The Entrepreneurs are Adventurous Souls, Hungry for Novelty…Not at All Alarmed at Change!

Sin is a disproportionate seriousness. There are only three sins—causing pain, causing fear, causing anguish. The rest is window dressing. In the next few years, we will all participate in the end of bureaucracy. We must begin looking beyond bureaucracy. While various proponents of good human relations have been fighting bureaucracy on humanistic grounds and for Christian values, bureaucracy seems most likely to founder on its inability to adapt to rapid change. Bureaucracy thrives in a highly competitive undifferentiated and stable environment, such as the climate of its youth, the Industrial Revolution. A pyramidal structure of authority, with power concentrated in the hands of a few was, and is, an eminently suitable social arrangement for routinized tasks. However, the environment has changed in just those ways which make the mechanism most problematic. Stability has vanished. Each age produces a form of organization appropriate to its own tempo. During the long epoch of agricultural civilization, societies were marked by low transience. Delays in communication and transportation slowed the rate at which information moved. The pace of individual life was comparatively slow. And organizations were seldom called upon to make what we would regard as high-speed decisions at a 5G technological pace. #RandolphHarris 1 of 23

The age of industrialism has led to the age of information and brought a quickened tempo to both individual and organizational life. Indeed, it was precisely for this reason that bureaucratic forms were needed. For all that they seem lumbering and inefficient to us, they were, on the average, capable of making better decisions faster than the loose and ramshackle organizations that preceded them. With all the rules codified, with a set of fixed principles indicating how to deal with various work problems, the flow of decisions could be accelerated to keep up with the faster pace of life brought by the age of information. The extraordinary increase in the speed by which public announcements, as well as economic and political facts are transmitted exerts a steady and sharp pressure in the direction of speeding up the tempo of administrative reaction. The acceleration of change has reached so rapid a pace that even bureaucracy can no longer keep up. For instance, people, many of whom were already incarcerated for breaking the law—treated a national health crisis as an opportunity to cash in on money to help people who lost jobs due to the COVID-19 crisis. Attorney General Josh Shapiro charged more than 20 individuals with illegally taking benefits away from hard-working Pennsylvanians who were struggling during the pandemic. #RandolphHarris 2 of 23

May be an image of furniture and living room

Six of the people who were illegally obtaining unemployment benefits were inmates from State Correctional Institute (SCI) Phoenix in Montgomery County. The callous attitude ripped off honest taxpayers who fund relief programs and also makes it much more difficult to provide funds to those who deserve and need them. These arrests, however, are not the end of the FBI’s investigation, and Attorney General Josh Shapiro will continue working with his colleagues at the federal level to track down those heading these schemes, along with those who are willfully participating and breaking the law. It is despicable that incarcerated people lined their pockets by taking advantage of the COVID-19 financial lifeline given to millions of honest, hardworking Pennsylvanians. Millions of Americans struggling financially due to job loss from COVID-19 depend on every single dollar of assistance available to them. When fraudulent applications wrongly drain those funds, it is a blow to the folks who truly need help and a blatant theft of taxpayer dollars. Meantime, a word of advice to anyone thinking that scamming the government means easy money—if convicted, federal charges can mean hard time. In January of 2021, 14.8 million Americans reported that they had been unable to work because their employer closed or lost business due to the pandemic. 7 million American want a job but are not counted as unemployed in January 2021 Jobs Report because they were not actively looking for work during the last 4 weeks or were unavailable to take a job. #RandolphHarris 3 of 23

January 2021: 10.1 million unemployed Americans, Unemployment rate 6.3 percent. And the job market continues to reflect the impact of the pandemic and efforts to contain it. 49,000 jobs added in January 2021 (well below wat we need to get back to full employment). The United States Department of Labour estimated that improper payments accounted for 10.61 percent of just under $36 billion Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits. During tough economic times like this, it is despicable that people would seek to fraudulently obtain emergency unemployment benefits that were specifically meant for those who lost their jobs. IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge Thomas Fattorusso reported, “We will continue to be relentless in our mission to dismantle these types of illicit scams and bring the criminals who run them to justice.” The Office of the Inspector General is committed to keeping bureaucracy under control and combatting fraud against the Unemployment Insurance program, which has become increasingly prevalent amid the pandemic. They will continue to work with their law enforcement and state workforce agency partners to pursue individuals who seek to undermine the integrity of the Unemployment Insurance program. For example, Vincent Hazzard, age 49, of Coatesville, PA, was charged by Indictment with mail fraud, fraud in connection with emergency benefits, theft of money of the United States, and aiding and abetting. #RandolphHarris 4 of 23

