The feudal system was simple - lords were masters over plots of land that they would defend through the employments of soldiers. The people who lived on that land did so at the whim of the lord, but the right to space and the relative security from brigands the lords' knights came at a price.
The peasants privileged enough to live on the lord's land had to give something in return - a portion of crops grown for instance, or a certain number of hours working directly on the lord's work. Peasants rarely had to do things they would not have done regardless for their own survival - they simply had to produce more.
So long as the lord provided space an relative security, his job was done. Soldiers served not only as guardians of the realm, but also enforcers of production.
That was the arrangement - space and security for labour, which was supervised by a middle class of managers. There was no cause for the peasants to collaborate on anything except the lord's work, and then under tight supervision. It was not in the lord's interest to let his peasants fraternize, lest they get ideas (which happened anyway).
Feudal societies tend not to be very innovative ones, as you can imagine. That's not to say innovation never happened, it simply wasn't nurtured.
This basic laissez-faire model - lord (or boss), enforcers (or middle management) and at the bottom, the labourers has been repeated across time and geography. The rules are the same - stay in line, or you'll be punished. Produce more, you'll be rewarded. Do things differently, well, there's not much place for that. It's the model that sustained the Industrial Age, Tokugawa Japan and arguably, many an organized religion. It's become the de-facto model of the Knowledge Economy as well.
How many employers today believe that, by providing their employees with a desk, computer and phone, plus the right to slap the company name on their card, they have lived up to the fullness of their responsibility How many of these brandlords believe it's up to their employees to self-motivate, create content, satiate clients and do the ever-demanding job of sales? How many mangers feel their role is about driving activity, not coordinating success?
We have entered a new world of neo-feudalism where the it's the job of the bottom to sustain the top rather than the top to empower and propel forward the whole. Adding value, at least in Canada, isn't of interest - simply more of the same is.
Which is why, in a pandemic of youth unemployment, the message being conveyed is that kids these days have unrealistic expectations when they think that higher education in promoted programs will translate into higher starting salaries. It's a privilege to be able to hold a job and earn any kind of salary - to expect more from those with capital is unrealistic.
It's not that the bar is being set higher so much as it is the floor has been raised. Is it any wonder that the middle class is shrinking? In a society that promotes management over motivation, how many middlemen do you really need?
While nations the world over are evolving their economies, Canada remains frozen. We don't care, though - instead of nurturing collaboration and new ideas, we're pushing competition over natural resources.
There's a big difference between harvesting the fruit of someone else's labour and nurturing innovation and value-add. You don't grow a garden by expecting vegetables to audition for the right to be planted in your soil; similarly, you can't expect your employees to add value unless you're providing direction, support and coordination.
Are you an employer? If so, are you a leader or a brandlord?
If it's the latter and you've got a simple model that just requires unchanging mass production, carry on.
If, however, you're in a business that relies on creating new solutions, products or services for your clients, you might want to try a different approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment