Marx, Mill and
Mintzberg
Alienation and Development of Individuality
in Modern Corporate Culture
This study endeavors to evaluate the organizational theory of Henry Mintzberg
based on Karl Marx’s concept of alienation and John Stuart Mill’s notions of the
manifestation and development of individuality. It will show that the corporate
world that is reflected in Mintzberg’s work has changed since the 19th century.
Alienation is better avoided and individuality is more easily manifested than in the
19th century. Further scrutinized, however, not all the theoretical structures put
forward by Mintzberg, have a sufficient amount of attention for the individual that,
despite their differences, both thinkers agree is fundamental for any structure that
governs human behavior.
Joris van den Broek
3896471
Bachelorscriptie Wijsbegeerte
(WY3V12012)
June 24, 2016
Jos Philips and Piet Steenbakkers
Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 3
Henry Mintzberg...................................................................................................................................... 5
Karl Heinrich Marx ................................................................................................................................. 11
Discussion Surrounding the Role of Alienation in Marx .................................................................... 11
Untangling Alienation from Marx...................................................................................................... 12
Evaluation of the Corporate Structures ............................................................................................ 16
Conclusion and Reflection ................................................................................................................. 19
John Stuart Mill ..................................................................................................................................... 21
The Importance of Individuality ........................................................................................................ 21
Finding the Defining Characteristics of Individuality ....................................................................... 23
Evaluation of the Corporate Structures ............................................................................................ 25
Conclusion and Reflection ................................................................................................................. 27
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Bibliography........................................................................................................................................... 32
Introduction
The organization of the different parts in modern corporations is a complex process. More often than
not, tension exist between the organizational theory and the actual people that make up the parts
that organizational theory is about.
In most cases a corporation is headed by either an owner, (a team of) managers or investors.
They determine the structure of the corporation they have in mind. Different structures are
appropriate for a new branch of McDonald’s restaurant compared to a bed&breakfast hotel in the
Scottish highlands. Deciding which structure to implement has pervasive consequences for the
success of the corporation and the day-to-day labor activity of its employees. When in the 19th
century the theoretical foundations were outlined for our modern capitalism, structure was only
evaluated on its consequences for the success of the corporation. Karl Heinrich Marx and John Stuart
Mill criticized the corporate culture for the lack of attention to any other consequences of the
corporate culture. “Although the responses of Marx and Mill differed greatly, their social theories
were each influenced particularly by […] concerns in the classical economics, [e.g.] the space
available for human development.”1 Although both philosophers wrote about much more than
corporate culture, the state of employer-employee relationships influenced their theories greatly.
Marx saw alienation as an empirical fact,2 apparent in all people working within a capitalist system.
Mill defended freedom of individuality in all socioeconomic layers and all contexts, including the
work-context. The corporate culture has changed beyond recognition since the 19th century.
However, a capitalist political economy still prevails, and it is safe to say that many employees still
lack a satisfying amount for what they feel is their individuality in their work-life, even in Western
Europe and North America. With due attention to the differences between corporate culture in the
19th century and contemporary corporate culture, the ideals included in the works of Marx and Mill
are still relevant today. It is therefore worth investigating to what degree the ideals of Marx and Mill
1
Graeme Duncan, Marx and Mill: Two views of social conflict and social harmony (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1973), 38.
2
Karl Marx, “Alienated Labour,” in Karl Marx: Early Writings, ed. and transl. T.B. Bottomore (New York/Toronto
etc.: McGraw-Hill, 1963), 128.
are represented in our modern corporate culture.
This study consists of three sections. Firstly, the leading organizational theory of Henry
Mintzberg3 will be presented to clarify what we consider to be modern corporate culture. Secondly,
Marx’s notion of alienation and (the lack of) its presence in modern corporate structures will be
discussed. Thirdly Mill’s arguments for the manifestation and development of individuality will be
analyzed in the context of modern corporate structures. Both the result of section two and three will
be reflected upon in broader contexts before the study is summarized and concluded.
3
Henry Mintzberg, Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations (New York: The Free
Press, 1989).
Henry Mintzberg4
In any kind of comprehensive study into the world of organizations, Mintzberg’s theory of
corporate structures is inevitably included. Even though organizational structures are in a
constant state of flux, his five basic types of corporate structures “reflect leading tendencies in
organizations.”5 He used a range of criteria to differentiate structures from another, most
important of which are the key-component and the coordinating mechanism of the
organization. The first of these refers to the most important part of an organization and the
second to the way the organization is typically coordinated, that is, managed. The components
of any organization are listed below along with a visually representation provided by
Mintzberg.
1. Operating Core
2. Strategic Apex
3. Middle Line
4. Technostructure
5. Support Staff
6. Ideology/culture
Source: Mintzberg, On Management, p. 99.
The operating core produces the products or services that the corporation sells. The strategic
apex consists of at least one full-time manager. The middle line can be found in larger
companies that need this kind of managerial layer to employ a bigger operating core. The
technostructure consists of analysts providing formal planning for the labor activity to be done
in the other components. The supporting staff is there to “provide various internal services,
4
Throughout this chapter, Mintzberg is extensively paraphrased and can be considered the sole source of
information. For the sake of brevity, references are only given in cases of direct quotes and visual content.
5
Mintzberg, On Management, 115. For reception of and discussion sparked by Mintzberg, see Danny Miller,
“Configurations of Strategy and Structure: Towards a Synthesis,” Strategic Management Journal 7 (1986),
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.4250070305/pdf (accessed April 22, 2016), 235.
from a cafeteria or mailroom to a legal counsel or public relations office.”6 Since there are no
employees in the ideology-component, it is not included in this study.