According to the Indictment, in July 2020, the defendant caused multiple individuals to assist him in filling a fraudulent application for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) funds. The application falsely stated that Mr. Hazzard was available for immediate employment, and that we was currently unemployed due to the pandemic, when in fact he was not available for employment due to the fact that he was incarcerated at the Chester Country Prison, was not scheduled for release until late September 2020, and was not unemployed due to the pandemic. Mr. Hazzard had $1,590 credited to him by means of a prepaid bank card in late July 2020, and he caused others to spend or withdraw almost all of the funds by the end of August in order to avoid having funds left in his account in the event his fraud was discovered. If convicted of all charges, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of 60 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $750,000 fine. Another man, Jacob Fulton, age 32, is facing a maximum sentence of 90 years in prison, five years of supervised release, and a fine of $2,250,000 and Emily Baier, age 26, is facing a maximum sentence of 120 years in prison, five years of supervised release, and a fine of $2,500,000 for claiming that they are entitled to PUA benefits. Jacob Fulton allegedly told Emily Baier that with this scheme, they “can be f****** rich.” #RandolphHarris 5 of 23

It is clear that although it is hard to keep up with the accelerated pace of change that has reached such a rapid speed, that the federal government takes it very personal when they are cheated and the consequence can last more than a lifetime for those who are convicted of crimes. Information surges through society so rapidly, drastic changes in technology come so quickly that newer, even more instantly responsive forms of organization must characterize the future. What, then, will be the characteristics of the organizations of super-industrial society? The key word will be “temporary”; there will be adaptive, rapidly changing temporary systems. Problems will be solved by task forces composed of relative strangers who represent a set of diverse professional skills. Executives and managers in this system will function as coordinators between the various transient work teams. They will be skilled in understanding the jargon of different groups of specialists, and they will communicate across groups, translating and interpreting the language of one into the language of another. People in this system will be differentiated not vertically, according to rank and role, but flexibly and functionally, according to skill and professional training. Because of the high rate of movement back and forth from one transient team to another, there will be a reduced commitment to work groups cohesiveness. People will have to learn to develop quick and intense relationships on the job, and learn to bear the loss of more enduring work relationships. #RandolphHarris 6 of 23

May be an image of furniture and kitchen

This then is a picture of the coming Ad-hocracy, the fast-moving, information-rich kinetic organizations of the future, filled with transient cells and extremely mobile individuals. From this sketch, moreover, it is possible to deduce some of the characteristics of the human being who will populate these new organizations—and who, to some extent, are already to be found in the prototype organizations of today. What emerges is dramatically different from the stereotype of the organization human. For just as the acceleration of change and increased novelty in the environment demand a new form of organization, they demand, too, a new kind of human. Three of the outstanding characteristics of bureaucracy were, as we have seen, permanence, hierarchy, and division of labour. These characteristics molded the human beings who manned the organizations. Permanence—the recognition that the link between humans and organization would endure through time—brought with it a commitment to the organization. The longer the human stayed within its embrace, the more one saw one’s past as an investment in the organization, the more one’s saw one’s personal future as dependent upon that of the organization. Longevity bred loyalty. In work organizations, this natural tendency was powerfully reinforced by the knowledge that termination of one’s links with the organization very often meant a loss of the means of economic survival. #RandolphHarris 7 of 23

