In Mind of the Progressive 80s Workplace, A Call to Community Through Work

It wasn't that long ago that an emphasis on collaboration and accommodation were used in workplaces intent on production enhancement, conflict resolution and-- ultimately-- longevity of cause. Similar standards of behavior may still apply in our greatest endeavoring toward true community rooted in sustainable livelihood. Today, however, we want to shed a little light on what's taken place overall during the last 20-30 years in the workplace and in politics.

The 80s Workplace

Some of us will remember (and may still benefit from) those mysterious suggestion boxes, the oft' faulty questionnaires, employee essays, and other progressive managerial tactics that better ensured all voices were heard and considered. This kind of best-practice human resource model exhibited general positives for those at all levels of an organization.

We've taken an alternate turn, though. We haven't continued in that vein of commitment to our business in life. We haven't shown loyalty to the importance of local and progressive community livelihood, which begins in the opportunities community members have beyond their personal lives, on both individual and community planes of existence. Instead, we've let the profits of a few get in the way of the pursuit of livelihood for the many.

If we look, we see this happen early with regard to Wall Street. As early as the turn of the nineteenth century, New York stock (and slave) exchanges pushed residents away from their homes in search of quieter neighborhoods uptown. The business of money outranked the people from the beginning! Yet, it was still nearly impossible to see in the 1980s, when the worst of modern Wall Street hadn't yet hit its marks so hard. During this time, most people understood mostly the benefits of investment schemes if they thought much on it at all. After all, Wall Street had its history of scrapes and falls, but as the primary entity of trade, it wouldn't be negatively affected with any kind of permanence. Rather, its affectation extends well beyond its few blocks of the world. 

It's 1999-- almost everyone in responsibility to their outcome is afraid now

By this time, the bite of Wall Street had become more evident than its bark. Certain generations have come to realize that they're being knocked back in more ways than one. More people fear their financial future, and have become saddened under evidence that warring over international interests won't end any sooner than the drain of Wall Street on Main Street. The Persian Gulf war(s) hadn't seemed like a never-ending issue in the early 90s, but still a minor depression seemed evident in U.S. society over this recently-developed situation. We posit that this is powerful fuel to hoarding mindsets.

It's a top-down effect. Even the Wolves are openly afraid of and for their jobs now. They realize it could be the life or death of them financially, and possibly literally. Our real problem now is that our attention still isn't ON Wall Street as a bastion of demise to integrity-- of a person, company, or on any national front. We're occupied instead with concern over Y2K, millennial apocalypse, and other things less real than what was actually taking place.

2010s Information Age Begins Relent to the Unknown 

It's been interesting to watch community ideals in the workplace fall by the wayside in many cases, especially after the economic crash and Great Recession of 2007-2012. Since then, it's been apparent that the competition-in-conflict paradigm has been useful to the quick-gain and release methods of investor-model business. The effect is similar to that of our most life-threatening situations. Psyches remain at attention and in potential conflict at all times. Under this kind of unhealthy management practice, either weak or strong stakeholders are pushed out doors and businesses remain in a constant state of unsettled battle . . . much like those people on the floor of the stock exchange.

Top-Down Issues in Politics

Consider, for example, the sharp divisions sowed recently into our most important cause of unification and success for all-- politics. We have a situation in politics, once again, where the people are goaded into battles of each other's ideals. In this age, it's a constant barrage and often takes form in the workplaces of the people. It's gotten so that certain members of every side desire [vocally!] to break the system . . . in which case no course correction can be implemented, much less leadership grounded in ethics (a progressive ideal). Who does this competition benefit? Think about that.

Considering that the current national leadership is rooted in the ways of a socially preordained and funded 'business personality' before all else, we'll look at it under a business scope. Under the managerial practice of competition conflict solutions, benefits are gained for one person or tribe only. This has its uses, but is over-relied upon in everyday business and wholly inappropriate for the public or national interest. Everyone knows what happens to the tribe(s) that don't 'win' that singular prize moment. And as for the winning tribe, there is no actual win. There will be no long-term revenue. It's a temporary salve for a temporary issue in a temporary space.

Overall, even in business, competition conflict resolution is the wrong way to go. Our best interests lie in the integrity of community, even in the workplace (where life begins for roughly 98% of the people). If community integrity can't be found there, then it'll be insufficient everywhere else.