^Thinktanks developed buzzwords using multiple divergent schools of psychology and that I have multiple degrees.
Just so it's not lost
"In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor published The Principles of Scientific Management, a book with one goal: destroy worker inefficiency. His theory, often called “Taylorism,” was all about maximizing every action on an assembly line. “There was a shift to the logic of science and efficiency,” Rakesh Khurana, a professor at Harvard Business School and soon-to-be-dean of Harvard College, told me. “Divide work into its smallest component parts, figure out the timing, remove any unnecessary efficiencies. That was the way work was organized, and that had a huge impact on the way corporate culture was organized.” The words used to talk about workers in books and boardrooms were accordingly mechanistic, emphasizing accuracy, precision, incentives, and maximized production.
This idea started to shift in the late 1920s and ’30s. In 1924, the Australian sociologist George Elton Mayo started running a series of experiments at Hawthorne Works, a large factory of the Western Electric Company in the suburbs of Chicago. He set out with a simple task: figure out how the brightness of the lights in the factory affected worker productivity. But his team got some surprising results: Whenever the lights changed—no matter whether they got dimmer or brighter—workers got better at their jobs. They concluded that the workers’ physical environment wasn’t what made them better—it was that they thought their bosses were paying attention to them.
Mayo and his team quickly changed their focus: Instead of thinking of workers as cogs in a vast machine, they began thinking of them as living units of a large, complex social organism.
"In the 1930s, you begin getting this human relations perspective, in many ways in opposition to the scientific imagery,” Khurana said. “This is really about this notion that managers don’t understand the psychology of workers. By treating them as machines, they not only deny their humanity; it actually results in ineffective management, social disorganization, lack of cooperation, and an increase in tensions between labor and management.” Although the methodology of the Hawthorne experiment has since been criticized, the results triggered a shift in how researchers thought about workers.
This seemed to come at just the right time: The Great Depression had set in, and industries were in an existential crisis. “Alienation, abseentism, labor turn-over, wild-cat strikes—these came to be associated not with meeting the workers’ economic needs, but their psychological and social needs,” Khurana said.
World War II liberated these theories from the halls of academia. Suddenly, organizational science was seen as a possible tool for understanding what had happened to nations like Germany and Japan. “What was it about the culture of those societies that led them to suddenly shift from what was seen as quite enlightened and advanced to suddenly becoming very authoritarian? The government became interested in this, and they started funding all sorts of studies.”
At the same time, American companies were changing. “Most of the large organizations that were emerging at this time were not in any single business,” Khurana said. “They were large, diversified conglomerates that had been created as a consequence of World War II and of the huge mergers and acquisitions activity that took place in the 1950s and ’60s. Firms like Pepsico owned trucking companies, even though they were in the food business.”
This made it more difficult for workers to feel a connection to their companies, Khurana said. “What people were very much focused on was: How can we get workers to feel differently about their jobs?”
For academics, this was as much a question of sociology as efficiency. It soon became a question of money, too: “As a manager, how can I maximize profits by creating a certain emotional atmosphere at my company?”
In trying to answer this question, office speak was born.
In the 1950s, two schools of thought began to emerge. At Carnegie Mellon, academics were working on what they called management science—a theory of decision-making inspired by the computers that had come out during World War II. Meanwhile, at MIT, three professors—Douglas McGregor, Edgar Schein, and Richard Beckhard—were creating a new field called organizational development.
Schein, now 86, is largely credited with coining the term organizational culture (the linguistic cousin of corporate culture). “In the 1960s, there was an emphasis on humanistic psychology, involving the worker, because then they would work better,” he told me. “We were interested in how groups and leadership could be made more effective. So we started something called the human relations lab.”
A pair of hypotheses rose out of these labs. As McGregor explained in his 1960 book The Human Side of Enterprise, managers could think of their employees in one of two ways: as lazy work-haters who need to be closely supervised (Theory X), or as ambitious self-motivators who thrive in an atmosphere of trust (Theory Y). “This introduced the idea that effective managers believe in their people and trust them and don’t feel that they have to monitor them all the time,” Schein said.
Although the researchers didn’t necessarily favor one theory over the other, Theory Y fit perfectly with the zeitgeist of the 60s. It drew on Abraham Maslow’s increasingly popular theory of the hierarchy of needs, which positioned “self-actualization” as the highest goal of human life. Inspired by Maslow, Michael Murphy and Dick Price founded the Esalen Institute in 1962 to nurture the burgeoning Human Potential Movement, and Look magazine’s George Leonard helped bring it into the mainstream. Theory Y extended this worldview into the realm of work: Jobs, much like meditation and mind-enhancing drugs, were seen as a way to discover untapped inner power and find personal fulfillment. Over the years, the idea has stuck: In 2001, The Human Side of Enterprise was voted the fourth most influential management book in the 20th century by the Academy of Management.
