|
Good points and info, IMO. One suggestion, though: I think the current antagonism is something that started with management many decades ago. I think the pattern goes back, well, as far as you want to go back. There have always been individuals who think that they* should be in charge. There's a continual 'tug-of-war'. For centuries, only a very few people were able to participate directly - when the world largely consisted of monarchies, empires, "hoards", and all of that**. Ancient Athens, and more recent "Enlightenment" ideas about "natural rights" and "mandate of the masses" etc. have generally been unusual in practice until quite recently.*** The data strongly support much more shared power past a certain level of technological and economic development, but, even if aware of the myriad examples, people with power-lust aren't going to stop. It's directly contradictory to that worldview, ambition, etc. - in multiple ways. And, any given person is likely to tack more towards or away from such notions over time, depending on multiple factors. Right now, it seems there's much more interest, in multiple realms, on consolidating power, again. Caveat populus. * Not consciously intentional play on "the royal we" ** Before that, there's a lot more variation, AFAIK, but also a lot less confidence and evidence - though, ancient Egypt and China (three kingdoms etc.) come to mind as particularly early examples with solid enough information regarding ruling over large numbers of people by individuals (and various attempts &/ smaller "kingdoms" etc.) *** "Radical", some might say "insolent" |