Existentialism@Work: GPS System... or not

I have grown professionally in thinking of my work as an extension of who I am,?and my career has found me in situations where rules concerning hourly team-members (regarding disciplinary measures) are set in proscribed terms - followed hard and fast by many managers, yet not followed to the letter by others. I am often in the latter camp. The larger an organization you find yourself in, the more attractive is existential adherence to clear discipline rules… by following them to the letter, you do not risk making errors or being questioned.

Around 1875, Kierkegaard wrote of the tendency for individuals to hide behind the group (or the policy) when making a decision in order to avoid accountability: it renders the individual unquestioned, impenitent and irresponsible. Later, he also shared one of the most poignant examples and the accompanying angst via the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. God asks Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son as an indication of his faith and Abraham finds himself in the existential position having to choose and act. He chooses to sacrifice his son.

Across 40 years, I certainly have made errors concerning discipline….many professionals I know share an Ubuntu approach which contrasts with existentialism. We are the personalist-situationists, where one part of us?exists through other people. Their health is our health, their happiness is our happiness, their interests are our interests, when they are hurt or diminished,?we?are as well. So we apply a filter. Management practitioners of ubuntu in vivo see our existence as conditional on?others’?existence. Discipline decisions are grounded on a framework and rational calculation that factors in the greatest good for the company or for the plant…with the individual as a factor: there is always individual freedom, responsibility, accountability and authenticity to consider.

Tolkein's existentialism in his craft and skill, accepted that Life is 
anguish and we do the best we can to get through it. ?“I wish it need not 
have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do 
all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide.”        

So here’s the division between approaches of conduct of the decision-maker in determining discipline: rule-based adherence to the company’s codes and/or negotiated union contract, versus ends-oriented goals with consequential power to influence behavior of others. Ends-oriented goals bring the difficulty of defining beyond simply following proscribed rules. Once we identify the problem, explore alternatives to implement the `best' alternative, and do subsequent evaluation of the performance of this decision for the dilemma at hand. While this process can be an efficient method of resolving many organizational dilemma, it is undeniably messy and compels us to embrace the torment of choice with second-guessing.

At the end of the day, we are a sum of our decisions. My decisions to not adopt the existential framework have brought me pain, but I think it has delivered a greater good to my employers. I’ll never really know for sure.