Management Theory From Socrates to Derrida
A History of the Philosophy of Management + Arendt's Critique of Dalio
Every philosophy includes within it a philosophy of management. Every philosopher implicitly regards himself as a manager of students, a manager of souls. The philosopher-king has de jure power, the philosopher-manager has de facto power. The philosopher-king waits for the scepter to set law and policy, the philosopher-manager leads regardless of his external circumstance. Even Diogenes, with his anti-social shock tactics, can be thought of as a manager. In the case of the philosopher, the task to be managed is the induction into and progression through philosophy.
For Socrates, the project to be managed is the formation of the soul, giving rise to something new. Neither the manger nor the managed have it, but together bear it out. Transmission is not downloading or copying but co-creation.
Greek tragedy varies on management, with classical tragedians showing us that the world is rational but still hard: you can’t have it all, and Euripides showing us that the world is neither elegant nor rational. Assume high variance, volatility, unfairness.
With nominalism, management becomes about the power of naming. Calling a situation good or bad makes it so. (This stands in contrast to the realist school which suggests that the situation cares not for our labels. One thinks of dry, objective analytics in management as an attempt to push back against the mushiness of Ockham’s “call out” culture.)
Berkeley, following Ockham, argues that perception drives reality. The job of the manager is to highlight what is there, drawing our attention to it. A good manager knows what is salient and what to ignore.
In Kant, the manager seeks uniform autonomy in himself and others, turning the org into a well-run predictable machine. The choice to do the right thing is immanent, un-coerced, yet constant across personality types and role. Everyone is logical. Management is just surfacing the logically right thing.
Hegel sees all roles as “one-sided” with the only true point of view being Absolute Spirit in its self-consciousness. Thus, managing up or down means appreciating the limitations of both one’s own view and the views of others.
In Nietzsche, we get a view of management as will power. The ability to make reality in accordance with one’s values. This comes close to describing the “reality distorting effect” that some have ascribed to leaders like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk (and cult leaders, both nefarious and benign).
Bentham seeks to take personality out of management. Just look at the numbers and maximize utility. Do what needs doing and don’t get emotional.
Heidegger thinks management is all about the dynamic between the two, a shared existential condition. Good managers accompany, help elevate and elucidate the understanding and mood of those they manage.
Levinas takes a more extreme view: the one in authority should be the host, focusing on making the guest feel at home and welcome. The manager is focused on creating an experience of welcome, even inconveniencing himself at times.
For Strauss, philosophy is always set against a political background and so good managers know the political situation and how to navigate it. They never lose sight of the political.
For Arendt, like Socrates, principles can only carry you so far before you hit against something unforeseen. The growth is in what breaks the paradigm, not what conforms to it. If Ray Dalio’s principles epitomize management as technocratic science, Arendt is the polar opposite:
Finally, we should mention Derrida, who was probably a dysfunctional manager, and yet his insight that all structures involves ambiguity is a good thing to remember—management is management of and through ambiguity, even when incentives and expectations are explicit. The edge of growth is ambiguous. Anything worthwhile involves ambiguity. The mystics understood that good and bad, victory and defeat, are often difficult to disentangle.
In my own experience as a manager, the perspectives you attribute to Heidegger, Levinas, and Derrida (!) seem most useful. Servant leadership is a cliche for a reason: the job of a good manager is to help others gain the understanding and clarity of purpose that they need to be the best versions of themselves, and the core of that is being present and available for your reports when they need those things.
And ambiguity, or uncertainty, is the manager's task both to be honest about and to push through. People on your team need to understand that all the plans they make are provisional, and could well be changed, even with little warning, due to factors beyond their control-- and they need to be motivated to commit to, and focus on, those plans anyway. Camus has something to say here too: a good manager is one who can lead Sisyphus to happiness.