By Alexander Perepechko

Published on March 26, 2015

The x axis and y axis are respectively the time and development (figure 5). In the epoch of Modernity (the last 500 years), the technosphere has demonstrated an exponential growth (see my February 17, 2015 post). No exponential curve of economic growth can continue indefinitely. The technosphere has limits of growth and approaches a critical barrier. At the same time, the anthropos remains constant. As a result, the gap between development of the technosphere and development of the anthropos – the anthropotechnological scissors – increases. At a certain point this gap reaches a critical width and a civilization destroys itself. This phenomenon is called the Peters paradox (or, Peters barrier) after Thomas Peters, the first author of the book In Search of Excellence (1982), which is celebrated in the theory of elites. Peters and his colleagues researched organizational effectiveness. Results of their research were used and developed in the area of elite studies. There is a hypothesis that both the development of the technosphere and the development of the anthropos arrive at trifurcation points with three options for each (figure 5).

The development of the technosphere has three options:

a) Apocalypse is self-termination of the human race owing to uncontrolled exponential growth.

b) Counter-Modernity bears a resemblance to Pre-Modernity (a society prior to Modernity regulated by religion, tradition, and rules of estate corporation in rural society). However, unlike Pre-Modernity, Counter-Modernity is unnaturally imposed upon a society in the time of Modernity (see Kurginyan, 2012: 108).

c) Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The development of the anthropos also has three options:

d) New Modernity is a rejuvenated and prolonged Modernity. Charismatic religious and transcendent teachings transform a sinful, desperate man of Modernity and a “new man” finally sees the light.

e) Post-Modernity is a society empty of rules, regulations, values, and taboos.

f) Late Modernity is the last phase of Modernity, where the human race is threatened by manufactured risks (the threat of nuclear war, economic crashes, or environmental risks like global warming). This phase is characterized by rapid changes in society, rediscovery of the Enlightenment project and objective. Unlike postmodernists, apologists of Late Modernity believe that rational plans can be made to reduce current challenges and achieve a better society.

Indeed, in the 2014 State of the Union address (2015) Obama states that one of these manufactured risks – climate change – poses immediate risks to America’s national security. Surprisingly, in this and similar alarming statements, the President does not indicate that development of the technosphere and development of the anthropos are interrelated. His fellow Democrat Al Gore, the Vice President of the United States under President Bill Clinton, received a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in climate change activism. Gore is among prominent members of the Club of Rome. Important indications of the weakening of values of the anthropos can be found in the Club of Rome reports. In the first report to the Club of Rome, Donella Meadows (1972) and her colleagues used computer simulation techniques to develop a model of the future world. In this model these scholars concluded that we would reach the limits of growth early in the 21st century. Forty years ago, these scholars made it clear that growing crowding and pollution had already deteriorated the standard of life in the West. Moreover, they warned that a disproportional consumption of the world’s nonrenewable resources by the West must be checked or the ecosystem would collapse. A change from growth of the technosphere to sustainability and equilibrium cannot be reached without a corresponding change in human values, concluded Meadows and her colleagues.

Figure 5. Trifurcation points for technosphere and anthropos (Source: Generated by the author based on Kurginyan, 2012: 109-110).

The Club of Rome report resonates with the work of Peters and his associates. To describe the effectiveness of an organization, Peters, Waterman, Pascale, and Athos (1980) developed the 7 S model (figure 6). According to this model, this effectiveness depends on the following factors: 1) strategy – the integrated vision and direction of the organization as well as the manner in which it communicates and implements this vision and direction; 2) structure – interconnections between positions in an organizational hierarchy; 3) systems – procedures and routines required to perform work, including ways information moves in an organization; 4) staff – personnel within an organization; 5) style – ways in which key decision-makers set priorities and behave to achieve the goals of an organization; 6) skills – distinctive capabilities of an organization as a whole; and 7) shared values – core beliefs underlying the existence of an organization and what the organization expects of its members. Excellence in performance has to do with people being motivated by values (Peters & Waterman, 1982: 25). Values act as the conscience of an organization and provide guidance in times of crisis.

 

 

Figure 6. 7 S model (Source: Generated by the author based on Peters, Waterman, Pascale, and Athos, 1980).

A high degree of alignment among these seven factors is a condition of the effectiveness of an organization. To reinforce each other, each factor has to be consistent with the other factors. Except for skills, the other factors are interrelated and a change in one factor impacts the others (figure 6). Staff, strategy, structure, and systems can be changed in the short term. But style, skills, and shared values can be changed only in the long run. There are hard skills (e.g., writing, calculating, reading, and computer proficiency) and soft skills (e.g., personality-driven skills like etiquette, getting along with others, listening and engaging in small talk). The 7 S model makes it clear that the true competitive advantage of an organization originates from these soft skills, which impact all other factors (see red arrows on the figure 6).

As time goes by, an organization tends to become more complex. At a certain moment, leaders reach the limits of their competence. Furthermore, they cannot enhance their skills, nor can they grasp the shortcomings of the organization. Consequently, these leaders make strategic mistakes, which lead to the decay of the organization (see Byaly, 2012). If the values of an organization also lose their meaning, then strategic miscalculations of leaders can result in failure of the entire organization…

Let us summarize our findings of this and the three previous posts. Really, why did Barack Obama not take the initiative in reforming the American ruling class? Why could he not find ways to reach consensus among clashing political elites? Why did he choose to abandon normative politics and switch to post-modernism? Are theorists of elites right that in a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi ethnic or socially complex state the ruling class should be recruited almost exclusively from the dominant majority?

