In short, the story is about a couple of rats and a couple of pseudo human types, who are for some unknown reason in a maze, and one fine morning discover that there is no cheese at the location where there was always cheese; a metaphor for having been kicked out of the job. The rats, known to be the first to ditch any sinking ship, and since I prefer breathing will avoid the urge to comment on who is always second, immediately run off to find cheese elsewhere, while the humans get into a depressive state but eventually the lesson learnt is to also go look for cheese elsewhere; find another job. And that is not the entire lesson; workers must always be aware that the cheese is a moving target, so quickly let go of the old cheese and go enjoy the new cheese, and savour the adventure. Except that the book does not prepare the working men for a no cheese at all scenarios.
And since we are talking about rat stories my favourite is from the Bond movie "Skyfall"; and you guessed it, I am a Bond fan too! The movie has a rat story which actually tackles the problem when there is no more cheese; or coconut if you may. The villain, Silva, tells Bond about an Island which gets infested by rats, and how his grandmother buries an oil drum, wired with coconut as bait, and the rats all fall into the trap, literally. And with nothing else to eat, the rats start eating each other until finally they become rat eating rats. Hopefully the allegory, albeit deep, needs no further elaboration.
Back then when I first read the book, without any insight about it's more sinister purpose, it actually seemed to make sense when it advised to move with the cheese, compared with falling into a state of depression. Hindsight, however, provides a clearer perspective. The 90s were the time when the developed world marginalised its labour unions, and their corporations thereafter went in search of cheaper labour costs in the developing world. All this required a narrative supported by a host of management theories which could lend credibility to the process of firing more expensive employees.
I have always wondered who dreamt up the current management theories and about the objective behind churning out all that load of bullshit. Don't get me wrong; these are not dinosaur instincts developed when Taylorism was the fad. For those who may not have heard of Taylorism, it was a scientific management system which focused on efficiency by breaking every task into simple routines which could be monitored; it did however by default classify workers as factors of production only, who could easily be replaced.
The new era of management theories, supposedly to alleviate the working class, talked about open communication, teamwork, freedom of initiative and yes let us not forget the cheese. Employees were given stock options, obviously the lion's share going to the top, but since everyone was the owner now, how could they argue with decisions taken to make more profits for "our" company; including firing most of "us". And loss of wages would in any case be compensated by gains in stocks. I probably need to write a book to explain why collective wisdom and teamwork conflicts with leadership; but for the moment suffice it to say that the workers, the majority got the short end of the stick. Over the next couple of decades, the implementation of these management theories resulted in record-breaking rise in income inequality and real wages actually decreased. The obvious question therefore is how did the working class get duped?
While phrasing this question, you suddenly realise that even today the working class, which includes the middle class, actually, and sincerely, believes in all these neat management theories, seemingly designed in their interest. In fact, I am confident that my earlier comment on teamwork conflicting with leadership might have irked the majority, because we all believe we are part of the team and hence the criticism is offensive to all of us; are we not competent to lead. The fact of the matter is that only owners of capital are the team and "teamwork" is an illusion created to build across the board ownership for decisions taken by capital in its own interest; Profit!
Notwithstanding, the answer is simple. The force of management gurus, think tanks, charitable foundations and media, supposedly acting independently and in isolation, is a formidable force when it comes to manipulating and moulding public opinion. All the management books, the columns the pundits in the 90s spoke the same mantra and never let go; the working class, even the small literate minority amongst them, never had a chance. Speaking logically, all this could not be a coincidence; that being said, the obvious conclusion is that the ultimate beneficiary must be the financier and the brains behind the plot.
Starting from rats, flirting with 007 and moving on to the theories of management, we artfully conclude that the working class was duped in willingly letting their labour unions get marginalised consequently ending up with lower wages all the while believing that these developments favoured them and will ultimately benefit them; after all the pundits and the media said so and the government agreed too. But it didn't!
If you agree with all of the above, consider the next sentence carefully. The ruling elite, conscious of the rising animosity against monarchy, contracted the thinkers, the gurus, to come up with a system which purported to be for the people, by the people and for the people, which was thereafter, and till present times, ferociously decimated to the masses with the tacit support of the media, and ultimately became the final doctrine of governance. Except that it wasn't and isn't what it was said to be! But the transition was so comprehensive that the masses keep running around looking for cheese, which is always moving but nowhere to be seen. Hopefully the allegory, albeit deep, needs no further elaboration.
(The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. Email: [email protected])
Copyright Business Recorder, 2017