Chapter 6. Fundamentalism and Panaceas
Russell L. Ackoff
The hijacking of commercial airliners by members of the terrorist al Queda group, and the willingness for self-sacrifice by those hijackers to make a point while killing thousands of Americans when they smashed the planes into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, gives dramatic and emotional emphasis to the wide gulf between fundamental thinking and what our high-tech world has come to represent to some people.
Bear with me, because I am about to make the big leap of faith here by comparing some of today's executives and their styles with those terrorists because of their fundamental approach to management.
Fundamentalism, a fixed set of beliefs about acceptable ends and means, is a response to an environment that is undergoing an accelerating rate of change and rapidly increasing complexity, conditions that combine to produce a turbulent or chaotic environment. Consider the white noise of stock market crashes, downsizing, increased competition, emails coming 24/7 at executives like snow flakes at a windshield instead of the old once-a-day mail, markets shifting, technology constantly changing, media analyzing, overanalyzing, everything faster and more global. Such an environment is characterized by discontinuities and uncertainty, hence unpredictability. It is one in which it is easy for individuals and organizations to become disoriented.
Change is everywhere and happening at a faster and more complex state every day. It is not possible to achieve a static equilibrium in a turbulent environment; the only kind possible is dynamic, like the stability achieved by an airplane flying through a storm. A dynamic equilibrium requires changes that are discontinuous as well as continuous and qualitative as well as quantitative. Coping with such rapid change requires vision, clarity, and above all flexibility.
Those who do not want to change try either to prevent it (conservatives) or unmake it and return to a previous relatively stable state (reactionaries). In contrast, there are those who are willing to make disjointed incremental changes in relatively limited aspects of the real world (liberals). However, incremental improvements or reforms are neither adequate nor effective in dealing with the "messy real world." A radical transformation is required.
Conservatives are willing to settle for the way things are. Their attitude toward change is expressed in such aphorisms as "Let well enough alone," "Don't rock the boat," and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." They believe that liberal efforts to improve the current state of society are the major cause of its deterioration. Therefore, they prefer inactivity to change, or activity that does not change anything: make-work. Because people find it difficult to "do nothing" when engaged in make-work, they tend to concoct unproductive work for those who have productive work to do: for example, red tape.
The type of organization that best meets the conservative's needs is a bureaucratic monopoly. These are subsidized in one way or another. For example, government service agencies and corporate service departments are usually subsidized by budgets authorized from above. Such organizations can ignore the need to change, because they need not be responsive to their consumers, who have no alternative source of the service, and the monopolies do not depend on them for their income.
Liberals fail to produce the kind of change needed because of their lack of understanding of the nature of the systems they try to change. The performance of any system depends on how its parts interact, not on how they act, taken separately. Therefore, it is possible to improve the performance of every part of a system taken separately and reduce the performance of the system taken as a whole. For example, suppose that for every part required for an automobile, you determine which is the best available by examining every one of the more than 400 automobiles available. Then, you remove the parts identified as best from the automobiles of which they are part, and try to assemble them into one automobile. You would not even get an automobile, let alone the best one, because the parts would not fit together. A collection of parts considered best when considered separately do not the best systems make. This is why conservatives and reactionaries currently see the liberals as often harming the systems they try to improve.
Reactionaries try to undo change and resolve problems by identifying their sources and removing or suppressing them. In this way, they try to return to a previous state that they prefer to the current one. For example, they try to eliminate alcoholism and drug addiction by making alcohol and addictive drugs illegal. They try to reduce crime by apprehending and incarcerating criminals. These efforts have failed, but their failure has not discouraged the reactionary. They argue that we have not tried hard enough or did not do it right.
Some reactionaries seek generalized forms of retraction or suppression of change, real or imagined, and its agents, real or imagined. Such reactionaries become fundamentalists.
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism consists of a fixed set of beliefs about acceptable ends and means. These beliefs are taken to be absolutely true. The principles derived from them define the one and only "good." Their good requires strict adherence to basic principles and doctrines by disciples. No exceptions are allowed; no transgression is tolerated. Fundamentalism ends the need for thought and therefore gives emotion free reign.