The different coordinating mechanisms identified by Mintzberg are: mutual
adjustment, direct supervision, standardization of work processes, standardization of outputs,
and standardization of skills or knowledge.7 Mutual adjustment is a basic coordinating
mechanism where two parties communicate with each other to achieve coordination, that is,
simple cooperation. Direct supervision is another simple mechanism where one party, usually
higher up in the structure, is in charge of prescribing and supervising the activity of other
parties. The standardization of work processes consists of specified prescriptions for labor
activity to achieve coordination. This is an emblematic task of the technostructure and is
exemplified by the prescription for the amount of cheese that goes on a cheese-burger or the
amount of orders that should be picked in a warehouse per hour. The standardization of
outputs amounts to prescribing the results of tasks (often in monetary terms), rather than the
labor activity itself. The standardization of skills and knowledge aims to coordinate by
demanding the completion of training prior to hiring an employee. This training focuses on
skills as well as the implicit beliefs that are connected to the knowledge in training. For
example, physicians need to adhere to the values of the Hippocratic Oath no less than know
how to diagnose a patient.
6
7
Mintzberg, On Management, 98.
Mintzberg, On Management, 101.
Source: Mintzberg, On Management, p. 117.
Assisted by these criteria, Mintzberg identified five organizational structures: the
entrepreneurial organization, the machine organization, the diversified organization, the
professional organization, and the innovative organization. They are listed above along with
the coordinating mechanism and key-component customarily connected to these
organizations. We now move on to a more detailed discussion of each structure.
The entrepreneurial organization is represented in
most small shops and businesses during their startup phase.
Direct coordination is the most appropriate coordinating
mechanism mainly because the organization is still small.
The key component is the strategic apex, which is often the
owner of the corporation. Because these organizations are
theoretically simple and practically always small, in
Source: Mintzberg, On Management, p. 117.
practice they vary greatly, depending on the style of leadership. “Employees can develop a
solid identification with such an organization”8 because of a charismatic employer or just as
likely, the organization can become “paternalistic and […] autocratic.”9
The second structure is the machine organization.
The key-component is the technostructure. This part of
the organization creates the coordinating mechanism,
which is the standardization of work processes. The
efficiency and consistency this coordinating mechanism
provides is essential for these large organizations.
The third structure is the diversified organization.
Source: Mintzberg, On
Management, p. 132.
It can appear when smaller companies merge or when a large company diversifies, that is,
enters new markets. Headed by one strategic apex,
the departments can be greatly varying
organizations, although Mintzberg argues that the
diversified organization thrives when its divisions
follow the machine organization structure. The
middle line is the key-component, which consists
Source: Mintzberg, On Management, p. 155.
of the division-managers. They coordinate their
own divisions and report to the strategic apex usually in reply to the (monetary) goals that the
strategic apex appoints to them. This coordinating mechanism is the standardization of
results. The strategic apex focusses more on long-term goals and is only indirectly connected
to the operating core of each of the divisions.
The fourth organizational structure we consider is the professional organization. Most
8
9
Mintzberg, On Management, 129.
Mintzberg, On Management, 129.
hospitals and universities showcase this structure.
‘Professional’ in this context alludes to the
common denomination of those in this
organization’s key-component, the operating
core. They are extensively trained, mostly prior to
working in these organizations. So the
coordinating mechanism usually applied in these
Source: Mintzberg, On Management, p. 174.
organizations is the standardization of skills and knowledge.
Finally, we will discuss the innovative organization. This structure is different from
the other especially in its fluidity, that is, lack of structure.
In a “high-technology research organization [or] an avantgarde film company”10 certain components that we until
now have been separating can no longer be clearly
distinguished. The employees and employers alike fulfill
multiple tasks. As a whole they are focused on innovating
Source: Mintzberg, On Management, p. 198.
products for the market they are trying to position
themselves in. For example, within Google, teams are constantly investigating new potential
services and products to remain at the edge of technological advances. Innovation “comes at
the price of a good deal of disruption, if not chaos”11 in organizational structure. The only
coordinating mechanism that still succeeds is mutual adjustment, that is, only by much
intensive collaboration can the innovative organization remain direction and effectiveness.
The preceding organizational theory includes all the characteristics that Mintzberg
abstracted from observing our contemporary corporate culture. We will now continue to the
10
11
Mintzberg, On Management, 198.
Mintzberg, On Management, 196.
presentation of Marx and Mill, after which we can discuss to what degree the above structures
adhere to the ideals we in find in these philosophers.
Karl Heinrich Marx
In order to sensibly evaluate modern corporate structures, a greater understanding of both
Marx and Mill is needed. Marx explicated a phenomenon known as alienation, and we will
consider this as something that organizational structures should avoid. However, since,
according to Marx, alienation is unavoidable in a capitalist society,12 we will have to untangle
alienation from Marx´s project before we can see which corporate structures, although they
operate within a capitalist society, still avoid alienation. Before we can separate alienation
from the rest of Marx’s extensive work, we first have to understand its place within the
greater project of this philosopher and revolutionary.
Discussion Surrounding the Role of Alienation in Marx
Marx’s writing has caused much debate among scholars about its correct interpretation.
Richard Miller concludes that “[v]irtually every paragraph in this chapter [of The Cambridge
Companion to Marx] could be accompanied by three concise paragraphs describing why other
readers of Marx, erudite and influential, think that this paragraph is wrong, in emphasis or
substance.”13 Graeme Duncan importantly points to the incompleteness of Marx’s work:
“Marxism is an unfinished philosophy, and Marx must be rescued constantly from his
professed disciples.”14
Although alienation is considered essential to Marxism by everyone, it has also lead to
disagreements. Questions about its origins and its role within Marx’s entire work still lack
undisputable answers. Marx did not invent the notion of alienation, but drew heavily on the
concepts that Hegel and his followers put forward.15 Gajo Petrović points to the inconsistency
12
Richard W. Miller, “Social and Political Theory: Class, state, revolution,” in The Cambridge Companion to
Marx, ed. Terrel Carver (n.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2006), chapter DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521366259.003 (accessed December 1, 2015), 57. See also Bertell Ollman,
Alienation: Marx’s conception of man in capitalist society (Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1976),
149.