1. Neither elites nor public media in the United States talk about the Peters barrier. The absence of public debate on this issue can be explained in part by the fact that the Peters methodology was used by the Navy and Air Force to explore the probability of anomalies that predict apocalypse. Whatever the reason for the silence, the Peters paradox describes a central challenge of the last phase of Modernity. A poor response to this challenge could be fatal for the human race. Competing political elites and groups in the United States have different, even opposite, visions of the Peters paradox. The problem is so urgent and the split so deep that there is no room for a compromise strategy. Also, consensus-based mechanisms are inadequate to solve challenges of this nature and scope.

2. There are two alternative approaches to decrease the width of the anthropotechnological scissors, the gap between the development of the technosphere and development of the anthropos (see figure 5), and thus to avoid apocalypse. The first approach is to stop the development of the technosphere (scientific technical progress) without changing human nature. This scenario is unlikely. Imagination, creativity, and adventurism are embedded in humans and cannot be taken away. The second approach is to improve, even transform, human beings by cultivating and proselytizing new values. In this approach, exponential economic growth continues.

3. Obama’s strategy evades these polarized alternatives. In his politics, the President combines sustainable development of the technosphere with elements of Late Modernity. Two risks can be detected in this strategy.

Firstly, as long as there was abundance of land to cultivate and raw materials to transform, the development of the rest of the world was probably agreeable to the West. The American ruling class had more to gain than to lose by the diffusion of industrial and post-industrial society and improvement of living conditions around the globe. However, when development of the rest of the world starts to threaten either the supply of raw materials or the military superiority of the United States, the American elites lose interest in this development. In a Malthusian world, countries are in a zero-sum relationship – one country’s gain inevitably means another country’s loss. Will the rest of the world, especially the BRICS countries, be willing to stop their modernization programs and thus stop their development? If the answer is negative, then there is a temptation for the United States to impose Counter-Modernity on the fast-developing countries and macro-regions by the use of force.

Secondly, it is clear for the President that the American political class is losing skills and style, and strategic planning becomes a chronic problem. The principal political players often cannot detect systemic failures and set up the right goals and priorities. It seems as though key decision-makers have a hard time to achieve any objectives. Obama (2013) noticed the decline of the American political class: “American people have worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another.” How does Obama react to these problems? The way the President responds alarms some analysts. Indeed, in this nation, where the WASP elite runs the show and cursus honorum becomes part and parcel of representative democracy, an attempt to quickly groom a new elite from the rank and file of minorities is a noble task. But there is no shortcut to grooming a new elite, unless this elite rises from revolution! According to the theory of elites, there is no quick fix for problems of leadership and values (see figure 6). Obama’s identity politics, representing a growing number of ever-changing, old and new, real and surrogate groups, is, in fact, a push of the anthropos in the United States toward Post-Modernity. As a result, Obama’s strategy might not succeed in decreasing the width of the anthropotechnological scissors.

4. Unlike the Left, American Conservatives are at ease with exponential economic growth. To decrease the width of the anthropotechnological scissors, Obama’s political opponents propose to transform human beings by cultivating and proselytizing new values. These advocates of a “new man” and New Modernity are often inspired by prophetic religious and transcendent teachings. Whether these teachings win wide acceptance and thus facilitate a solution to the Peters paradox depends on three factors (see Mosca, 139:173). Firstly, these teachings need to be adapted to the current historical moment. Secondly, they need to satisfy the greatest possible number of human passions, sentiments, and inclinations – those most widely diffused and firmly rooted in the public. Thirdly, these teachings need to be directed by well-organized small groups of individuals – zealots – who dedicate their lives to the maintenance and propagation of the spirit that animates the faith.

In light of this analysis, Obama’s multiple attempts to invite clashing political elites to a transparent discussion of the Peters barrier and other challenges looks very limited.

Byaly, Y. V. Problema Pitersa, bar’er Pitersa, paradoks Pitersa [Peters problem, Peters barrier, Peters paradox]. Oko Planety. April 20, 2012. Available at http://oko-planet.su/science/sciencediscussions/113406-problema-pitersa-barer-pitersa-paradoks-pitersa.html

Kurginyan, S. (2012) Sut’ vremeni [Essence of time]. Moscow: ECC. Vol. 2.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., Behrens III, W. W. (1972) Limits to Growth. New York: New American Library.

Mosca, G. (1939) The Ruling Class (Elementi di Scienza Politica). New York: McGraw-Hill Book.

Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982) In Search of Excellence. Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. New York: HarperBusiness Essentials.

Peters, Th. J., Waterman, R. H., Pascale, R. T., and Athos, A. G. (1980) Seven S model. Available at http://www.provenmodels.com/24/seven-s-model/anthony-g.-athos–richard-t.-pascale–robert-h.-waterman–thomas-j.-peters

President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Speech (Transcript).Time, February, 12, 2013. Available at http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/12/president-obamas-2013-state-of-the-union-speech-transcript/

State of the Union 2015: Full transcript. CNN, January, 20, 2015. Available at http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/politics/state-of-the-union-2015-transcript-full-text/