In a World wracked by scarcity for the many, a job was precious. The bureaucrat was thus immobile and deeply oriented toward economic security. To keep one’s job, one willingly subordinated one’s own interests and convictions to those of the organization. Power-laden hierarchies, through which authority flowed, wielded the whip by which the individual was held in line. Knowing that his relationship with the organization would be relatively permanent (or at least hoping that it would be) the organization human looked within for approval. Rewards and punishments came down the hierarchy to the individual, so that the individual, habitually looking upward at the next rung of the hierarchical ladder, became conditioned to subservience. Thus: the wishy-washy organization human—the human without personal convictions (or without the courage to make them evident). It paid to conform. Finally, the organization human needed to understand one’s place in the scheme of things; one occupied a well-defined niche, performed actions that were also well-defined by the rules of the organization, and one was judged by the precision with which one followed the book. Faced by relatively routine problems, one was encouraged to seek routine answers. Unorthodoxy, creativity, venturesomeness were discouraged, for they interfered with the predictability required by the organization of its component parts. The embryonic Ad-hocracies of today demand a radically different constellation of human characteristics. In place of permanence, we find transience—high mobility between organizations, never-ending reorganizations within them, and a constant generation and decay of temporary work groupings. #RandolphHarris 8 of 23

Not surprisingly, we witness a decline in old-fashioned “loyalty” to the organization and its sub-structures. The agreement between modern humans and modern organizations are not like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. They were not made to stand forever…The humans periodically examine their own attitude toward the organization, and gauges its attitude toward one. If one does not like what one sees, one tries to change it. If one cannot change it, one moves. The number of top executives with their resumes in their desk drawer is amazing. The old loyalty felt by the organization human appears to be going up in smoke. In its place we are watching the rise of professional loyalty. In all of the techno-societies there is a relentless increase in the number of professional technical and other specialists. Their numbers have more than doubled and this class continues to grow more rapidly than any other group in the work force. Instead of operating as individual, entrepreneurial free lancers, millions of engineers, scientists, psychologist, accountants and other professionals have entered the ranks of the organization. What has happened as a result is a neat dialectical reversal. Today we are observing the professionalization of industry. The loyalty of the professional human is to one’s profession and not the organization that may house one at any given moment, unless it is a family business. #RandolphHarris 9 of 23

Compared the chemist or electronics engineer in a local plant with the non-professional executives in the same plant. The humans the chemist thinks of as one’s colleagues are not those who occupy neighbouring offices, but one’s fellow professionals wherever they may be throughout the country, even throughout the World. Because of one’s fraternal ties with widely dispersed contemporaries, one oneself is highly mobile. However, even if one stays in one place one’s loyalty to the local organization is rarely of the same quality as that of the true organization human. One never quite believes in it. The rise of the professions means that modern large-scale organizations have been heavily infiltrated by humans who have an entirely different concept of what organization is about. In effect, these humans are outsiders working within the system. At the same time, the term profession is itself taking on new meaning. Just as the vertical hierarchies of bureaucracy break down under the combined impact of new technology, new knowledge, and social change, so too, do the horizontal hierarchies that have until now divided human knowledge. The old boundaries between specialties are collapsing. Humans increasingly find that the novel problems thrust at them can be solved only by reaching beyond narrow disciplines. #RandolphHarris 10 of 23

The traditional bureaucrat put electrical engineers in one compartment and psychologist in their own professional organizations assumed an airtight distinction between their sphere of knowledge and competence. Today, however, in the aerospace industry, in education, and in other fields, engineers and psychologists are frequently thrown together in transient teams. New organizations reflecting these sometimes exotic intellectual mergers are springing up all around the basic professions, so that we begin to find sub-groupings of bio-mathematics, psycho-pharmacologists, engineer-librarians and computer-musicians. Distinctions between the disciplines do not disappear; but they become finer, more porous, and there is a constant reshuffling process. In this situation, even professional loyalties turn into short-term commitments, and the work itself, the task to be done, the problem to be solved beings to elicit the kind of commitment hitherto reserved for the organization. Professional specialists seemingly derive their rewards from inward standards of excellence, from their professional societies, and from the intrinsic satisfaction of their task. In fact, they are committed to the task, not the job; to their standards, not their boss. And because they have degrees, they travel. They are not good “company humans;” they are uncommitted except to the challenging environments where they can “play with problems.” #RandolphHarris 11 of 23