13
Miller, “Social and Political Theory,” 55.
14
Duncan, Marx and Mil, 288.
15
Allen Wood, “alienation,” in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 2nd edition, ed. Ted Honderich (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2005),
of Marx´s attitude towards Hegel’s notion of alienation in the course of time. According to
him, Marx started by criticizing Hegel, but later “we discover the ‘rejected’ theory of
alienation is present in [the late Marx] not only implicitly but also explicitly, and not only by
content but also terminologically.”16 Petrović and others defend a perceived break in Marxian
thought that would have taken place in the mid to late 1840s.17 Although the changes in
attitudes, language, and emphasis should be recognized, Graeme Duncan, and many with him
still argue that “a particular conception of man and of human labour not only persists
throughout Marx's writings, but remains crucial to his social analysis.”18 Following this
widely held continuity interpretation is arguably the most appropriate approach to all of
Marx's writing. Moreover, regarding alienation specifically, Marx has written so much to
inform the notion of alienated labour he first explicated in "Alienated Labour,"19 that to deny
this continuity makes the analysis of this concept inconceivable. One of the strongest
advocates of the continuity thesis is Bertell Ollman. He states that Marxism is “an organic
whole [where] the various factors he treats are facets of this whole [and] internal relations
exist between all such factors.”20 Adopting this approach also entails that we present the
following as an analysis inspired by Marx, rather than a Marxian analysis, since we take one
Marxian concept out of context.
Untangling Alienation from Marx
We will now explore the necessary and sufficient conditions of alienation, and operationalize
it to the context of labor activity within a capitalist society. According to Marx, if labor is to
be non-alienating it needs to fulfill the needs of others and furthermore it needs to fulfill the
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199264797.001.0001/acref-9780199264797-e63?rskey=ryymAO&result=1 (accessed December 12, 2015).
16
Gajo Petrović, “Marx's Theory of Alienation,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 23.3 (1963),
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2105083 (accessed November 25, 2015), 419.
17
Duncan, Marx and Mill, 74.
18
Duncan, Marx and Mill, 75.
19
Marx, “Alienated Labour.”
20
Ollman, Alienation, 131.
enjoyment of the laborer.21 The first condition emphasizes the mutual dependence of the
laborer and the other, that is, the consumer. The second condition is fulfilled when the
specific individuality of the worker is objectified in the outside world through her labor.
These two will be the main characteristics the corporate structures will be tested for.
However, Marx wrote extensively about alienation, and this further informs our analysis of
non-alienated labor and assists the operationalization to the modern capitalist labor context.
According to Marx, “man produces when he is free from physical need only truly
produces in freedom from such need.”22 This description of true productivity stands in stark
contrast with Marx’s observations of productivity in his contemporary capitalist society.
“A society is capitalist, in Marx’s way of thinking, if the production of material
goods is dominated by the use of wage labor, that is, the use of labor power
sold, to make a living, by people controlling no significant means of production
and bought by other people who do have significant control over means of
production and mostly gain their income from profits on the sale of the results
of combining bought labor power with those productive means.”23
Any individual working in this system will become alienated according to Marx. He describes
four relationships between the individual and “the real objects in the world, including other
men”24 as alienated in capitalist society.
i.
Man’s relation to his labor activity.
ii.
Man’s relation to his product.
iii.
Man’s relation to his fellow men.
21
Karl Marx, Comments on James Mill: Éléments D’économie Politique,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/ (accessed February 11, 2016), first published
in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Erste Abteilung, Band 3, (Berlin: n.n., 1932).
22
Marx, “Alienated Labour,” 128.
23
Miller, “Social and Political Theory,” 105.
24
Ollman, Alienation, 127.
iv.
Man’s relation to his species.
These relationships are all part of one larger relationship, namely, alienated labor, and are as
such not completely separated from one another.25 The first relationship pertains to an
individual’s labor activity. Marx does not often describe it without judgement seeping through
word-choice or phrasing: “capitalist labor variously described as a ‘torment’, a ‘sacrifice of
life’ and ‘activity as suffering’, it is not to be wondered at that no one in capitalism works
unless he is forced.”26 In contrast, a meaningful relationship consists for Marx in labor
activity that has true meaning for the laborer. Although both the alienated and the healthy
relationship defy straightforward definitions, they gain clarity when interpreted with the other
relationship. The second relationship is between the individual and the product of her labor.
Logically, a product created by untrue productivity will itself be untrue. “The worker’s
products are alien to him in that he cannot use them to keep alive or to engage in further [true]
productivity.”27 In order not to feel alienated from the product of your labor, or the labor
activity itself, the individual must find true meaning for his own life in the product and
activity. The descriptions of the healthy relationships between individual and product/activity
overlap with the fulfillment of the second condition of non-alienated labor above in that the
meaning that needs to be found depends on the individuality of the individual. The third
relationship is between man and her fellow men. The Marxian definition of capitalist society
includes an antagonism between people with significant means of production and those
without. This antagonism is especially condemnable because the “sellers in the labor market
[i.e. the laborers] cannot engineer their own makeup to reduce their need for steady
employment,”28 whereas the owners of the production-means can reduce their need for
laborers by investing in machines. Therefore, this antagonism is directly opposed to the first
25
Ollman, Alienation, 140 and Duncan, Marx and Mill, 74.
Ollman, Alienation, 138.
27
Ollman, Alienation, 143.
28
Miller, “Social and Political Theory,” 57.
26
condition of non-alienated labor above, which focusses on mutual dependence. The fourth
relationship is between man and her species, that is, her own humanity. It is important to note
that true productivity is, according to Marx, essential to being human.29 It is that what
distinguishes humans from other animals. Therefore, there is also reason to believe that the
relationship would benefit from productivity that requires more than capabilities that humans
share with other animals.
