Efficiency as an area of expertise did not exist until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The quest for greater efficiency is therefore a product of the industrial revolution. I’m not convinced the concept even applies to anything beyond assembly lines, shipping, and certain types of office work. In my last post, I questioned the ways we measure efficiency. This time let’s think about the goal of efficiency itself. It seems to me efficiency is not always desirable and in many cases is destructive to humanity. But I am merely a former humanities professor, so my expertise is somewhat limited.
Here’s what I have observed:
It’s more efficient to exploit cheap or slave labor than to pay workers a living wage.
It’s more efficient to treat people as disposable or expendable than to acknowledge their worth as human beings.
It’s more efficient to let the weak and sick die than to provide them with adequate health care.
It’s more efficient to rape than to seek mutual understanding and love.
It’s more efficient to bully than to negotiate in good faith.
It’s more efficient to form monopolies than to promote fair competition.
It’s more efficient to let the rich decide who can prosper than to pay people fairly.
It’s more efficient to tell people to pick themselves up “by their own bootstraps” than to make sure everyone at least has boots.
It’s more efficient to let a dictator or a small group of oligarchs run a country than to deal with a messy democratic process.
It’s more efficient to stop protests with force than to listen to protesters.
It’s more efficient to silence critics and the press than to explain decisions.
It’s more efficient to promote one state religion than deal with many religions.
It’s more efficient to do away with judges and the courts than to follow the rule of law.
It’s more efficient to build weapons than to continually renegotiate for peace.
It’s more efficient to kill people with gas chambers than firing squads or guillotines, and atomic bombs are way more efficient than figuring out how not to kill people in the first place.
If something is more efficient, does that make it right? In all these examples, the goal of efficiency does not justify the means chosen to achieve it. Millions died in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Communist China when these regimes used people as cannon fodder to serve a powerful few. Morality often pales in the face of idolized efficiency. Clearly, not everyone benefits. Often, it’s better to wrestle with rights and responsibilities than to rely on business practices from the turn of the last century.
Arguably, all the so-called “great” empires were “efficient.” They believed that bigger was the same as better, that efficiency consisted of regimented growth to maximize wealth. Rome gave its neighbors a simple choice: live as a Roman or die as a barbarian. This worked. Until it didn’t. Corruption, enabled by the ruling class’s lack of concern for most people, took its toll. The empire eventually fell. Hadrian’s wall became a quarry. The barbarians exacted their revenge.
We play with fire when we assume efficiency is the solution to all our problems. What if humanity is the answer? What if we made decisions based on what is right for each other rather than what is best for the ruling class? What if, as E.F. Schumacher wrote, “Small is Beautiful?” Could it be that our organizations would do better if they acted as though people matter more than a 19th-century concept?
MurrayWorks 