Industrial and organization psychology

linkq8

MGMT341-topic10.pptx

Home >Psychology homework help >Industrial and organization psychology

Topic 10 – Existentialism

MGMT341 – Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Summary of previous topics

Analysing the individual scientifically amounts to destroying it

Depending on the approach taken, one is left with internal entities (Freud), motivations, needs, traits, social forces or mental disorders but the ‘I’ as free agent has disappeared

Facing these difficulties, social psychologists have tried to locate the individual in its relationships with others

Although not without merit, this approach still leaves the individual open to external manipulation, as studies in group dynamics illustrate

It is thus understandable that thinkers, seeking another approach, dismissed entirely the idea of the individual as object of scientific investigation (an idea that psychiatry exemplifies)

Learning objectives

Sartre’s existentialism

Critical comments

Freedom and responsibility at work

NB: the content of this lecture has been extracted from chapter 12 of Joullié, J.-E. & Spillane, R. 2015. The Philosophical Foundations of Management Thought. Lanham: Lexington Books (cf. reading on myGust)

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

Sartre’s work can be analysed as an attempt to find alternative answers to the problems that traditional (scientific) psychology faces

If his work sounds at times poetic, it is because it does not want to be (and appear as) scientific

Being and Nothingness, which Sartre published in 1943, is widely considered as existentialism’s most complete expression

Existentialist psychology is now out of fashion

This is unfortunate, for it contains interesting insights

An excellent (if long) BBC documentary on Sartre is available here

Sartre’s starting points

I am free because I must be: without psychological freedom, human existence is nonsensical

If I am not free, then rationality is in fact irrationality, action is reaction, reasons are causes and responsibility is irresponsibility

If I am not free, then human beings have been in grave error about themselves for millennia: this is preposterous

In a determinist outlook, man is a string-puppet, a non-person

Man is no longer the embodiment of a self-determined ‘I’ but merely the focal point of internal and external, past and present forces which result, with the help of uncontrollable biological processes, in the movements of the limbs

For Sartre, accepting a determinist picture of man is failing humanity; he sees determinism as a degrading position stripping mankind of its obligations towards itself

Condemned to be free

Self-consciousness is the primary datum and the sole proof of existence

‘I am self-conscious, therefore I exist’: my self-consciousness is my ‘I’

My ‘I’ is the first cause of my existence: I exist out of my I

Self-consciousness is ‘freedom to’ (not mere ‘freedom from’)

‘Freedom to’ is power, the power to choose

I am never devoid of choice

When I think I have no choice, I must elevate my level of consciousness until I recognise that I indeed have choice

I am absolutely free since I make everyday the choice of not killing myself

I cannot choose not to choose however

‘I am a freedom that chooses but I do not choose to be free: I am condemned to be free’

Self-consciousness is nothingness

Self-consciousness is not a thing (object), therefore it is a no-thing

If my ‘I’ (self-consciousness) was an object, it would not be free

Objects are; animals are conscious (aware); only human beings are self-conscious thus free

The essence of man is freedom, is nothingness

Out of this nothingness, I must invent myself everyday: I am shapeless but can adopt any shape I want and must create myself out of my nothingness

I (must) decide what I want to be: I am defined by my actions and my potentialities

There is therefore no essential difference between man and woman

‘One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman’ (Simone de Beauvoir): in other words, sex is biological contingency but gender is a choice

Self-consciousness and emotions

Consciousness is distinct from emotional content

One does not ‘have’ emotions; one experiences emotions

Emotions are not part of one’s ‘nature’ or ‘personality’ : emotions are mere examples of self-talk, they are strategies employed to make sense of situations

One chooses which emotions one wants to experience

One is not angry (depressed, jealous, in love, etc.), but one chooses to act angrily (depressingly, jealously, lovingly, etc.) in relation to someone or something; changing an emotion only requires a different form of self-talk

To claim to be under the control of an emotion is to be weak-willed and of bad faith

Every time one believes that one can only surrender to a feeling, one must elevate one’s level of consciousness until one realises that it is not the case

One is never harmed by one’s experiences, but one is harmed by how one takes them, i.e., one chooses to be harmed by the emotions these experiences trigger: unhappiness is the result of one’s allowing one’s emotions to take control of one’s life

Consciousness as a relationship

Being conscious is being conscious of something

Consciousness does not possess or hold any content (if it did, it would be an object)

Consciousness is constant projection into and onto the world: consciousness is purposive (intentional)

Consciousness, like intelligence, is a relationship

Intelligence is an ability manifesting itself in interactions between individuals and their environment; one acts intelligently (or not), one is (or not) intelligent, but one does not have intelligence

People constantly seek objects to confirm their existence as self-conscious individuals

They need the presence of an Other (object, animal or fellow human being) to know that they exist because they are different

Existential anxiety

I am free but with freedom comes responsibility

Responsibility is precisely the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness, between animality and humanity: it is understanding and accepting that one is the origin of one’s actions

This freedom is demanding

I am committed to my responsible freedom and every act is purposive

I have to reinvent who I am everyday: I am (have to be) my own foundation

My values are what I do: the choices I make today define the values I embody and set as examples

I am not only responsible for myself, I am responsible for all mankind: for instance, if I marry, I support the institution of marriage

Human existence is therefore a constant source of anxiety (anguish)

This anxiety is inseparable from freedom, that is, is consubstantial to existence

Bad faith

Many people cannot bear this anxiety; to escape it and to avoid facing their responsibility, they sacrifice (escape from) their freedom

They conform to the expectations of society, fashion, family, work organisation, etc.