It is also important to consider that “[Marxism] has become, as a total system, an
ideological reflection of a past era.”30 The capitalistic society of the early 19th century was
characterized by unprecedented industrialization, due to technological innovations and the
centralization of production in factories.31 These markets “induced investment[s] that
increased the amount of […] labour productivity.”32 Anything that factory owners would
spend their profit on had to reduce the production costs of the product. This resulted in the
following working conditions: “[U]rban factories [where] workers face an unhealthy
environment, loss of freedom, and an absence of amenities. [During this period] child labor
intensified and the economic conditions of working-class women […] deteriorated.”33
However, societies remain in a continual state of change. The most relevant change
since the 19th century for present purposes has been the diversification of the economic
landscape. No longer is maximizing labor productivity the only goal. “Modern capitalist
societies are complex, bureaucratic, powerful and solid”34 and improving working conditions
has become a corporate virtue. In short, Marx’s contemporary political economy showcases
accelerated capitalistic developments, and attention to the humans in the situation has been
29
Ollman, Alienation, 126.
Duncan, Marx and Mill, 287.
31
C. Knick Harley, “Chapter 16: British and European Industrialization,” in The Cambridge History of Capitalism
Volume 1: The Rise of Capitalism: From Ancient Origins to 1848, ed. Larry Neal and Jeffrey G. Williamson (n.p.:
Cambridge University Press, 2014), chapter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139095099.016 (accessed
January 10, 2016), 491-532.
32
Knick Harley, “Industrialization,” 508.
33
Knick Harley, “Industrialization,” 509.
34
Duncan, Marx and Mill, 315.
30
catching up.
We have started with two characteristics for non-alienated labor:
1. Showing mutual dependence of the individual and the objective world.
2. Confirming the power of the individual, with its specific character, insofar as her labor
(and product) is a manifestation of her individuality in the objective world.
It is apparent that Marx’s notion of true productivity, based on a complete lack of need, is
enough to condemn all productivity in a capitalist society, since capitalism is based on supply
and demand, that is, supply and need. So in order to evaluate Mintzberg’s five, we need to
leave that part of Marxism behind. Further considerations have shown us these characteristics
mirrored in Marx’s description of the alienated relationships. Additionally, we found
characteristics of labor in general that lead to alienation, most important of which are
antagonism between laborer and employer and labor activity that requires only animal-like
faculties. The differences between the two historical contexts of the Marx’s political economy
and the one studied here gave us reason to expect improvement in the evaluation that we will
now move unto.
Evaluation of the Corporate Structures
We will now investigate to what extent each of the five organizational structures presents the
characteristics we abstracted from Marx.
Firstly, we consider the entrepreneurial organization. Due to the small size of the
corporations that support this structure, the relative importance of the employee is high. It is
possible that in a small grocery store, the employer is dependent upon his most trusted
employee. Due to the informality of this organizational structure, there is direct and informal
contact between employer and employee, which minimizes antagonism. Both these factors
promote mutual dependence. However, the employer will always have formal superiority and
an authoritative employer might be opposed to employees expressing differing views, since
the entrepreneurial organization “tends to reflect the [employer’s] vision of the world.”35 As
for the second condition, the employee does not necessarily find meaning in selling the store’s
wares. However the entrepreneurial organization is often small and transparent enough for an
individual to at least recognize the meaning and views of the organization. This enables her to
decide whether that meaning overlaps with her own. Thus, the employee in an entrepreneurial
organization is not exempt from alienation. To a great degree this is dependent upon the
character of the employer. However, certain circumstances, primarily its small size, are
favorable for a meaningful work-life.
The second structure, the machine organization, showcases less characteristics of nonalienated labor. Regarding the first condition of mutual dependence, the size and the
standardized decreases the organization’s dependence upon any employee. Regarding the
second condition of confirming individuality, the labor activity is repetitive and prescribed in
detail, which actively eliminates creativity, or other faculties that humans do not share with
animals. However, a more nuanced analysis has been given by Bolman & Deal36 who, after
encountering employees reporting themselves to be “happy robots,”37 concluded that
“[standardization] enhances morale if it helps […] to get […] work done. It has a negative
impact if it makes it too easy for management to control [the employees].”38 Thus, it is easy to
become alienated in a machine organization, unless the employee highly values efficiency and
endurance.
The diversified organization is the largest structure of Mintzberg’s five. Due to the
undetermined structure of each division, we will focus on the employees in the strategic apex
of the division, that is, the division manager. The labor activity consists for a large part in
translating the demands for results from her superiors to managerial conduct and vice versa.
35
Mintzberg, On Management, 118.
Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, 4th edition
(San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
37
Bolman and Deal, Reframing Organizations, 50.
38
Bolman and Deal, Reframing Organizations, 51.
36
The division manager is dependent on both parties below (results) and above her (demands
for results). These parties are also dependent upon her for this translation. However, the two
parties below and above her are often antagonistic towards each other party and the division
manager fulfills a demanding mediating role. Ultimately, the division manager often has
ample possibility to confirm the power of her individuality due to a lack of standardization.
She is confronted with a lot of antagonism but simultaneously enjoys a unique position to
lessen this antagonism.
The fourth organization is the professional organization. The employees in the
operating core of a professional organization are highly skilled and often “focus their loyalty
on their profession, not on the place where they happen to practice it.”39 Their independence
can undermine the mutual dependence and create antagonism between them and their
employers. On the other hand, this prioritization of labor activity above place of work attests
to a high level of meaningfulness of the former to the employee. They are barely supervised
once they are hired, since their labor activity requires many judgement calls and therefore
cannot be standardized. Most employees in the professional organization have ample means to
avoid alienation, but can also abuse their independence to create alienating circumstances.
Finally, we consider the innovative organization. The most notable characteristic of
this organization is its short lifespan. It transforms (formalizes) as easily as it is dissolves (as a
taskforce). In its pure form however, employees encounter no demands for efficiency or
standardizations. Therefore, genuine meaningfulness can be found in the labor activity. The
coordinating mechanism, mutual adjustment, demands more than mere animal-like faculties
and a certain absence of antagonism, both manifested in the form of sophisticated
cooperation.