Truth and goodness are revealed to fundamentalists either by a God directly, through a religious leader with whom their God is alleged to be in direct contact (e.g., Ayatollah Khomeini), or through a secular leader (e.g., Saddam Hussein or Hitler).
Since fundamentalists consider truth to be an act of faith, critical thinking is irrelevant: Faith alone provides them with a complete basis for belief and action. Therefore, there is no discussing the validity of their principles. Fundamentalists dismiss any opposing point of view. They see no point in listening to their opponents, let alone in trying to understand them.
Types of Fundamentalists
Fundamentalists fall into one of two major categories: introverted or extroverted. Introverted fundamentalists seek isolation from the rest of society and want only to be. They prefer to restrict their communication to the source of their beliefs and carry this out privately and silently. They, or their representatives, interact with others in commerce and other ways required to obtain necessities, but these contacts have no effect on their beliefs or behavior. Most introverted fundamentalists do not try to proselytize or otherwise affect "outsiders," but they do invite inquiries and conversions. They are nonviolent.
Extroverted fundamentalists are exactly the opposite. They consider those who do not accept their doctrine to be enemies who obstruct their pursuit of the ultimate good. Therefore, such fundamentalists (we, us) take the elimination of enemies (they, them) to be necessary for pursuit of the ultimate good. This end justifies the means. Such fundamentalism is exemplified by the Shiite Muslims, Hitler's Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan in the United States.
Treatment of Fundamentalists
Today, introverted fundamentalists are not considered a threat to society. They are occasionally an inconvenience at most. However, in the past, they were often persecuted or annihilated. When possible, they escaped and emigrated to other lands. The United States was settled by many such groups. Puritans, Quakers, Shakers, and Amish are examples. Some remain intact today, though without the buckles and odd hats we associate with Thanksgiving.
Extroverted fundamentalists are another matter: They are a threat to those with whom they seek to come in contact. How can such fundamentalism be dealt with effectively? In the past it has been dealt with in the following ways: (1) capitulate, (2) ignore, (3) ridicule, (4) contain and isolate, (5) retaliate, and (6) suppress or eliminate.
Ignoring extroverted fundamentalists has no effect on them and is not feasible when they engage in physical attacks on those who try to ignore them. Ridicule fares no better; it only strengthens their belief and resolve to conquer nonbelievers. Containment and isolation (e.g., sanctions) is difficult at best and therefore has had only limited success. Witness the current treatment of Cuba, Iraq, and Libya. Their isolation is not very effective because, first, rather than weaken the beliefs of those so treated, it has strengthened their resolve. Such treatment confirms their perception of themselves as victims rather than victimizers. Second, it is relatively easy for them to continue proselytizing outside the walls that are intended to contain them; it certainly has not limited their terrorist activities. Terrorists are fundamentalists who are willing to use violence to accomplish their objectives. Not all fundamentalists are terrorists, but most terrorists are fundamentalists.
Retaliation for terrorist attacks has also only strengthened terrorists' resolve; they often believe that dying in their aggressive efforts assures them of better life after death. Therefore, even the threat of death is not a deterrent for many of them. Peace-seeking societies or publics have yet to find an effective way of coping with terrorism. Witness the continuing difficulty the Israelis have had with Palestinian terrorists and the continuing conflict in Northern Ireland. Israel has also had difficulty with Israeli fundamentalists—for example, the recent assassination of Rabin.
Efforts to eliminate fundamentalists have usually resulted in large-scale loss of life and atrocities, such as have recently occurred in Bosnia, Chechnya, and East Timor. Unfortunately, those who rely on terrorism to further their cause appear to leave no short-term alternative but retaliatory violence with even a remote chance of reducing their threat to the freedom of others. There is, however, a long-term alternative.
To eliminate or significantly reduce terrorism, it is necessary to eliminate or significantly reduce extroverted fundamentalism. To do this, it is necessary to significantly reduce or eliminate the uneven distribution of quality of life, standard of living, and opportunity between and within nations. This cannot be done by existing international agencies, as has been convincingly demonstrated by International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. It requires an intervention strategy resembling the one used in Mantua, a so-called urban ghetto in Philadelphia, which had the following components:[1]
- Make available to a nation or community an amount of money to be used only for development of its members; that is, for increasing their ability to satisfy their needs and legitimate desires and those of others. A legitimate desire is one the fulfillment of which does not decrease the ability of any other to satisfy their needs and legitimate desires.
