an individual. This will relate to our discussion on bureaucratic organizations, for it is within bureaucratic organizations, whose power and influence continues to grow, that affects the mainstream population. By asserting their political clout, by passing laws that limit free enterprise in favor of large industry, the individual is devalued with the focus becoming the end-product, rather than the well-being of the individual employee. Robert McCluskly, in his essay Formal Organizations explains it this way: “The predominant thrust of human relations has often been merely that people are cogs that have to be oiled in more ways than one…in many cases then, human relations has been little more than a management tool, more acceptable than coercion in molding men and women into standard parts, but having the ultimate intent to smooth the spikes of individuality in the organizational function (McClusky 270).
Thought transitioned and began to acknowledge the individual as a resource. “Many organizations are now taking steps to unharness the creative and managerial abilities of employees at every level, and the organizations are attaining both productivity and employee satisfaction previously undreamed of” (McClusky 270). Managerial style continued to be scrutinized. McClusky discusses a behavior study done by Chris Argyris, in which he develops several managerial patterns. Pattern B managers “tend toward building identification with, and commitment to, organizational objectives through trust and competency” (McClusky 271). These managers utilize the Theory Y assumption that “people [are] creative, desirous of responsibility, and anxious to work at activities that provide nurturance of these characteristics” (McClusky 271). This position reinforces the employee as a resource and allows for individuality, which is a marked improvement over the past categorization. Human value is intrinsic within any social order and will accent progress within any social system. It is a basic need every human being has and it will affect individual status, role and the community. Nevertheless, without leadership possessing both formal and functional authority, this modification also has limitations. Formal authority, without functional authority, leaves employees feeling unappreciated and at the mercy of their employers, whose rigidity to rules and production needs alone create an impersonal and cold work environment. Add the human touch, in the way of functional authority, and the whole climate changes. Functional authority creates a level of relationship between employers and their employees which brings unity into the work place and gives everyone a sense of belonging. In addition to empowering employees to reach their potential by allowing them to feel valuable and have status and role, corporations need to step up to a greater responsibility for caring for the individual, not just the organization.
An example of someone in a leadership position possessing both formal and functional authority is John Stroup. He is the CEO of Belden Inc., a manufacturing company in Richmond, Indiana, who took the initiative to brain storm, along with their board, to come up with an innovative approach to solve their employment problem. Belden has been in Richmond for 70 years and is an integral part of the community. Not only were many individuals leaving the work force due to retirement, the increase of substance abuse within their community was a growing reality and it was affecting the workforce that was employable. Belden’s policy did not allow for any individual to be employed with the company if substance abuse showed up through testing due to safety issues. Those who were already employed at Belden were terminated if substance abuse became known. Economically, growth and production were up so there was job availability and the need for those jobs to be filled. The problem facing the company was the lack of employable employees within the community due to drug use.
The board, under John Stroup’s leadership, decided to implement a program that would guarantee a job to anyone who would go through an 18-month rehabilitation program. This innovative program was developed with the support of community sponsors and Belden’s policy was changed to give individuals who had made a mistake a second chance. Medical professionals within the community developed the drug rehabilitation program. Belden invested approximately 16,000 dollars per person for their employees and potential employees to go through the program which was offered to them free of any cost to them. Those who completed the rehabilitation program were guaranteed jobs. Individuals within the local community volunteered as mentors. Out of the first 23 individuals who began this program, which started in February 2018, only seven withdrew from the program. In one case, transportation needed to be provided so the individual could attend the sessions. Next year, Belden plans to begin this program at several other plants. As a result of the effectiveness of this pilot program, Belden is now producing a publication, so other interested parties will be able to reproduce this community action plan. Paul Mottershead, vice-president at Belden, compared their initiative with that of a community involved in recovering from a natural disaster. He said they were involved in the recovery of human lives from the current natural human disaster known as the opioid epidemic. In conclusion, Stroup has said, “The Pathways to Employment program is a direct result of our corporate social responsibility commitment of ethical, legal and socially responsible business practices in its operations” (https://www.freeenterprise.com ).