May be an image of furniture and bedroom

These people of the future already control some of the Ad-hocracies that exist today. There is excitement and creativity in the computer industry, in educational technology, in the application of systems techniques to urban problems, in the new oceanography industry, in government agencies concerned with environmental health, and elsewhere. In each of these fields, more representative of the future than the past, there is new venturesome spirit which stands in total contrast to the security-minded orthodoxy and conformity associated with the organization human. The new spirit in these transient organizations is closet to that of the entrepreneur than the organization human. The free-swinging entrepreneur who started up vast enterprises unafraid of death or adverse opinion, is a folk hero of industrialism, particularly in the United States of America. The entrepreneurs are adventurous souls, hungry for novelty…not at all alarmed at change. It is conventional wisdom to assert that the age of the entrepreneur is dead, and that in their place there now stand only organization humans or bureaucrats. Yet what is happening today is a resurgence of entrepreneurialism within the heart of large organizations. The secret behind this reversal is the new transience and the death of economic insecurity for large masses of educated humans. With the rise of affluence has come a new willingness to take risks. #RandolphHarris 12 of 23

Humans are willing to risk failure because they cannot believe that they will ever starve. Thus, executives look at themselves as individual entrepreneurs who are selling their knowledge and skills. The professional humans in management have a powerful base of independence—perhaps a firmer base than the small business human ever had in one’s property rights. Thus we find the emergence of a new kind of organization human—a human, who despite one’s many afflictions, remains basically uncommitted to any organization. One is willing to employ one’s skills and creative energies to solve problems with equipment provided by the organization, and within temporary groups established by it. However, one does so only so long as the problems interest one. One is committed to one’s own career, one’s own self-fulfillment. It is no accident that the term “associate” seems to suddenly to have become extremely popular in large organizations. We now have associate marketing directors, and research associates, and even government agencies are filled with associate directors and associate administrators. The associate implies co-equal, rather than subordinate, and its spreading use accurately reflects the shirt from vertical and hierarchical arrangements to the new, more lateral, communication patterns. Where the organization human were subservient to the organization, Associative Human is almost insouciant toward it. #RandolphHarris 13 of 23

Where the organization human was immobilized by concern for economic security, Associative Human increasingly takes it for granted. Where the organization human was fearful of risk, Associative Human welcomes it (knowing that in an affluent and fast-changing society even failure is transient). Where the organization human was hierarchy-conscious, seeking status and prestige within the organization, Associative Human seeks it without. Where the organization human filled a predetermined slot, Associative Human moves from slot to slot in a complex pattern that is largely self-motivated. Where the organization human dedicated oneself to the solution of routine problems according to well-defined rules, avoiding any show of unorthodoxy or creativity, Associative Human, faced by novel problems, is encouraged to innovate. Where the organization human had to subordinate one’s own individuality to “play ball on the team,” Associative Human recognizes that the team, itself, is transient. One may subordinate one’s individuality for a while, under conditions of one’s own choosing; but it is never a permanent submergence. In all this, Associative Human bears with one a secret knowledge: the very temporariness of one’s relationships with organization frees one from many of the bonds that constricted one’s predecessor. Transience, in this sense, is liberating. #RandolphHarris 14 of 23

Yet there is another side of the coin, and one knows this, as well. For the turnover of relationships with formal organizational structures brings with it an increased turnover of informal organizations and a faster through-put of people as well. Each change brings with it a need for new learning. One must learn the rules of the game. However, the rules keep changing. The introduction of Ad-hocracy increases the adaptability of organizations; but it strains the adaptability of humans. After study of the British electronics industry, we find a disturbing contrast between managers in stable organizational structures and those who find themselves where change is most rapid. Frequent adaptation happened at the cost of personal satisfaction and adjustment. The difference in the personal tension of people in the top management positions and those of the same age who had reached a similar position in a more stable situation was marked. Coping with rapid change, living in the temporary work systems, setting up (in quick-step time) meaningful relations—and then breaking them—all augur social strains and psychological tensions. It is possible that for many people, in their organizational relationships as in other spheres, the future is arriving too soon. For the individual, the move toward Ad-hocracy means a sharp acceleration in the turnover of organizational relationships in one’s life. #RandolphHarris 15 of 23

