Organization

The autonomist is essentially an individualist, because life, and all it means, pertains only to individuals. Consciousness, knowledge, choice, responsibility, joy, and happiness pertain only to individuals. (See Individualism in the Introduction to Autonomy) The opposite of individualism is collectivism. It is difficult to understand why individuals are willing to sacrifice their individuality to a collective of any kind, but the appeal is very powerful, and most people succumb to it to some degree. By collectivism we mean any version of the teaching that some group of individuals has value or purpose that transcends the value or purpose of individuals.

Collectivism is the practical application of altruism, (See Commentary - Selfishness) where the others are defined as the group, the good of which every individual is expected to sacrifice their own personal selfish desires, goals, and purposes. In its purist form, the group is society, but it is equally applicable in any number of other collectives, the club, the union, the community, the church, the company, or the “team”. Collectivist doctrine is never advocated in the name of collectivism.

Collectivism is very mystical. Always implicit, sometimes explicit, is the idea of organism - as though the particular group of individuals, as a group, comprises an organism with a purpose and value of its own that transcends the purpose and values of the individual members of the group. This transcending value is not merely a totalling of the individual values (which is itself nonsense), but a value superior in kind to mere individualistic values.

Not only is this mystic value the justification for the sacrifice of individual values, it is also the basis for the value of individuals themselves. Those who most effectively (and most obviously) work or act for the benefit of the group are evaluated as the most important and valuable members.

Collectivism is the endless cesspool of false and anti-intellectual ideas that ultimately justify any evil. These include such false ideas as the following:

Collective Knowledge - There is only individual knowledge. Collective knowledge supposes, since every member of a group has some knowledge that no other member has, collectively, the group has more knowledge than any individual. If the group is involved in some specific effort or project requiring the knowledge of all the individuals, the group will be more successful because of that, “collective knowledge.” This is very deceptive. There is no collective knowledge, however. No individual in the group has any more knowledge because he is a member of the group and no individual is any more valuable or capable (or any less either) because he is a member of the group. The total amount of knowledge would be the same whether the individuals were members of the group or not. Ultimately, the knowledge belongs and pertains to the individuals who have it and no one else, and certainly not to the group. There is no such thing as collective knowledge.

It would be fine if by collective knowledge only the sum of the knowledge of all the individuals included in some specific group were meant, and it were clearly understood that the knowledge exists only as knowledge of the individuals, and that the group as a group has no knowledge at all. This is never what is meant, however. Always, it is implied, it is because the group is a group (team, class, committee, commission, company, etc.) that there is more knowledge. It works almost always to credit all members of the group with more knowledge (and importance) than they actually have.

The collective knowledge fallacy spawns at least three other dangerously false concepts: the validity of consensus, collective absolution, and accumulative knowledge.

Validity of consensus assumes what is true, or correct, or best can be established by consensus., that whatever the majority of individuals in a group agree to is automatically right. The opposite is usually true, which any student of history knows. The majority is almost always wrong. Consensus establishes the truth of only one thing, what the majority of individuals agree to, and nothing else.

Collective absolution assumes one is absolved of responsibility for his choices, so long as everyone in a group “agrees”or “goes along” with a decision. The concept is almost never described this way. Every time you hear someone say, “it’s not my fault, it’s corporate policy,” to justify a decision they have made to insult you, offend you, require information from you, or to take your money, they are resorting to collective absolution. The concept is also used to assuage the feelings of all those involved in the development or execution of plans, programs, and policies that ultimately fail or end in disaster. If a decision is wrong, the consequences will be failure no matter how many people go along with it, and each individual is responsible for their individual choice.

Accumulative knowledge is the belief that twenty fools are ten times wiser than two fools. It is the absurd notion that knowledge can be added up. If it were true, one should be able to build a team of individuals, none of whom could perform any mathematics beyond simple addition and subtraction, and, so long as their were enough of them, the team ought to be able to solve Calculus of any difficulty. This is the theory behind Congress and thinktanks. If anyone pays attention to such things, it becomes obvious twenty fools are ten times a foolish as two.

Members of the group are interchangeable - Since, to the collectivist, it is the group that is important, not the individual member, the value and importance of the individual is determined solely by what the individual contributes to the group. So long as the group benefits, it does not matter from whom that benefit is derived. Individuals do not have any value, on their own, only as it is derived from the group (or society), therefore, individuals are interchangeable, and no individual is “indispensible,” so long as the group’s needs and purposes are met.