Life is dynamic; therefore, over time, everything will change. Unless we can adapt within our society, and find some balance resulting from cultural changes replacing the norms we have grown accustomed to, relational ‘death’ and disconnect will occur. Knowing when to be flexible and knowing when we must stand our ground becomes crucial to our survival. The only way to work through these social challenges is with wisdom, love and understanding.
It is not a secret that with all our scientific discoveries, all our medical advances, all our educational excellence, all our technological wonders, our world has not become a better place to live. There is more violence, more war, more abuse, and less respect for the common denominator — mankind. Why is it that we cannot live peaceably with one another? Why is it that we cannot wake up and be thankful for every breathe we take, realizing that life is a gift and a precious gift at that? Some may blame it on the imbalance between groups of people, whether the result of a geographical, economic, ethnic or racial divide. But could it be that we are losing the very element that would make the difference in reaching out to our brother, that being our own humanity?
We have played into our own downfall by not recognizing the dangers of formal bureaucracy. In creating formal bureaucracy, our responsibility within society began to shift. The focus was taken off the individual and focused more upon the production of a product. Many divisions needed to be created that demanded specialized individuals. Since this hierarchy focused on the need to fuel the bureaucracy, it became important to implement “rules [to] define the relationships between those in the organization and their responsibilities…[to] provide consistency even when personnel change” (Robert McClusky, 266). This eroded human relations by devaluating the individual. Individuals began to be seen only as a means to an end. Social abuses followed. We wonder why individuals within a bureaucracy cannot see the whole picture, but this hierarchy explains that. They are specialized and know how to do their assigned part, but they do not know how it fits into the big picture. The need to follow the procedures in place which hinders efficiency. The creativity or personal knowledge of an individual is no longer sought for problem solving. One must stick to protocol. This was not the case at the Beldon Manufacturing Company in Richmond, Indiana.
While a hierarchy exists within the above-mentioned company, they operate from two mutual perspectives. While the company needs to thrive and produce marketable goods, the individuals employed within the company are viewed not only as assets or resources for the benefit of the company, but they are also considered valuable as part of society, as seen by the company’s desire to impart a second chance to them so they can advance and become productive and worthwhile individuals again. This occurred as their status and role changed. It was a positive change that affected all their relationships within the company structure, as well as within their community because Richmond, Indiana is a small town where everybody knows everybody, and this second-chance opportunity was supported by their local community. It is the opinion of this author that Beldon Manufacturing Inc., by the actions they initiated, went from espousing a secondary group environment to reflecting a primary group environment. This reflects love and the Biblical principle of how leaders need to care for those who are under them.
Pastors are to look after the welfare of the entire body. Each individual member contributes to the health of the body. By caring for those within the body who are hurting, healing and growth takes place, the church becomes stronger, and the church moves forward to accomplish the task assigned to it. The sharing of time and resources for the encouragement and success of others exhibits Godly principles and fulfills God’s command to love your neighbor as yourself. Several verses that speak about caring for the weak are found in Acts 20:28,35: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God…we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” If the executive branch at Belden has, at the core of their new endeavor and policy, the best interests of their employees and their community, then they are operating according to Biblical principles and they will reap a harvest in due time. Organization is not in vain when relational goals can be reached while improving the conditions of our fellowman. These goals were meant for mutual blessing.
“Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Colossians 3:12). “Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1).
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway, Wheaton, 2002.
Harrison, J.D. “Creating Opportunity: In Indiana, A Manufacturer Offers Help, Hope and Jobs
to Opioid Victims.” Free Enterprise, October 15, 2018. https://www.freeenterprise.com
Heddendorf, Russell. “Status and Role.” Christian Perspectives on Sociology, Stephen A.
Grunlan and Milton Reimer, editors, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 2001, Pp.
90–108.
McCluskey, Robert. “Formal Organizations.” Christian Perspectives on Sociology, Stephen A.
Grunlan and Milton Reimer, editors, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 2001, Pp.
264–289.