In the decades that followed, academics continued to come up with memorable buzzwords. British psychologist Raymond Cattell repurposed the word synergy, which was originally a Protestant term for cooperation between the human will and divine grace. The UC Berkeley philosopher Thomas Kuhn popularized the term paradigm shift in his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. And, much later, Harvard professor Clayton Christensen coined the term disrupt, which has become a favorite in today’s climate of start-up worship. But more importantly, academics have had a big effect on how workers work, all thanks to one group of people: consultants.
"A think tank or policy institute, research institute, etc. is an organization that performs research and advocacy concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics, military, technology, and culture"
"Think tanks have a long history of playing an important role in the formulation of domestic and international policy in the US. The origins of think tanks can be traced to America's Progressive-era traditions of corporate philanthropy, its sharp distinction between legislative and executive branches of government (which creates few barrier to entry into the policy making process), the desire to bring knowledge to bear on governmental decision making and inclination to trust the private-sector to “help government think.” As think tanks have grown in number and stature, scholars and journalists have begun to examine more closely the many factors that have led to their proliferation, factors that include... "
Century of the self; standard issue marketing information directly involving Bernays. All of you should watch this before saying another word, which you probably won't.
"The Century of the Self is a 2002 British television documentary series by filmmaker Adam Curtis. It focuses on the work of psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud, and PR consultant Edward Bernays.[1] In episode one, Curtis says, "This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy.""
I can just flood this thread with info non stop, the price of ignorance.
Last edited by AcGold; 11-28-2016 at 06:46 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to AcGold For This Useful Post:
Nice stretch of logic there. Think Tanks are similar to academia. Harvard is an academic institution, so they are actually a think tank. Buzzword was a slang term used by students at Harvard. So that means "buzzword" was created "scientifically" by a think tank.
I can see how you were certain that Skinner's work influenced Brill and Bernays.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
For a guy who claims to know so much about persuasion, you sure are bad at persuading people of your beliefs. You've literally done the opposite, and insulted everyone for not listening to you.
Your own "proof" didn't prove what you said. It was barely related to what started as a rant about think tanks inventing the term "fake news" and how we are all being manipulated into believing it exists.
__________________
Last edited by RougeUnderoos; 11-28-2016 at 07:06 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
So you just going to ignore 4 hours of information and turn it into petty semantics? Thanks for proving your ignorance. Now I'm done.
Petty semantics? That is the distillation of your argument. Cut through all the bull####, and that is the narrative you are trying to advance. One link destroyed your house of cards.
And when you say ignorance you're talking about the total shredding of your supposed "lesson" you taught us about being played like a fiddle? Thanks, we're better off in our ignorance. Now, do you promise you're done? For sure this time?
Buzzwords have been around since the onset of politics and religion. They're nothing new. Then feaster came around and revolutionized things with terms such as 'post apex'!
Buzzwords have been around since the onset of politics and religion. They're nothing new. Then feaster came around and revolutionized things with terms such as 'post apex'!
We need some intellectual honesty up in this thread.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
"There were millions of illegal votes!"
"We haven't seen any evidence of that... why do you say that?"
"You have no proof that it didn't happen!"
Seriously you have to think he's deliberately creating a distraction here.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Yeah the Tactician Trump intentionally creating distractions vs the Inept Trump who just incidentally benefits from always doing things that cause distractions all the damn time eternal debate.
The latest Off Message podcast from Politico had Maggie Haberman from the NYT on and they talked some about that, they had differing opinions on it too. Interesting podcast with insight into the press.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I guess it shouldn't be shocking that Trump doesn't understand the burden of proof given his credulity to conspiracy theories, but it still is.
I think you're not quite right on this one Photon.
The article title is "Donald Trump falsely claims "millions of people who voted illegally' cost him the popular vote. Once the writer decided on that sort of title, they assumed authority over the validity of the claim and made their own assertion that the claim was indeed false.
A more truthful title would be "Donald Trump claims voter fraud: No evidence provided". Just because a claim is made doesn't automatically make it false with an absence of evidence.
A more truthful title would be "Donald Trump claims voter fraud: No evidence provided". Just because a claim is made doesn't automatically make it false with an absence of evidence.
Would you have the same response if Trump had claimed that the popular vote was falsified because Martians tampered with the voting machines?
If someone's just saying things that have no shred of reality to them it's not unfair to call them false. Trump has no regard for the truth whatsoever, anyway. That was probably the most accurate part of Oliver's takedown of him during the primaries.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