Or they accept to be the slaves of their own orders

Or they believe that their behaviour is caused by unconscious drives, needs, instincts, mental illnesses or personality traits beyond their control

Acting thus is for Sartre displaying ‘bad faith’

The price to pay for bad faith is a pervasive guilt

Guilt arises when one renounces the infinity of one’s potentialities: it is abandoning freedom, i.e., what one is

Existential guilt is the sign that one has become an object

Authenticity

My ‘me’ is the public face of my ‘I’: it only exists in and because of the gaze of the others; in their eyes it is an object

Yet I must recognise that others, which are objects to me as I am to them, remain their own subjects

Being authentic is to treat others are subjects, as other ‘I’s

This is the only way to prevent the depersonalisation of the relationships in impersonal social structures

This is also the only way to grant others the respect which is due to they being the seeds of unlimited possibilities

Authenticity also requires to reject all desires to be encapsulated, to be socially validated, to refer one’s decisions to external agencies

Authenticity is the remedy to existential guilt: I must face (my) nothingness if I am to learn to face myself and my difficulties in living

Authority and power in relationships

The differences between authority and power in relationships are traditionally defined in moral terms

Authority is defined as the right to act (authorisation), granted by the person accepting its rule on moral terms; it is dissolved by dissent

Power is described as being effectiveness in action, i.e. the actual ability to bring events to pass; it is said to be morally neutral and not dissolved by dissent

For existentialists, this difference is only superficial, for they insist that one always has a choice, even if between life and death

When I say ‘I do not have a choice but to follow orders’, what I am in fact saying is that I value my life (my job or some other material advantage) more than doing something that I disapprove: this is in itself a moral decision

By following orders, I am happy to grant authority and power over me to the person in command; I could always have done otherwise, even at a great cost to me

Human nature?

Existentialists insist that there is no such thing as human nature

Human nature is self-consciousness, i.e., nothingness

If it was a thing (an object), it could be acted upon and it would thus cease to be free

Human behaviour is unpredictable

If it was predictable, individuals would not be free: the notion of choice and responsibility would automatically disappear

Existentialists thus reject all scientific models of man (like psychoanalysis’, psychiatry’s, Maslow’s, McClelland’s, Herzberg’s or Skinner’s) or of society

For existentialists, the very idea of a science of man or of society (social science in general) is not only misguided, but is also an attack on human dignity

Employees as string puppets?

Popular psychological theories (especially those used in management) attribute the cause of one’s behaviour to aspects beyond one’s control

Maslow and McClelland: people must satisfy their ‘needs’

Skinner: people automatically respond to positive and negative reinforcement

Herzberg: hygiene and motivator factors drive behaviour

This opens the possibility of external psychological control, explaining the popularity of the word ‘motivation’ in management

Cattell and Eysenck: people’s behaviour is determined by their personality traits

Critical comments

‘I’ is free; consciousness is nothingness

People are thus ‘embodied nothingness’ (!?)

Yet if human beings are not things (as opposed to objects) but immaterial freedom, how does they interact with the material world?

Sartre insists that the others are to be seen as ‘I’s, as subjects

This does not follow from his ‘consciousness as freedom’ axiom: if freedom is truly absolute, why should I respect others’ freedom?

Sartre asserts that freedom is absolute, that people cannot be ‘half free’

But what about children? Where do they stand in this perspective? When do they become free?

Existentialism is a philosophy for educated, tough-minded yet sociable adults

Sartre’s conception of freedom is attractive but demanding

That a tough-minded yet sociable person can exist at all is very unclear for the concept seems self-contradictory

Existentialism and management

Existentialism reasserts the existence of individuals against a social order which seeks to encapsulate them (most of the time with their own consent)

Existentialism re-emphasises the gulf between descriptions of relationships (such as job descriptions) and the reality of relating

Where management aims for an objective view of people (as ‘human resources’), existentialists call for empathy and an inter-subjective understanding of human relationships

Existentialists insist that, whatever people are, they are not adequately represented by scientific, let alone mechanistic, models; it is up to everyone to develop their own theory of personal existence

Authority granted to management is for existentialists nothing more than a fiction, a confidence trick (so as to fight anxiety) without moral justification, but one that they recognise managers cannot do without if they are to act at all

The existentialist psychologist...

Believes that the notion of ‘personality’ is a treacherous reification, leading to labelling and pigeonholing

Believes that ‘motivating’ or influencing people’s values is manipulation

Understands that freedom implies options and that responsibility implies obligations

Hence never attempts to provide his clients for excuses for their behaviour

Believes that people behave for their own reasons, on their own terms

And that these cannot be known or should even be inquired into

The most that can be done is to help people clarify the reasons and values underpinning their actions

The existentialist manager...

Uses a language of freedom and responsibility

Speaks in terms of incentives, reasons, objectives, rewards

Provides employees with a degree of autonomy and decision-making authority

Seeks employees’ inputs: asks them to write their job description and define their Key Performance Indicators

Asks subordinates to write their own performance assessment report; accepts it only when it shows clear evidence of critical reflection and commitment to improvement

Grants employees the authority to re-write the rule book when they believe (and can justify) that it has to be re-written

Assesses performance, not ‘potential’ or ‘personality’

Plays the ball, not the (wo)man

The existentialist subordinate...

Seeks self-respect rather that respect of others

Seeks autonomy rather than dependency

Approval of one’s superior is certainly pleasing, but not a precondition for action; in all essential respects, one is alone in the world

Help from others is at times required, but in the end one is sole responsible for one’s actions

Does not set him/herself ‘must do’ objectives, but only desirable ones

It is better to focus on doing than on doing well

Failure is a fact of life and is merely an incentive for trying harder; seeking perfection is self-defeating

It matters not if one achieves more or less than others, but it matters a lot if one values what one does

Is not upset by one’s colleagues’ failures or criticisms

Rectifying one’s mistakes and showing that alternatives are possible is more productive (if more difficult) than refusing criticism

MGMT341

Questions?