Many people do not have an identity except as members of this or that group, organization, party, movement, or club. This is why so many people see no value in themselves except that which is attributed to them by others. The opposite side of this, is the almost paranoid fear that someone else’s words or opinions can hurt one’s self-esteem. One’s self-esteem can only be hurt by the opinion and words of others, if one’s self-esteem is “secondhand, and dependent on their supposed “value” to some group or collective.

Conformity more important than real values - If members of groups are interchangeable, differences in individuals cannot be significant. But people are different, and every individual is, in fact, different from every other individual. Conformity is one of two methods collectivists use to obfuscate the embarrassing obvious fact of individual differences. The conformity method accomplishes the obfuscation of differences by making everyone conform to some set of arbitrary standards. Since in reality there are huge differences in people (such as intelligence, ambition, and creativity) these differences are mitigated by the only means possible, limiting or handicapping the superior to bring them to the level of the inferior.

Real Significant Differences Obscured while Superficial Differences Emphasized - This is the other way of obfuscating individual differences. Since the fact that everyone is different is impossible to hide or obscure, the importance can nevertheless be obliterated by confusion accomplished by emphasizing superficial and non-essential differences (such as gender, size, color, nationality, personal preferences, and peculiarities, for example) and ignoring or repudiating the significant and important differences (such as intelligence, competence, character, integrity, and productivity). The magic word by which this nonsense is promulgated is diversity.

Collective Purpose - Since it is the group, and not the individual, collectivism values, it is the purpose of the group that always takes precedence over the purpose of any individual. By extension, an individual’s purpose becomes whatever he can contribute to the group’s purpose. In the end, the purpose of every individual is the group, which in it’s largest context, is society. It does not occur to those who blindly believe this to ask how any group can have a purpose, if no individual has a purpose.

There are only individual purposes. If no individual has a purpose, than no number of such individuals can have a purpose. But if all purpose derives from individual purposes, no collective purpose can be superior to any individual’s purpose.

Individuals may be sacrificed for good of group - Individuals are interchangeable, therefore dispensable, and if it is for the good of the group they can and ought to be sacrificed, whether it is only a setting aside of the individuals own desires and values or immolation. When the group is a society and the government is the, “head,” immolation is not infrequently the sacrifice that is demanded.

It is no wonder, then, that where collectivism dominates, individuals will be attacked by government thugs with weapons intended for foreign invaders, indiscriminately butchering, men, women, and children, merely because they are different, that is, will not conform, thus threatening the collective purpose. See Death By Government, By R.J. Rummel

Collective Consciousness - The classic version of this absurdity is expressed in the cliche, “when one suffers we all suffer.” The fallacy is obvious in this case. When one suffers, others often feel sympathetically with the sufferer, but they do not suffer. That is, they should not suffer, since the hardships and failures of most people are the results of their own choices and actions.

Since reality does not make the innocent suffer for the guilty’s mistakes, and this does not conform to collectivist purposes, it is up to collective authority to ensure that when one suffers, everyone does suffer. In a free society, if my neighbor ruins his life with his sloth and squandering ways, he may become destitute, but it will not affect my welfare. In a collective society, my honest efforts and earnings are confiscated to support my neighbors failures, and his children’s, as well, so that every evil people bring on themselves is visited on all their neighbors as well, to ensure they really do suffer.

The Necessity of Organization - The collective view leads to the view that individuals cannot cooperate or work toward a common goal without an organization. An organization is a structured collective, a group that has an authority which makes final decisions about the groups policies and actions. Whether this authority is a single individual, which is highly unlikely, a group of individuals (e.g. a committee) or a hierarchy of authorities (the most common form), the actions of the individuals in an organization are ultimately determined by the authority, not the individuals themselves.

To suggest the work or function of an organization could be performed just as well by individuals freely associating and willingly cooperating with each other, without some form of centralized authority, is almost universally rejected as absurd. The collectivist view has so thoroughly infected the thinking of most people, they cannot imagine living their lives as completely free and independent individuals. The collective habit is so strong, that even when someone is not forcing people to conform to some predetermined standard, they actively look for someone or something to tell them what to do and when to do it, and having become so completely dependent on authority, they have almost completely lost the ability to think and act on their own and for themselves.