Thus another piece falls into place in our study of high-transience society. It becomes clear that acceleration telescopes our ties with organization in much the same way that it truncates our relationships with things, places and people. The increased turnover of all these relationships places a heavy adaptive burden on individuals reared and educated for life in a slower-paced social system. It is here that the danger of future shock lies. This sanger, as we shall now see, is intensified by the impact of the accelerative thrusts in the realm of information. This has opened our eyes to some dreadful things that can happen to individual in their earliest months also. We now know so much about what is good and bad for you, and about how hard it is for parents to be good enough. We know we fail at times to be good enough. Also, our knowledge is a burden in another way: how may we be of use to other unenlightened and distraught parents in their distress? The facts seem too overwhelming to tackle. However, when two people feel at one with each other, this sense of bliss may have its roots in memories of an early state when, as babies, we were at rest and at one with the mother. The longer, the deeper, the better this early experience, the more favourable the conditions for the establishment of a secure and resilient sense of self later. In fortunate circumstances the very earliest homunculus-based self-structures are associated with memory-traces of perfect satisfaction and bliss. How many good associations there will depend on how well the baby’s needs were recognized and attended to. #RandolphHarris 16 of 23

Good associations create the sense of being, of being-at-one, and of well-being—all connected and preserved together with having one’s needs taken care of. (It will be remembered that being understood and recognized is as important as being taken care of.) The blissful state of being is a state of perfect well-being in which we are not called upon to make an effort. Many of us cannot help feeling that having to be “doing” is a second best state, for instance when the alarm clock rings on a cold, gloomy morning. Doing is what the individual feels forced to engage in when something has disrupted one’s blissful state of being. Doing means work, a task, autonomy, responsibility, the exertion of effort and skill. The sense of being is primary, the sense of doing an outgrowth of it. The satisfactions of doing something and the satisfactions which come from achievement are for one, perhaps only by small margin, second best—substitute-satisfactions for not being perfectly at rest and at one any more. (There is a resonance here in the development of skills to provide safety for the vulnerable self.) We link the two experience, of doing and being, with male and female elements in the human psyche. People, in the past, associated doing and activity with masculinity, while not so long ago passivity and restful being tended to be associated with women. However, because of equality and more single parent households, roles are more mixed. #RandolphHarris 17 of 23

The experience of being is about union, continuity, and caring between people; the experience of doing is about individuality, drives, excitement, assertion. There is a time when the sense of self and its ego-functions are as yet only in process of building up strength; they may not yet have reached the stage in which bodily needs and reactions are felt to be part of the self, and so they may be felt as alien and intrusive. Even when an individual’s early experiences are not very happy, the structural characteristic is in itself a blessing. For it is from these earliest body-based experiences that the True Self grows. This natural development is very different from the intentional fabrication of a False Self, which has no strong links with homunculi, leaving the person which a much weaker foundation for the development of a genuine sense of self. A False Self is weaker, in the sense that we cannot gain strength from it when life is difficult, because it is not linked to any blissful memories of well-being wen we were at east, nor can in bring us spontaneous joy and inspiration when life is easy. The self quickly develops complexity as structures become established, and in due curse becomes a complex set of coherent interconnecting structures, appropriately mapped. If there has not been a traumatically disruptive event—an impingement—each stimulus from the environment finds its place in the inner World of the individual without having to be somehow encapsulated in an autistic way, or otherwise defended against. #RandolphHarris 18 of 23

The success of such developments would depend on the constitution of the infant and on the capacity of the parental figures to react so appropriately to the infant’s signals as to avoid breaks in continuity. In so far that the caregiver is able to interpret correctly the little signs of the individual’s impending needs (for food, warmth, stimulus, or whatever) and brings about the satisfaction of each need before frustration has had time to build up too far, the individual has the sense that anything one wants to happen does happen. There is then a clear unbroken chain of events from the first arising of a need to its satisfaction. The True Self is then composed of all that ever happened to the individual from the beginning with no hinderance to appropriate integration, and with no splits except where they should be. The early sense of security and omnipotence is then retained as central to the individual’s personality—the qualitied called “trust.” If an individual gets what one needs, one feels grand. When a baby gets what he or she needs: the baby feels oneself to be a grand baby. (The factual difference between I-feel-grand and I-am-grand requires a more sophisticated distinction than the baby has as yet made.) (M)others who are prompt to being the baby what it needs confirm the baby’s sense of well-being and goodness. #RandolphHarris 19 of 23