- The funds may only be used in ways determined democratically; that is, by decisions made by either those affected by it, their elected representatives, or elected guardians or advocates of those who are incapable of such participation (e.g., children, the mentally ill, and future generations).
- Corruption must be excluded from the handling of the funds.
- Experts are available to assist the decision makers in any way they desire. In addition, they are responsible for seeing to it that these conditions are met.
Panaceas
Panacea proneness—the desire for a quick fix, a template that can be applied and can fix everything—is a diluted form of fundamentalism commonly adopted by corporations, schools, hospitals, government agencies, and other types of organizations. In general, organizations that do not deal effectively in turbulent environments turn to panaceas for help—for example, total quality management, process reengineering, benchmarking, outsourcing, downsizing, SAP, continuous improvement, scenario planning, value chain analysis, core competencies, cognitive therapy, and organizational learning. When executives are confronted with rates of change and increasing complexity, the effects of which they do not understand and with which they cannot cope, they look for simple and simpleminded solutions to their problems: panaceas. Incapable of solving business challenges rationally, panacea-prone executives turn to offerings, usually made by managerial evangelists and/or gurus, which they accept on faith.
Panacea-prone executives differ from fundamentalists in that they do not confine their faith to one set of beliefs; they have a large array of offerings to choose from. They normally buy into a number of them sequentially, but may try a number of offerings simultaneously.
Unlike the fundamentalists who are willing to die for their beliefs, executives are unwilling to sacrifice even a small amount of their security to bring about fundamental change. They seek to reform their organizations, not transform them, and to change the way they do what they do, not what they are doing it for. Adopting a panacea involves no personal risk for the executive; its failure can always be attributed to either its author or its implementer.
Panaceas are about doing things right, not doing the right things. They do not bring objectives and goals into question. As a result, they are used more frequently to do the wrong things right than to do the right thing. Therefore, the more right managers do the wrong thing, the more wrong they become. A headline from the July 6, 1993, issue of The Wall Street Journal read "Many Companies Try Management Fads, Only to See Them Flop." Little wonder! Here is a sample of the relevant press.
Companies have spent big dollars on programs to train employees in the latest quality practices, yet few organizations have gained substantial benefits in return. In fact, two out of three companies that grab for the quality brass ring fail to see much improvement in performance or customer satisfaction.... Fortune reports that TQM disasters have spawned a new niche for consultants who specialize in cleaning up the mess.[2]
Without question, many American companies entered this decade in need of serious organizational change. But the typical response—cost reduction through layoffs—has proven to be a short-term fix at best... Kim Cameron, a University of Michigan business school professor, conducted a study of 150 companies that had downsized. His findings: 75 percent of them ended up worse off than before.[3]
Three out of four companies slimmed down their staffs in the past five years, but the majority saw little improvement in either business or productivity, according to a study of 1,204 companies nationwide...[4]
...A survey last summer by Arthur D. Little Inc....found only 16 percent of executives "fully satisfied" with their reengineering programs. No surprise: about 68 percent were experiencing unanticipated problems... Michael Hammer, the father of corporate reengineering asserted that 70 percent of reengineering projects fall short of their stated goals.[5]
In the end, even the re-engineers are re-engineered. At a recent conference...representatives from 20 of America's most successful companies all agree that re-engineering...needs a little re-engineering of its own.[6]
It is little wonder then that
A new generation of better-informed managers is more skeptical of the sometimes simpleminded solutions proposed by management consultants.[7]
Treatments of Panacea Proneness
Panacea-prone executives are more open to learning than are fundamentalists. If they can be led to understanding the nature of the changes that occur in their environment and why they occur, they can generally be induced to try more profound and fundamental approaches to their problems than are offered by panaceas. Education of executives is the key.
But, here is the rub: The higher the status of executives, the less susceptible they think they are to useful learning. Pretense of already knowing it all comes with reaching the pinnacle of status.
We have yet to develop a generation of executives who take pride in their ability to learn and adapt, rather than in what they already know. Until we do, the market for fundamentalism and its weak sister, panacea proneness, will be very large.