By Ian McDonald, ContributorFREDERICK WINSLOW Taylor, who as a young foreman in a Philadelphia steelworks in 1880 started measuring work performance compared with time taken to do the work, was the first time and motion study expert, the man who pioneered the science of efficiency in management. He was not popular among ordinary workers.
It was pointed out, for instance, that Taylor's showcase labourer, a man called Schmidt, earned 61 per cent more pay, yes, but for that he performed 362 per cent more work. A Congressional Committee was set up to investigate Taylor's methods. Taylor himself was questioned and at one point he spoke of how much "the first-class man" profited under his system. The Chairman of the Committee then asked a pointed question about the fate of those who were not first-class. To this there was no very good or exact answer.
It may be good to recall this episode as we listen to commentator after commentator, despite all the evidence, continue to extol the virtues of the market-place, remind us of the inevitability of the winnowing process involved in "globalisation and free trade", and stress the absolute need to become more efficient than others and rise to the top of the list of league leaders in competitiveness. Sadly, many of our own leaders in the Caribbean find themselves numbered among such thoughtless, winner-take-all enthusiasts.
I have not heard these commentators say what happens to the also-rans, except some particularly frank ones who are beginning to talk of the inevitability of "failed states" in their new world order - presumably meaning states (which are, by the way, made up of human beings) abandoned to their fate. Are those people serious? After all, not everyone can be a winner in competition. In fact there are many more losers than winners, are there not? And in any race there are always competitors way down the track and even one, remember, who comes dead last.
So in this glorious new world order which the commentators extol, or at least accept as inevitable and therefore useless to question, what happens to the losers, especially those really far back in the race? It may not be for want of trying desperately hard to succeed that they fail: every sportsman knows that effort does not always equate with success. So are such losers to be consigned to the scrap heap?
Must life in the real world be organised like a sporting event in which only winners get a prize and the others get nothing? That is what is implied by the new ideologues and their obsequious supporting cast of unquestioning commentators. The line they seem to take is the line once taken by Jack (Neutron Jack) Welch, Chairman of General Electric in the USA, American's favourite businessman for a long time, who closed down dozens of plants and fired tens of thousands of workers in the cause of greater efficiency. As Neutron Jack said at a shareholders' meeting in 1989, "The events we see rushing towards us make the rough, tumultuous eighties look like a decade at the beach. Ahead of us are Darwinian shake-outs in every major marketplace, with no consolation prizes for the losing companies and nations." Is this really the kind of world human beings should want to create?
So what happens when we strive for greater efficiency and get it, when we achieve impressive gains in productivity, when we reduce our unit costs significantly, when we improve our investment climate greatly and perfect our tax laws and other conditions for multinational foreign investment - what happens if we work hard and achieve all these things and STILL we are not among the winners because, remember, others are striving too and not everyone can come first or even second or third?
I wish there was some World Congressional Committee to ask such a question and get some answers. The world, life itself, is made up mostly of the second and third and fourth class and no class at all. How do we cater for them? Are there, indeed, to be no consolation prizes?
What is utterly repugnant in the new ideology is the way it so barefacedly favours the strong over the weak. If there are competitors in a completely free market is it not obvious that the competitor with most access to advanced technology, skilled manpower, ample funds for investment and advertising and promotion, superior organisation and the backing of powerful state resources and organisation is going to win? Please tell me what is to prevent this happening.
Insisting on reciprocity is the equivalent of insisting that one party, guess which, is going to lose and suffer. And please don't mention to me "niche markets", that stock-in-trade of unthinking apologists for the new ideology. A niche market lasts for exactly as long as it takes a stronger competitor to find out about it and move in and in most cases that isn't very long.
We should certainly try to do our very best, as good sportsmen preparing for competition, to make ourselves as fit and as strong and as fast, in other words as competitive, as possible so that we can perform as well as we can. But it does not follow that the real world must be organised as if it was a race or a jungle where the loser's fate is zero. that completely unacceptable.
Let there be gradations, yes, but gradations from winners who get the most to losers who all get at least enough. I want to hear the new ideologues soften their stance so that becomes the objective of us all and the basis of all our decisions.
Ian McDonald is a regular contributor who lives and works in Georgetown, Guyana.