39
Mintzberg, On Management, 190.
Conclusion and Reflection
Marx’s work is complex and unfinished. It has given rise to a wealth of opinions that interpret
Marx in seemingly contradicting ways. However, for present purposes we have assumed some
continuity in his work and unbuckled alienation from capitalism in Marx’s strict sense. The
following characteristics of non-alienated labor remained: i) showing mutual dependence
between the individual and the objective world, ii) confirming the power of the individual, iii)
containing minimal antagonism between employer and employee, and iv) requiring more than
animal-like faculties. The entrepreneurial organization has mostly beneficial circumstances
but is still too dependent upon the character of the employer to guarantee avoiding alienation.
The machine organization thrives under circumstances that create alienated laborers. The
division managers in a diversified organization have the means to avoid alienation and need to
use them to overcome the antagonism they encounter. The employees in the professional
organization generally avoid alienation, since they are independent and barely supervised.
Their strength can also create alienation by increasing antagonism and decreasing mutual
dependence. The innovative organization supports perfect conditions for non-alienated labor,
but as organizational structure lacks sustainability.
These conclusions might be unsurprising. Although this is in accordance with the
ambition to present a clear evaluation, we will move on to further considerations that can
adjust the above results in varying ways.
Firstly, we could consider the ratio of free time and labor activity. Where in 1890 the
most highly paid laborers worked on average two hours less than the lowest paid laborers, in
our modern corporate culture, this ratio has inverted.40 And with recent phenomena like the
six-hour workday leading to “happier staff [and] a lower turnover rate,”41 it becomes clear
40
Dora L. Costa, “The Wage and the Length of the Work Day: From the 1890s to 1991,” Journal of Labor
Economics 18.1 (January 2000), http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w6504 (accessed February 5, 2016), 156-181.
41
Bec Crew, “Sweden is shifting to a 6-hour workday,” Science Alert (September 30, 2015),
http://www.sciencealert.com/sweden-is-shifting-to-a-6-hour-workday (accessed February 20, 2016).
that when individuals retain eighteen hour per day outside of work, they can still establish
meaningful connections with the objective world. If this is indeed the case in actual machine
and professional organizations (with the former presenting the lowest paid employees and the
latter the highest paid employees) the evaluation should be altered accordingly.
A second line of inquiry revolves around the coordinating mechanism of the
professional organization, that is, the standardization of skills/knowledge. The concern with
this coordinating mechanism is the indoctrination that is explicitly included in the training of
the skills and knowledge that one requires to be hired in a professional organization.42
Through indoctrination, freedom is limited by boundaries in thought processes. Although the
Hippocratic Oath is a widely accepted norm by laborers and consumers, the fact that there are
whistleblowers like Edward Snowden points to a tension between codes of conduct that exist
within certain work environments and one’s own conscience. He reports that “[y]ou see things
that may be disturbing […] and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses.
And when you talk to people about them, in a place […] where this is the normal state of
business, people tend not to take these them very seriously. [..] The more you talk about it, the
more you are ignored, the more you’re told it’s not a problem. Until you realize these things
need to be determined by the public.”43 Condemning or justifying indoctrination is especially
interesting in a Marxian context if we take into consideration the communist/Marxist societies
that have existed in the 20th century, and the indoctrination included in those societies.
The long working-hours of the employees in organization and the indoctrination that is
especially linked to the professional organization might accumulate to contrasting finding. For
now, these lines of inquiry stand in need of further investigation.
42
Mintzberg, On Management, 176.
Edward Snowden, “Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations,” by Glenn
Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras, The Guardian, June 11, 2013 (Last modified on January 28,
2016), http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
(accessed February 26, 2016).
43
John Stuart Mill
Although Marx´s and Mill´s thought differ fundamentally, they show, perhaps unexpectedly,
similarities as well. This is in part due to the fact that both thinks wrote large parts of their
work during the early to mid-19th century. They both witnessed a political economy based on
ideas of people like James Mill, Adam Smith and David Ricardo. “They both saw that the
existing economic system might explode because of its failure to satisfy the demand made
upon it.”44 Mill developed, in contrast to Marx, a theory compatible with the liberalist milieu.
“The overall aim of his philosophy is to develop a positive view of the universe and the place
of humans in it, one which contributes to the progress of human knowledge, individual
freedom and human well-being.”45 Mill’s moral philosophy constitutes a qualitative
utilitarianism and his most important work on this subject is On Liberty.46 In this book he
defends individuality against the impediments laid upon it in the name of society. Even more
than criticizing the society for demanding conformity Mill wanted “more freedom for self
development and more interest in self culture.”47 We will now investigate Mill’s concept of
individuality and its place within the entirety of Mill’s work. Secondly, we will reconstruct
individuality as a measurement tool for contemporary corporate organizations. Thirdly, we
will evaluate Mintzberg’s organizational structures alongside the characteristics of
individuality, including its manifestation and development.
The Importance of Individuality
John Stuart Mill once wrote that individuality “is one of the principal ingredients of human
happiness.”48 Paramount to this argument is sufficient attention to human imperfection.
Rejecting deviation from leading opinions in society as such is to assume the infallibility of
44
Duncan, Marx and Mill, 38.
Fred Wilson, “John Stuart Mill,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), ed. Edward
N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/mill/ (accessed October 3, 2015).
46
Mill, “On Liberty.” in Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche, 2nd edition, ed. David
Wootton (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 2008).
47
Charles Larrabee Street, Individualism and Individuality in the Philosophy of John Stuart Mill (Milwaukee:
Morehouse Publishing Co., 1926), 98.
48
Mill, “On Liberty,” 620.
