Comments on: Atlas Shrugged And Objectivism http://www.ttmitchellconsulting.com/Mitchblog/2008/05/16/atlas-shrugged-and-objectivism/ Management, Leadership, Diversity, Customer Service, Motivation, and Healthcare Finance Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:17:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Mitch http://www.ttmitchellconsulting.com/Mitchblog/2008/05/16/atlas-shrugged-and-objectivism/#comment-15293 Mitch Thu, 22 May 2008 03:57:17 +0000 http://www.ttmitchellconsulting.com/Mitchblog/?p=399#comment-15293 Hi Mike. This was a well written and well thought out response. I appreciate it a lot, and of course I have to add my two cents to your interpretation. We're not realy debating the overall thought about objectivism, nor really Rand's points as it relates to individuals. However, our interpretation of the role of the manager, or what it should be, is a bit separate. The first thing we have to realize is that what the book may say employees should do and what they actually do aren't close. Based on studies, the thing employees complain most about in today's world is not having a sense of inclusion, which makes them unhappy. An unhappy employee makes unhappy managers, because productivity slows down, the office demeanor makes the office a terrible place to be, and that manager won't last long in that position. Whereas Dagny had the option of just up and leaving, most people can't do that, especially those who have families. So, it would behoove any competent manager to make sure that the employees are happy, and by extension if that manager has found the right balance of worker satisfaction and legitimate production numbers, the manager will also be happy. By the way, your words about employees acting on their own self interests is valid, but isn't workable across all platforms, or all political systems. Think about the communist model and your realize the workers are never happy, but the people at the top are. In our capitalist society, some workers are happy, some are resigned, and the others are somewhere in the middle. Personal accountability is a big deal, but most people aren't ready for it, and don't see it that way. If most companies tried to encourage employees to do it that way without giving the employees the tools, through education, to work in that fashion, the companies would fail. But some, like Wegmans and Google, have found your alternative works well. Wonderful response once again; thanks. Hi Mike. This was a well written and well thought out response. I appreciate it a lot, and of course I have to add my two cents to your interpretation.

We’re not realy debating the overall thought about objectivism, nor really Rand’s points as it relates to individuals. However, our interpretation of the role of the manager, or what it should be, is a bit separate.

The first thing we have to realize is that what the book may say employees should do and what they actually do aren’t close. Based on studies, the thing employees complain most about in today’s world is not having a sense of inclusion, which makes them unhappy. An unhappy employee makes unhappy managers, because productivity slows down, the office demeanor makes the office a terrible place to be, and that manager won’t last long in that position. Whereas Dagny had the option of just up and leaving, most people can’t do that, especially those who have families.

So, it would behoove any competent manager to make sure that the employees are happy, and by extension if that manager has found the right balance of worker satisfaction and legitimate production numbers, the manager will also be happy.

By the way, your words about employees acting on their own self interests is valid, but isn’t workable across all platforms, or all political systems. Think about the communist model and your realize the workers are never happy, but the people at the top are. In our capitalist society, some workers are happy, some are resigned, and the others are somewhere in the middle. Personal accountability is a big deal, but most people aren’t ready for it, and don’t see it that way. If most companies tried to encourage employees to do it that way without giving the employees the tools, through education, to work in that fashion, the companies would fail. But some, like Wegmans and Google, have found your alternative works well.

Wonderful response once again; thanks.

]]> By: Michael Mogavero http://www.ttmitchellconsulting.com/Mitchblog/2008/05/16/atlas-shrugged-and-objectivism/#comment-15292 Michael Mogavero Wed, 21 May 2008 05:38:23 +0000 http://www.ttmitchellconsulting.com/Mitchblog/?p=399#comment-15292 I am currently re-reading the novel. As a recent graduate from NYU with my M.A. in Economics, I feel I am viewing the novel from a different perspective as yourself. You claim: "I hear often about “bully” managers who seem to care only about themselves at the moment, not about long term success, or long term happiness of anyone else...Managers to attempt to lead by fear and bullying are doomed to fail because they haven’t learned the basic tenet of success, which is to try to make as many people as happy as they can be so that they will produce for them."- While I certainly agree with your idea of the happy worker being a more productive worker and the managers role in ensuring workers happiness I do not think this is what Rand was getting at. This snippet, particularly the latter portion, in my opinion, would be the antithesis of Rand's ideas. It is not the managers duty to make the worker happy. The worker should be acting in their self interest and act in a fashion where they are responsible for their own happiness. Rand is all about the 'I'. Galt's famous line "I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine." With that said, I believe someone who is an objectivist would argue that the manager should care for and act toward achieving one thing and one thing only, his happiness. The other side of the coin is your female worker example: "One of my friends often says she’s sitting around waiting for the person to whom she reports to start yelling at her for one thing or another. I also hear people who say they’re always worried about making a mistake because they don’t want to get castigated for it." From an objectivism standpoint, this worker should perhaps find another means of income. By subjecting herself to castigation or fear of it, she is not acting in her own self interest when she should be. To not act for the benefit of oneself over all others is an injustice to the 'I'. In a nutshell, I side with Rand that it should be an individuals goal to place their benefit and happiness ahead of anyone else. While I am no expert on management, if all of my workers were acting totally in their self interest I think you would have a fairly successful organization because, in a perfect world, the worker who acts in his/her self interest in the workplace is a more productive worker. Why? Because 'going the extra mile' in the workplace, again in a perfect world, should be rewarded with a more successful career financially. Sit on a sales floor at an advertising firm, brokerage house etc. Everyone there is all about the 'I' and thats how it should be. I like your blog. Good Luck. Mike I am currently re-reading the novel. As a recent graduate from NYU with my M.A. in Economics, I feel I am viewing the novel from a different perspective as yourself. You claim: “I hear often about “bully” managers who seem to care only about themselves at the moment, not about long term success, or long term happiness of anyone else…Managers to attempt to lead by fear and bullying are doomed to fail because they haven’t learned the basic tenet of success, which is to try to make as many people as happy as they can be so that they will produce for them.”- While I certainly agree with your idea of the happy worker being a more productive worker and the managers role in ensuring workers happiness I do not think this is what Rand was getting at. This snippet, particularly the latter portion, in my opinion, would be the antithesis of Rand’s ideas. It is not the managers duty to make the worker happy. The worker should be acting in their self interest and act in a fashion where they are responsible for their own happiness. Rand is all about the ‘I’. Galt’s famous line “I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.” With that said, I believe someone who is an objectivist would argue that the manager should care for and act toward achieving one thing and one thing only, his happiness. The other side of the coin is your female worker example: “One of my friends often says she’s sitting around waiting for the person to whom she reports to start yelling at her for one thing or another. I also hear people who say they’re always worried about making a mistake because they don’t want to get castigated for it.” From an objectivism standpoint, this worker should perhaps find another means of income. By subjecting herself to castigation or fear of it, she is not acting in her own self interest when she should be. To not act for the benefit of oneself over all others is an injustice to the ‘I’. In a nutshell, I side with Rand that it should be an individuals goal to place their benefit and happiness ahead of anyone else. While I am no expert on management, if all of my workers were acting totally in their self interest I think you would have a fairly successful organization because, in a perfect world, the worker who acts in his/her self interest in the workplace is a more productive worker. Why? Because ‘going the extra mile’ in the workplace, again in a perfect world, should be rewarded with a more successful career financially. Sit on a sales floor at an advertising firm, brokerage house etc. Everyone there is all about the ‘I’ and thats how it should be. I like your blog. Good Luck. Mike

]]>