The Origin Of Management

The feodalists were the first to discover this "hidden knowledge". But at first, management was a genuine invention, an inovation. It was meant for efficiency to sustain the survival of the group against harsh environments. But then, it was dominated by people who lacks from true real world skills.

"If you are not good at any other productive/creative traits, you are good at management".

Management became a plagiarism and "plague". Anyone seeing its beneficial potent, wanted to work it, or even monopolize it. It was about focusing all of your mind in the managerial activity, since not everyone has the determination to do this "borring" part.

But the true potentials of management was not just about money, it was primarily about power and influence. Since, wealth was one tool toward power/influence. This is later practiced at its extemes by the capitalists, but we wont jump to that part so fast, just yet. So, it was about influence, to grow toward other means, not just money. People want to grow, and one way to grow is achieved by gaining support from others, from the community and from society. It is also about trust and personal image and prestige.

In short words, management was the tool to seize influence from the people who had the real skills and talents, in the real world. You can also say, it was about "seizing the momentum". Momentum is time, thus "time is money". And momentum is also speed/velocity, the most important element according Sun Tzu aswell. Hitler also knew and implemented this in his highly successful Blitzkrieg campaigns. Time, momentum, speed; the most important element in the universe? They also said that this is the most important element in a good joke. But this would be OOT.

So, what happens next? The feodalist became more eager to dominate this knowledge. Since it was very strategic and efficient to gain dominance in a society. Did they want to conceal this knowledge? The more paranoid they were toward others and the natural world, the more determined they get to master and make it a secret knowledge? As usual, fear is the most effective dope to raise ambitions. It catapults it into orbit

So the feodalists evolves more egocentrical, since they know how easy life could be if they could master "managerial skills". And their mind became narrowed down to worship managements, and disregard true skills in the natural real world. Management became the new god, and real talent became a mere commodity taken for granted.

Some of the feodalists later evolved even more schizophrenic and ambitious and megalomanic, they became the monarchists. I guess, they drowned deeper into the managerial worship cult. But a more efficient and sophisticated management technique. The imaginaries had to be larger. The larger the power, the larger were also their influence toward community. This was self sustaining. And the more alienated would they become apart from the mental state and awareness of the rest of the society. They evolved to different castes (for good now), they would and could not be able to emotionaly connect with the lower castes, ever again. And they also dont intend to fall back into the low lives, they are way to paranoic and schizophrenic to. They fear very much to be of common men, and they brainwash their children and close ones into sharing their belief. Thus, Hegel's master morality.

And religion might be also another means to override the monarchist authority, through alternative mind conditionings. It might be another attempt to seize momentum from the old feodal/monarch powers. Since the utopian might be more compeling than the concrete traditional authorities. The ideal/spiritual offers more freedom of intepretation, although this is not always the case. It also grants the opportunity to spread influence and also helps to shape reality in the direction desired by the authors. But Hegel said this to be a slave morality extention. Whether might be true.

But other feodalists had ideas too to seize momentum from the monarchs. But it was too late, the monarchists had acclaimed all soil to be their property. And there is no way they could match their military power. It was a dictatorship. Yet, they understand that it was about managements and wealth, to seize influence from the monachists stage. And since people tend to have a fetish toward wealth, wich was constantly displayed by the royals, that was it! It was the answer to overthrow the monarch in the long run. And that was the birth of capitalism!

The monarch could be weakened if they could steal their money stream. And it was achieved by commerce. And it was heavily stimulated commerce and consumerism, supported by the industry and machinery. Machinery could do what regular manpower could never have done.

They could even buy land owned by the monarchists, if they became poor enough and sustaining a kingdom became a burden. But the capitalists had to act fast, very fast, to overlap the monarchs, who had an earlier start. What they had to do is gain public simpathy. Thus, they label everyhing in FREE. Freemarket, free citizens, free election, freedom of speech. Of course it was compeling to the public, granted such sense of freedom, compared being subjected to the monarchy in former times. And I am not saying, this is neccesserily a bad thing either. Just consider about overratings.

And since capitalism became an ideology, the monarchists had no clue how to kill it. But then, somehow another form appears, a combination of both, a synthesis or a symbiotic of industrialization and monarchism, the IMPERIALIST faction. And they were even more megalomaniac than the monarchists, they wanted to control all of the globe. Through commerce and trade. But also cultural influence.

And since commerce has evolved this far and so complicated, they needed a more sophisticated and more specialized tool. Accountancy was the modern form of corporate management discipline.

But yet, another faction of the earlier feodals had another idea to seize power from the capitalists and imperialists. It was a reactionary and antithesis of them, it was Communism. Were they encouraging the lower castes to unite in a mondial scale, through Marx? To overthrow the old powers, and creating a classless society? But probably they knew that such utopian society could never trully ever exist. What do you think of this postulate? Thus was the birth of socialism. But the real purpose was to raise to power, replacing the overthrown old ones? The so called new sovyet ruling class/caste.

I'm not sure where to put the liberal faction in this. Or their ultra wing, the libertarians/anarchists. But I think they understand power in a different point of view. Or is it just another elaborate manipulation tachnique to seize power/influence, nontheless. Since like Nietzsche said: "The world itself is the will to power - and nothing else! And you yourself are the will to power - and nothing else!". Is Nietzsche right?