45
the current state of affairs, which Mill claims is unwarranted.49 According to Mill, both the
individual and society are weakened by passively conforming to existing opinions (and
conduct) and are strengthened by the clashing of differing opinions. Societal norms and
opinions should be challenged in order to either justify their position or to be refined by the
challenging opinion.50 Individuals who conform in a passive manner neglect important means
to attaining happiness. This latter argument has led to scholars accusing Mill of deviating
from utilitarianism and therefore is in need of some elaboration here.
He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him,
has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who
chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties. He must use observation
to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for
decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and selfcontrol to hold to his deliberate decision.51
In this paragraph and surrounding ones Mill seems to present the above faculties as essentially
human and humans that develop these faculties as more worthy. This would entail that Mill
ascribes more intrinsic value to certain skills, independent of how much pleasure they cause
or pain they avoid. Since the latter consideration is the only criterion to be used by utilitarians
when ascribing value to something, Mill here seems to abandon his utilitarianism.52 The
argument spawns from the most controversial part of Mill’s qualitative utilitarianism, namely,
quality. “Mill’s inclusion of quality raises special problems because of its very complexity”53
and therefore “Mill […] is accused of abandoning both utilitarianism and hedonism.”54
49
Mill, “On Liberty,” 620 and throughout chapter II and III of On Liberty.
Mill, “On Liberty,” 624.
51
Mill, “On Liberty,” 621.
52
Robert F. Ladenson, “Mill’s Conception of Individuality,” in Social Theory and Practice 4.2 (Spring 1977),
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23561183 (accessed January 20, 2016), 168.
53
Donner, “Utilitarianism,” 264.
54
Donner, “Utilitarianism,” 261.
50
However, Robert Ladenson proposes that Mill ascribes only instrumental value to the skillset.
Mill importantly states that these faculties help individuals to discern and desire what is best
for themselves.55 In other words, “[t]he cultivation of individuality is thought of as the
development of reason, and reason, in turn is thought of as a set of abilities and capacities
which […] is instrumental in obtaining goods and avoiding evils.”56 So instead of deviating
from a utilitarian approach to value, Mill acknowledged that certain faculties enhance the
ability to adhere to the utilitarian prescriptions. Even though the discussion continues beyond
the scope of the present study, this interpretation offers a clear understanding of Mill´s notion
of individuality and “it seems to afford the most consistent reading of Mill’s disparate claims
about happiness.”57
Throughout his argument for the manifestation and development of individuality, Mill
offers no description of an individuality. Individuality can manifest itself in innumerable,
hugely varying ways, and should branch out “according to the tendency of the inward
forces.”58 As the skillset here called ‘reason’ is further developed, the inward forces become
more articulate. Developing individuality in this way will bypass passive conformity and will
either reach agreement or disagreement with other opinions, both of which are valuable for
the individual and the society as a whole.
Finding the Defining Characteristics of Individuality
Marx discusses alienation and labor simultaneously. Mill’s concept of individuality can only
be found indirectly in his work on politics and economics. With regard to politics, Mill was
convinced is that in a bureaucratic government the best leaders would be elected (because
they would be trained for this purpose), but this would come at the cost of originality.59 This
55
Ladenson, “Mill’s Conception,” 174.
Ladenson, “Mill’s Conception,” 176.
57
David Brink, “Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward
N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/mill-moral-political/ (accessed October 3, 2015).
58
Mill, “On Liberty,” 622.
59
Street, Individualism, 91.
56
causes Mill to prefer the democracy, even though “[n]o government by a democracy […]
either in its political acts or in the opinions, qualities, and tone of mind which it fosters, ever
did or could rise above mediocrity.”60 Simply because originality, in the form of individuality,
cannot thrive in a bureaucratic government Mill elects a different political form. Mill’s views
on economics are heavily influenced by his father and economists like Ricardo and Porter.61
However, where the classical economists grounded their political economy on the principle of
self-interest, Mill includes a “more complex psychology […] involving higher moral and
aesthetic kinds of motivation that may trump narrow self-interest.”62 This psychology
included the moral notion of negative freedom and the harm-principle,63 both of which are
closely connected to Mill’s concept of individuality.
In all, Mill supplies us with a clear sense of individuality, metaphorically described as
a tree growing according to its inward tendencies64 and a set of capacities including but not
limited to observation, reasoning, judgement, discrimination, firmness and self-control,65
which are deemed uniquely human. The development of these faculties helps the individual to
live according to utilitarian rules. Competition is seen as a positive practice that can lead to
the development of the individuality of each individual and to society as a whole. Connected
to this, it is important to see that a major assumption behind all Mill’s arguments is the
imperfection of human kind. Furthermore, we can see that originality, negative freedom and
the harm-principle appear in Mill’s work on politics and economics as a result of his strong
conviction about the importance of individuality.
So far I have shown that the manifestation and development of individuality in one’s
work-life is supported when
60
Mill, “On Liberty,” 625.
Street, Individualism, 72.
62
Jonathan Riley, “Mill’s political economy: Ricardian science and liberal utilitarian art,” in The Cambridge
Companion to Mill, ed. John Skorupski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 296.
63
Mill, “On Liberty,” 620.
64
Mill, “On Liberty,” 622.
65
Mill, “On Liberty,” 621.
61
1. The labor activity challenges one’s capabilities without demanding perfection.
2. There is a continued possibility for peaceful conflict of ideas.
3. Individuals enjoy negative freedom when their labor activity does not primarily
concern others.
Within the working context we can see the interplay between these characteristics. For
example, when you have colleagues, your labor activity often concerns their interests as well
as your own. In this case, some inhibition of your individuality might be justified. However,
when a colleague or employer demands perfect labor activity because their interests might
otherwise be harmed, then their demand is unjustified and so is the inhibition of your
individuality.
Evaluation of the Corporate Structures
We will now investigate which of the above characteristics are present in Mintzberg’s
organizational structures.
