While Sennett agrees with Bell and Drucker that “technical expertise and innovation have become the [new] forms of capital,”[xxxi] he suggests that autonomy and character structure rather than skill may be the central commodity of exchange in contemporary organizations:[xxxii]
“Autonomous character structure means a person has the ability to be a good judge of others because he or she is not desperate for their approval.. . . When a person is needed by others more than he needs them, he can afford to be indifferent to them. . . [A]utonomy removes the necessity of dealing with other people openly and mutually. There is an imbalance; they show their need for you more than you show your need for them. This puts you in control. . . . The fear and awe of experts is a familiar sentiment, most notably as it concerns doctors. . . Someone who is indifferent arouses our desire to be recognized; we want this person to feel we matter enough to be noticed.”
Thus, autonomy—the desired state of the new worker—builds on acquired and highly valued knowledge and expertise. It is fueled, in turn, by the desire to avoid shame:[xxxiii]
“The shame an autonomous person can arouse in subordinates is an implicit control. Rather than the employer explicitly saying “You are Dirt” or “Look how much better I am,” all he needs to do is his job—exercise his skill or deploy his calm and indifference. His powers are fixed in his position, they are static attributes, qualities of what he is.”
Sennett describes the controlling force of shame as subtle and even elusive:[xxxiv]
“It is not so much abrupt moments of humiliation as month after month of disregarding his employees, of not taking them seriously, which establishes his domination. The feelings he has about them, they about him, need never be stated. The grinding down of his employees’ sense of self-worth is not part of his discourse with them; it is a silent erosion of their sense of self-worth which will wear them down. This, rather than open abuse, is how he bends them to his will. When shame is silent, implicit, it becomes a patent tool of bringing people to heel.”
While Sennett’s analysis may be overdrawn and perhaps a bit too melodramatic, it accurately portrays a new mode of subtle control that operates in postmodern organizations, representing a further example of the “managed heart”[xxxv] and the continuing internalization of control[xxxvi] that we commonly see in modern societies.
The leaders of a high technology firm on the West Coast exemplify this interplay between knowledge and shame in their management of risk inside their organization. According to one of this organization’s leaders
“The decision-making process [in this organization] varies depending on the decision to be made; its visibility and potential impact on our customer. It is possible, if you are willing to take the risk, to make very visible and high impact decisions. If you are successful, you will be acknowledged and rewarded. Should you fail, you will be punished in an indirect way. This usually means a short time spent in the penalty box, where you are not allowed to make any decisions without concurrence from other members of the senior staff. This penalty box is not widely announced in the corporation. This allow you to still influence decisions indirectly and maintain your positional power. During any number of crises, you can be removed from the penalty box due to the needs of the company. All is forgiven and you are placed at the apex of an organization or issue to lead again.”
