From the American Political Writing During the Founding Era: 1760-1805,ed. Charles S. Hyneman and Donald Lutz (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1983). 2 vols. Volume 1.

Raising the first flag at Independence Hall, circa 1776-77. Copy of painting by Clyde O. DeLand., 1942 - 1946.

The author of these letters remains anonymous. The quotation comes from Letter 1. In the fourth letter he lays out the distinction between a constitution and a government. The notion of a constitution as a higher law derived directly from the people and limiting the legislature is an American invention, and this author is one of the first to advance the idea.

Every man who acts beyond the line of private life, must expect to pass through two severe examinations. First, as to his motives; secondly, as to his conduct. On the former of these depends his character for honesty; on the latter for wisdom. The question is, how are we to know a man’s motives? I answer by tracing his conduct back to himself, as you would a firearm to the fountain-head, and comparing the measures he pursues with his own private interest and dependencies; and the conclusion will be, that if no visible connection appears between them, we are obliged, on the ground of justice and generosity, to believe that such a man acts from reason and principle; for if this criterion be taken away, there is no other general one to know men by. On the other hand, if on examining from a man’s conduct back to the man himself, we find a place of an hundred or a thousand a year at the bottom, or some advantage equivalent thereto, and find likewise that all his measures have been continually and invariably directed to support the part in every thing which supports him in his place or office, we may, without hesitation, set that man down for an interested time-serving tool.

We used to feel a mighty indignity at hearing a king’s custom-house officer, of forty or fifty pounds a year, bawling out in support of every measure of his employers; and the cause of this dislike in us was, because his motives had the appearance of selfishness; yet we have every reason to believe that the same servile principle produced the late Remonstrance, and drew together the whole tribe of Crown and Proprietary dependents to give it countenance; who, by fermenting the prejudices of some, and working on the weakness of others, endeavored to render themselves formidable by a party. Why is it, that every governor, and almost every officer under them, throughout the Continent, have uniformly trodden in the same steps? but because that One slavish mercenary principle has governed all. Scarcely a man amongst them have had either honesty or fortitude enough, to ask his conscience or his judgment a question. Did men reason with themselves ever so little, they would soon conclude, that the King and his Ministers could not be for ever right, nor the opposition, either in England or America, for ever wrong. Wisdom cannot be all on one side, nor ignorance all on the other; yet this levee of dependents have never dared to doubt any thing, but obeyed as implicitly as if their employers had been divine, and traveled on through thick and thin, without once enquiring into the cause, or reflecting on the consequence. The case was, that their places were at stake, and that all commanding thought superseded every other.

Online Library of Liberty – [30]: [ANONYMOUS]: Four Letters on Interesting Subjects – American Political Writing During the Founding Era: 1760-1805, vol. 1

American Political Writing During the Founding Era: Volume 1 CL by Charles Hyneman

There is evidence that organizations will continue to decentralize beyond multi-disciplinary teams and matrix structures. For it cannot be coincidence that technology continues to find its value in individual empowerment.  When it introduced the personal computer (PC) in the early 1980s, IBM threatened its own existence by subcontracting its birthright to Microsoft and Intel in one of the most spectacularly failed bets against empowerment in the technological age.  It marked one of the only times it did not use its own internally developed hardware and operating systems.  IBM quickly headed towards bankruptcy as the PC and the resulting explosion of technology forced the computer industry into a massive restructuring that left the mini-computer industry in a shambles; companies like DEC, Prime, HP, Control Data, Wang and TI saw their product lines obliterated with their own viability along with them.

IBM under Louis Gerstner saved itself from ruin in one of the most astounding turnaround examples of decentralization ever attempted. It may be that IBM’s present structure now mirrors many organizational fundamentals laid out on this website partly because it at one time so firmly rejected them.  The organization restructured from a hierarchical, unidirectional corporate culture to a broader based, decentralized one in less than 5 years.  They rejected their blue suits, sold buildings and ended up with almost half their workforce working from home in their pajamas.  They re-centered and refocused, and reversed their services and hardware mix of business on services, and sales and profits exploded.

Now IBM has obliterated most of its corporate hierarchy.  It relies on multi-disciplinary teams that reflect combinations of geography, function, customer segment and industry focus, depending on the situation.  They involve themselves in the open source communities which would have been unthinkable in their proprietary days of yesteryear.  But surely none of this expansion of adaptability and profitability and productivity would have occurred if their competitors and the markets had not forced them to react to preserve their viability.

To be fair, who could have predicted the explosion of creativity and innovation of turning millions of PC users into active entrepreneurs? After all, computing economics clearly show that centralized networks with dumb terminals are much less expensive to design and maintain.  That was the overwhelming organization of the computer industry even in the mini-computer world.  That hierarchy looks great on paper and proves more inexpensive to produce, purchase, maintain and deliver computing power.  Those economics remain true to this day.

But one huge factor was left out of the equation.  What was missing was the idea of autonomy. What was missing was the degree that control suppresses creativity. What was missing was an understanding of developmental psychology. What was missing was an in-depth appreciation of just how intrinsic complex systems (in this case free markets) are to innovation.  What was missing was just how incredibly productive users could be if they weren’t sitting around waiting for centralized IT department programmers and instead could themselves develop applications and mash-ups and innovations.

Corporate organizational structure is still hampering productivity, creativity and reliability.  Organizations both in their structure and their strategy often make bets against the individual, and they continue to do so in pendulum like swings in both micro and macro trends. They always eventually lose.  If you don’t believe me, ask IBM.

References

Photo courtesy Wikipedia Commons

The above picture symbolizes both technology and organizational change. Still wet behind the ears, in 1991 I was purchasing used mini-Vax systems as servers for Novell networks. They were faster and more inexpensive than PC’s, and cold room costs were sunk. Those pricing trends foreshadowed mini-computer markets.

If I remember correctly, we were the first in the state to cobble Vax systems together with Novell networks. Back then Peter Norton, not Bill Gates, was a G~d to teenage nerds everywhere, driving Microsoft and Intel innovation, and no self-respecting 80286 PC went without a QEMM-386 to make it effective.

This period also marked the last attempt by IBM’s misguided proprietary corporate policies regarding PS/2, which all nerds knew would inevitably fail.  It signified IBM’s continued denial regarding the structural change PC’s represented for technology.  No programmer I ever knew willingly dealt with it.