The first, the entrepreneurial organization, again seems to be too dependent upon the
employer to guarantee sufficient room for the manifestation and development of the
individuality of the employee. The informality of the structure knows no training programs
for employees that seek additional challenges. Similarly, there is no formal platform (e.g. a
union) to guarantee a peaceful competition of ideas. The negative freedom is soon curbed by
the interests of others since these organizations are often small, but, more importantly,
because the organization is in service of the employer’s vision. This then would constitute
justified limits on individuality. The employer can create challenges, peaceful conflict and
negative freedom within her organization, and should, if she values the individuality of her
employees. However, creating these circumstances is not often the highest priority for
entrepreneurs.
The machine organization relies on its efficiency and consistency to remain
competitive. This demands labor activity to be repetitive in nature and highly standardized.
The employee will find his faculty of endurance challenged, but no others. Challenging
employees will cause them to make more mistakes, which is as natural to a learning curve as
it is detrimental to the machine organization. Unions ensure that there is a bureaucratic form
of peaceful conflict. The individual employee can pronounce her interest through this
platform if it is shared with enough other employees. The coordinating mechanism of the
machine organization, the standardization of work processes, acts as the boundaries for the
manifestation of individuality in the labor activity. Therefore, it needs to be void of demands
of perfection. For example, if the amount of deliveries a UPS driver is prescribed per hour is
based on the expectation that the driver makes no single mistake navigating, finding addresses
and delivering packages, the expectation resulting from this prescription is unjustified.
Ultimately, despite the existence of unions, the employees in the machine organization find
little room for the manifestation and development of their individuality.
The labor activity of the division managers in the diversified organizations is primarily
challenging with regard to managing people, since they are less predictable than machinery.
Interpreting, negotiating, and translating messages between her superiors and employees
encapsulate the manager’s role of creating peaceful conflict as well as her involvement in it.
The negative freedom is limited by the demands of results from the strategic apex of the
organization. As long as the demands are met, the strategic apex usually does not interfere
with the division manager. They trust the division manager to know her employees.
Moreover, they trust the division manager to evaluate the interests of the employees and the
interests of the employer in order to only manifest her own individuality justifiably. Thus,
although the division manager is more concerned with the development of the individuality of
others (especially the employees she manages) than with her own, her labor activity is
challenging and consists for a large part at the epicenter of peaceful conflict.
The employees in a professional organization are active in a market of continual
(although not unstable) change. For example, ““[t]he ever-expanding knowledge in medicine
and the ever-changing technology in treatments requires practitioners to constantly educate
themselves in their specific fields.”66 This offers employees a continual possibility to develop
their individuality in the work-context. Unions exist in professional organizations as well,
ensuring a form of peaceful conflict. However, Mintzberg warns that “[w]eak professionals
[…] may favor unionization to protect themselves from their clients and […] more capable
colleagues.”67 He denounces unionization especially because quality control is already
difficult. The negative freedom employees enjoy is more directly limited by the interests of
the consumers than their employers or colleagues. If an employee adheres to the norms related
to the profession, these interests will usually not be harmed. In all, the circumstances in a
professional organization are close to ideal to manifest and develop one’s individuality.
The challenges that employees in an innovative organization encounter are numerous
since they often function in a complex and unpredictable environment. The innovative
organization is coordinated through mutual adjustment. This entails that there is very much
peaceful conflict and that there are justified limits to manifesting one’s individuality. Personal
interests are almost always inferior to the interest of the group as a whole, although this latter
is created by the group and often changeable by the members. The innovative organization
shows many characteristics of an individuality-supporting work environment, although
tension exists because of the inflated amount of peaceful conflict in it.
Conclusion and Reflection
Mill’s conviction regarding the manifestation and development of everyone’s individuality
emerges in much of his work. The underlying conviction of human imperfection causes
criticism and hope for progress simultaneously. The most reiterated characteristics of
66
Kamran Ahmed and Hutan Ashrafian, “Life-Long Learning for Physicians,” in Science 326, Issue 5950 (09 Oct
2009), http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.326_227a (accessed February 26, 2016), 227.
67
Mintzberg, On Management, 192.
manifesting and developing individuality, applied to the work-context are: i) labor activity
that is challenging without demanding perfection, ii) a continuing possibility for peaceful
conflict of ideas, and iii) complete negative freedom in activity that does not concern others.
Mintzberg’s five were investigated for the presence of these characteristics. The
entrepreneurial organization can incorporate these characteristics, but is too dependent upon
the employer to guarantee sufficient attention to them. The machine organization received a
negative evaluation. It does not present challenging labor activity or much negative freedom,
and only has a limited form of peaceful conflict. The division manager in a diversified
organization does have much room to manifest her individuality, especially regarding
peaceful conflict and negative freedom. Employees in a professional organization have more
than ample room to manifest and develop their individuality. Peaceful conflict remains
difficult to achieve, since it can easily undermine the quality control within the organization.
The innovative organization demands great amounts of peaceful conflict, which can be a
challenge in itself. However, a team of specialists working together might be the most
beautiful thing Mill could observe.
These conclusions present no major surprises. However, reflecting on these results can
further elaborate Mill’s optimism and perfectionism. For example, any unwanted conflict that
results from the prescribed negative freedom can either be restated as a beneficial practice or
countered by reiterating the expectation that it will resolve itself eventually, with an open
communicative landscape. In contrast with Marx, Mill’s characteristics regarding bona fide
labor conditions do not necessarily lead to a harmonized or peaceful working environment,
primarily because Mill includes a notion of human imperfection. However, the above
characteristics, combined with enough time, are sufficient to ensure progress, which is all Mill
really prescribes.
In a similar vein, we can see that Mill also emphasizes the individual’s responsibility
in this development. If the work-experience is re-evaluated in this sense, the verdict becomes
simple. If the circumstances are inappropriate for you to manifest and develop your
individuality, in adherence to your specific inward forces, you should stop working in those
circumstances. On the other hand, if you choose to manifest and develop your individuality at
the organization that you are working, you should deem the circumstances sufficient to do so.