The liberals were initialy the creation of the industrial-capitalists, to deconstruct the old monarchists and feodal powers. They became big in France and the US, but then, what then? Whom do they serve now, themselves?

And what is about conspiracy theory itself? Was it created by the unified force of all the above powers? To mislead the rest of the lower castes, the so called 99ers, to develop hatred toward a nonexistent enemy, called the NWO? So the other powers could continue to do their bussines without disturbance? This is my own conspiracy theory folks, but what is yours? What do you think? Cheers..... In which bandwagon will you jump?

P.S.: Thats it for now. And please feel free to move this thread, mod, if you think its in the wrong subforum. Thank you.

reply to post by coyote66


You bring up some good points.

These days, it certainly is interesting to consider the fact that many jobs that people perform could now be done by machines or robots of some kind.

What's even more interesting is that managers were never really needed in the first place, so long as the less stratified work force was sufficient at self governing, and governing each other, while performing their tasks adequately. Way back in the day it would make more sense, because the managers were probably much more educated than the workers, but these days, with ready access to so much information, that gap has narrowed to, well, no gap at all.

Originally posted by Soloro
reply to post by coyote66

 

You bring up some good points.

These days, it certainly is interesting to consider the fact that many jobs that people perform could now be done by machines or robots of some kind.

What's even more interesting is that managers were never really needed in the first place, so long as the less stratified work force was sufficient at self governing, and governing each other, while performing their tasks adequately. Way back in the day it would make more sense, because the managers were probably much more educated than the workers, but these days, with ready access to so much information, that gap has narrowed to, well, no gap at all.

edit on 20-8-2012 by Soloro because: (no reason given)

absolutely.

i have no education beyond being a freshman college dropout.

one thing i have discovered, though. As a manager I work far, far harder and longer than I ever did as a front line employee. Working hourly, I could be sure to be home during "unscheduled" times, and to not be interrupted Now, I get calls at all hours of the day and night. My workload is extreme,a nd if i don't finish it it just sits and waits for me to return. This makes having to miss a day of work for something like a dental appointment, or vacation time, a most painful experience, as i have to work twice and hard to get caught back up. the business keeps moving, and my input is still expected regardless of my presence.

But, were people able to effectively lead and direct themselves, most of my "managerial" work would be useless. Since the reality is that, even as adults people still need guidance as if they were children (at least, many do) because of all manner of problems (attendance, work ethic, etc, etc).

But being a leader isn't something you do by default. When i promote a new leader, it is more like the time has come for them to promote themselves. I just choose the individual that seems to be the best leader, by virtue of performance as well as true leadership (do they command a presence, etc).

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

absolutely.

i have no education beyond being a freshman college dropout.

one thing i have discovered, though. As a manager I work far, far harder and longer than I ever did as a front line employee. Working hourly, I could be sure to be home during "unscheduled" times, and to not be interrupted Now, I get calls at all hours of the day and night. My workload is extreme,a nd if i don't finish it it just sits and waits for me to return. This makes having to miss a day of work for something like a dental appointment, or vacation time, a most painful experience, as i have to work twice and hard to get caught back up. the business keeps moving, and my input is still expected regardless of my presence.

But, were people able to effectively lead and direct themselves, most of my "managerial" work would be useless. Since the reality is that, even as adults people still need guidance as if they were children (at least, many do) because of all manner of problems (attendance, work ethic, etc, etc).

But being a leader isn't something you do by default. When i promote a new leader, it is more like the time has come for them to promote themselves. I just choose the individual that seems to be the best leader, by virtue of performance as well as true leadership (do they command a presence, etc).

Can you tell me more about your job? So you are a supervisor, you assist freshmen by guiding them how to do their work in a proper manner. What else? What kind of work stacks up on your desk if you were out for vacation? Accounting and report papers? And what is the most disstressing routine in your job?

But of course it is worth the pay, isnt it? Otherwise, why would you want to deal with such stress at your job, if the pay werent good enough. Or is it because to work for your employee is way easier and rewarding acompared if you were setting your own company, or do something on your own for a living?

reply to post by coyote66


I am a "Controller". In effect, a CFO for a very small corporation (we are a hotel/spa/restaurant/bar, with a couple of other properties we are developing). I am paid quite a bit less than what people in my position would typically make. I accept this because it is still a pay that keeps me from starving, and I get to do work that I enjoy. I get to take on challenges that I enjoy. And once I prove my skills are relevant in the position (which has happened already) we can budget a pay increase to align my pay more closely with the market (which is still about half of what the national average would be). It is the "no college diploma handicap" that I deal with.

When I took this job I had never worked in an accounting department. So the challenge of being the chief finance officer was something that intrigued me.

When my call center closed I applied to be a GM for a hotel. I had never worked in a hotel before. So being the chief executive of a hotel was something that intrigued me.

I do the jobs I do because it is something that is an intellectual challenge in the extreme. My current role sometimes puts my mind under so much stress that I actually will have passing regret for taking on the challenge. And the pain that causes me to think that....it just drives me harder.

And to throw in the impossible twist, I have another prerequisite that I demand: no matter how hard and demanding the job is, I have to spend 3 hours every evening with my family. So my kids have me prepare their meals, see me clean up the kitchen, have me kiss them goodnight every single night. They rarely eat dinner without me, and never go to bed without me.

More than you wanted to know....but that is what I do, and why I do it.