Atlas Shrugged And Objectivism
Posted by Mitch Mitchell on May 16, 2008
I'm not sure how many people have read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I thought it was a phenomenal book years ago when I read it, even though it's one of the largest books on record as far as number of words, coming in around 645,000. I loved the story of Dagny Taggert, a railroad executive who seems to be fighting a losing battle in trying to help keep her railroad company relevant in the present society of the time as more people seem to be moving towards other modes of transportation. Throughout most of the book, she keeps getting confronted by this one odd question, at least odd at the time: "Who is John Galt?"
Of course it takes to getting near the end of the book that we finally find John Galt in some alternate land (I'll admit that part kind of lost me; I might have to go back over it again) and learn that he was so disgusted with the way life was that he created a new life and society where others who believed as he did ended up and were thriving under a new philosophy they called Objectivism. And man, does he talk about it; the speech ends up being over 50 pages long! There was a man who had something to say.
Basically, objectivism believes that reality and consciousness are independent of each other. Rand said "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
It may seem strange that I'm talking about this on my blog, and the principle does go a lot deeper than what's shown, but, in essence, if you look at just the basic philosophy above, can anyone say that this isn't how most people perceive their own lives? Who can truly say that they don't pursue everything in their life with the thought of what will make them happiest in the long run? Even if one's purpose is only to help others, isn't that action something that makes them the happiest?
I tend to believe that most managers are missing this concept when dealing with employees. 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. 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.
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. Determining what makes these people happy and content during working hours is really what a manager's job is all about, and the need to keep employees motivated is stronger than the need to find ways to pay employees more money.
I think everyone should probably find a way to read, or listen, to Atlas Shrugged, but I know that's not going to happen. Instead, just think of the lessons it gives, and work towards making the workplace a nicer environment for your employees. You'll be amazed at the benefits on the back end.
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
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.