In other words, change what you cannot accept, and accept what you cannot change. Of
course, circumstances are never rigid and can be influenced by individuals. However,
accepting circumstances can be just as active as trying to change them, and, as long as the
individual owns up to the consequences of her choice, it seems difficult to criticize her for
making it.
Conclusion
The abundance of different forms of organizations in our contemporary society is a tribute to
the endless possibilities of people collaborating in a globalizing world. We can see that in
capitalistic societies, since the 19th century, innovation has been on the rise as a corporate
virtue, but that we are also still dependent upon the consistency and reliability of huge
corporations like UPS.
On first sight, Marx would condemn the labor activity in all our modern corporations,
due to their position within a capitalist society. However, when we look at alienation
independently, we can see that the diversified organization, the professional organization and
the innovative organization promote non-alienating labor activity. The entrepreneurial
organization lacks a guarantee to avoid alienation but does possess beneficial circumstances.
The machine organization usually thrives under circumstances that promote the alienation of
their employees. Secondary considerations found some condemning characteristics of the
professional organization and the innovative organization. The ratio of work-hours and free
time per day decreases their evaluation and offers the evaluation of the machine organization
some reparation. Furthermore, indoctrination as a coordinating mechanism is found more
often in the professional organization.
Mill’s concern for the manifestation and development of individuality is represented
more in our modern corporate culture. The evaluation based on his notions still condemns the
entrepreneurial organization and the machine organization. However, the division manager in
a diversified organization holds a paramount position for the development of individuality,
primarily through peaceful conflict. The professional organization and the innovative
organization score high on all the characteristics for the manifestation and development of
individuality. Reflection on these results illuminates the optimism connected to Mill’s view.
We also touched upon a re-evaluation from the point of view of the individual, which might
entail a more positive working experience, although this ought to be further investigated.
The structure of organizations will remain in a continual state of change as long as the
people making up these corporations do so. Similarly, the ideals that Mill and Marx
explicated in the 19th century needed adjustments to be appropriately applied as evaluation
measurements to our modern organizations. They have proven to promote attention to the
individual in our working environment, albeit in decidedly different ways. Present study has
reported on the guidelines that show corporations in the present and the future how to avoid
alienation and in which ways the manifestation and development of individuality can be
harbored.
Bibliography
Ahmed, Kamran and Hutan Ashrafian. “Life-Long Learning for Physicians.” Science 326,
issue 5950 (October 9, 2009), 227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.326_227a (accessed
February 12, 2016).
Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership, 4th edition. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
Brink, David. “Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/mill-moral-political/ (accessed November
20, 2015).
Costa, Dora L.. “The Wage and the Length of the Work Day: From the 1890s to 1991.”
Journal of Labor Economics 18.1 (January, 2000), 156-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w6504
(accessed March 5, 2016).
Crew, Bec. “Sweden is shifting to a 6-hour workday.” Science Alert (September 30, 2015).
http://www.sciencealert.com/sweden-is-shifting-to-a-6-hour-workday (accessed March 2,
2016).
Donner, Wendy. “Mill’s Utilitarianism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Mill, edited by
John Skorupski, 255-292. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Duncan, Graeme. Marx and Mill: Two views of social conflict and social harmony.
London/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Knick Harley, C. “Chapter 16: British and European Industrialization.” In The Cambridge
History of Capitalism Volume 1: The Rise of Capitalism: From Ancient Origins to 1848,
edited by Larry Neal and Jeffrey G. Williamson, 491-532. N.p.: Cambridge University Press,
2014. Chapter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139095099.016 (accessed January
10, 2015).
Ladenson, Robert F.. “Mill’s Conception of Individuality.” Social Theory and Practice 4.2
(Spring 1977), 167-182. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23561183 (accessed December 24, 2015).
Marx, Karl. “Alienated Labour.” In Karl Marx: Early Writings, edited and translated by T.B.
Bottomore, 120-134. New York etc.: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
—. Comments on James Mill, Éléments D’économie Politique.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/ (accessed February 11,
2016). First published Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Gesamtausgabe, Erste Abteilung,
Band 3. Berlin: n.n., 1932.
Mill, John Stuart. “On Liberty.” In Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to
Nietzsche, 2nd edition, edited by David Wootton. 592-651. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett
Publishing Company, 2008.
Miller, Danny. “Configurations of Strategy and Structure: Towards a Synthesis.” Strategic
Management Journal 7.3 (1986), 233-249.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.4250070305/pdf (accessed April 22, 2016).
Miller, Richard W.. “Social and Political Theory: Class, state, revolution.” In The Cambridge
Companion to Marx, edited by Terrel Carver, 50-105. Chapter DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521366259.003 (accessed November 10, 2015).
Mintzberg, Henry. Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations.
New York: The Free Press, 1989.
Ollman, Bertell. Alienation: Marx’s conception of man in capitalist society, 2nd edition.
Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1976. First published 1971.
Petrović, Gajo. “Marx's Theory of Alienation.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
23.3 (1963), 419-26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2105083 (accessed November 25, 2015).
Riley, Jonathan. “Mill’s political economy: Ricardian science and liberal utilitarian art.” In
The Cambridge Companion to Mill, edited by John Skorupski, 293-337. Cambridge etc.:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Snowden, Edward. “Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance
revelations.” By Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras. The Guardian (June
11, 2013 (Last modified on January 28, 2016)).
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblowersurveillance (accessed February 26, 2016).
Street, Charles Larrabee. Individualism and Individuality in the Philosophy of John Stuart
Mill. Milwaukee: Morehouse Publishing Co., 1926.
Wolff, Jonathan. "Karl Marx." In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011
Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/marx/
(accessed November 1, 2015).
Wood, Allen. “alienation.” In The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, 2nd edition, edited by
Ted Honderich. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199264797.001.0001/acref9780199264797-e-63?rskey=ryymAO&result=1 (accessed December 12, 2015).