This kind of love which we attribute to God. The truth is that this antithesis between egoistic and altruistic love cannot be unambiguously applied to the love of God for His creatures. Clashes of interest, and therefore opportunities either of selfishness or unselfishness, occur only between beings inhabiting a common World: God can no more be in competition with a creature than Shakespeare can be in competition with Viola. When God becomes a Man and lives as a creature among His own creatures in Palestine, then indeed His life is one of supreme self-sacrifice and leads to Calvary. A modern pantheistic philosopher has said, “When the Absolute falls into the sea it becomes a fish”; in the same way, we Christians point to the Incarnation and say that when God empties Himself of His glory and submits to those conditions under which alone egoism and altruism have clear meaning, He is seen to be wholly altruistic. However, God in His transcendence—God as the unconditioned ground of all conditions—cannot easily be thought of in the same way. We call human love selfish when it satisfies its own needs at the expense of the object’s needs—as when a father keeps at home, because he cannot bear to relinquish their society, children who ought, in their own interests, to be put out into the World. #RandolphHarris 20 of 23

The situation implies a need or passion on the part of the lover, an incompatible need on the part of the beloved, and the lover’s disregard or culpable ignorance of the beloved’s need. None of these conditions is present in the relation of God to humans. God has no needs. Human love, as Plato teaches us, is the child of Poverty—of want or lack; it is caused by a real or supposed good in its beloved which the lover needs and desires. However, God’s love, far from being caused by goodness in the object, causes all the goodness which the object has loving if first into existence and then into real, though derivative, lovability. God is Goodness. He can give good, but cannot need or get it. In that sense all His love is, as it were, bottomlessly selfless by very definition; it has everything to give and noting to receive. Hence, if God sometimes speaks as though the Impassible could suffer passion and eternal fullness could be in want, and in want of those beings on whom it bestows all from their bare existence upwards, this can mean only, if it means anything intelligible by us, that God of mere miracle has made Himself able so to hunger and created in Himself that which we can satisfy. If He requires us, the requirement is of His own choosing. If the immutable heart can be grieved by the puppets of its own making, it is Divine Omnipotence, no other, that has so subjected it, freely, and in a humility passes understanding. If the World exists not chiefly that we may love God but that God may love us, yet that very fact, on a deeper level, is so for our sakes. If He who in Himself can lack nothing chooses to need us, it is because we need to be needed. #RandolphHarris 21 of 23

Before and behind all the relations of God to humans, as we now learn them from Christianity, yawns the abyss of a Divine act of pure giving—the election of humans, from nonentity, to be the beloved of God, and therefore (in some sense) the needed and desired of God, who but for that act needs and desires nothing, since He eternally has, and is, all goodness. And that act is for our sakes. It is good for us to know love; and best for us to know the love of the best object, God. However, to know it as a love in which we were primarily the wooers and God the wooed, in which we sought and He was found, in which His conformity to our needs, not ours to His, came first, would be to know it in a form false to the very nature of things. For we are only creatures: our role must always be that of patient to agent, woman to man, mirror to light, echo to voice. Our highest activity must be response, not initiative. To experience the love of God in a true, and not an illusory form, is therefore to experience it as our surrender to His demand, our conformity to His desire: to experience it in the opposite way is, as it were, a solecism against the grammar of being. I do not deny, of course, that on a certain level we may rightly speak of the soul’s search for God, and of God as receptive of the soul’s love. #RandolphHarris 22 of 23

However, in the long run the soul’s search for God can only be a mode, or appearance (Erscheinung) of His search for her, since all comes from Him, since the very possibility of our loving is His gift to us, and since our freedom is only a freedom of better or worse response. God moves the Universe, Himself unmoving, as Beloved moves a lover. However, for Christendom herein is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us. Throughout the day, you will be observing my actions: please help me to make them worthy of your notice. You wo measure the sky, dividing it into sections, do not be too strict in your judgment. God, you are Friend of the honest, please be my friend. Bless the Lord who is to be praised. Praised be the Lord who is blessed for all eternity. Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who formest light and createst darkness, who makest peace and createst all things. All shall offer Thee thanksgiving; all shall praise Thee and shall declare: There is none holy like the Lord. All shall extol Thee forever as Creator of all things. O God, who openest every day the gates of the east and cleavest the windows of the firmament, Thou bringest forth the sun and the moon, giving light to the whole World and its inhabitants whom Thou hast created by the attribute of mercy. #RandolphHarris 23 of 23