Note: There are examples of very complex businesses carried on without any central authority at all. The “markets”of Europe and Asia where thousands of individual vendors sell to millions of buyers operate very successfully without central orchestration. Large segments of the smuggling trade, one of the biggest businesses in the world, operate entirely on individual initiative, in spite of the extreme complexity of the business. (Smuggling is the transportation of goods that coercive governments wish to control. Many brave people are in the business of supplying needed goods to people who otherwise left to the mercy of their governments would die of starvation or lack of needed medicines and other goods.) (Drug smuggling “gangs” suffer all the problems legitimate business corporations do, except the problems are usually resolved with guns.)

The following are some examples of how pervasive the collectivist view dominates the thinking of most people, without every being recognized as collectivism.

Corporations

The Corporation is a fiction based on collectivist principles. The corporation is a very specialized version of collectivism which seeks advantage over individuals by virtue of two collectivist characteristics, escape from responsibility and the idea of a “fictional” organism with it’s own purposes and end.

In a free society one would have to wonder why individuals who intended to be honest and do no harm would want to be able to escape responsibility (that is, being liable) for what they did. While it is true that in modern society, people are often held liable for things for which they are not responsible and are totally outside their control, corporations were developed long before these evils became prevalent.

Corporations are possible only where there is government. This should be proof enough for those who understand the nature of government, that corporations are an ill-conceived idea. For those who are not convinced, consider the fictional nature of corporations and how they distort the truth. All of the decisions of corporate authority, however that authority is organized, are decisions of individual human beings. Every action of a corporation is the sum of the actions of the individual members, (employees, board, etc.) of the corporation. A corporation does nothing, only the people who are fictitiously and collectively called the corporation do anything.

If a corporation does anything that is morally (or legally) wrong, it is not the fictitious corporation that did it, but some individual, or individuals that did it. If the corporation makes business mistakes, it is not some fictional corporation that made the mistake, but real individual persons, and are usually the same ones who scramble to claim one of the collectivist arguments against personal responsibility, “the committee voted for it,” “I had to do it, because it is company policy,” or, “it was no one person’s decision to make, we all did our best.”

Unions

A labor union is another specialized version of collectivism. The hypothetical reason for a labor union is to consolidate the interests of workers when they are in conflict with the intentions of employers. It is presumed that a Union gives the workers more influence than they would have as individuals and therefore will giver them more success when seeking to resolve differences between themselves and employers.

The moment an employee considers joining a union he must forget, if he ever considered it, that he is offering his services to an employer in exchange for some specified amount of payment. If the worker is not satisfied with the amount of money the employer is willing to pay, he does not have to work for that employer. Conversely, if the employee is worth more than he is being paid, the employer will pay him more rather than loose him. If the employer is not willing to pay him more, it is because the employee is not worth more to employer. The employee can always increase his pay by becoming worth more to his current employer or by seeking an employer who will consider him worth more and pay him accordingly.

If the employee joins a union, he surrenders his ability to increase his pay by becoming worth more. In fact. within the union, his pay will have nothing to do with his worth to the employer, and may be more or less than he would be worth on his own, but he will never be able to find out and will loose all incentive to become worth more since that is no longer the criteria for his pay.

It is both psychologically and morally wrong to seek improvement by means of becoming a member of a gang, which is what a union is. Unions are affective only when they are able to force business owners to pay more and provide non-business related “benefits” to employees which cost the business owner more than he would be willing to pay if uncoerced.

This is extortion, and the employee that benefits from union action is essentially receiving what he has not earned, even if he might be paid more if there were no union, which is frequently the case.

Those who defend unions usually point to some supposed gains to the employees, which are suspect, in any case. The only one’s who usually really “gain” anything, are the union bosses. Even if there is some kind of monetary and benefit gain to the employees because of union activity, the very same argument can be made for crime gangs, look at the gains that are made for the members of the gang, therefore there is good in crime gangs. The argument is equally valid in both cases.

Collectivism in Corporate America

In addition to the basic collective fiction of the corporation, the collective principle of organization, business in America is terribly infected with collectivist principles and practices at every level and are the cause of much of the business failure in their country, and is growing worse very rapidly.

“Welcome aboard,” the new employee’s supervisor says to him the morning he reports for his first day at the new company. “We have a good team here, Larry, let me introduce you to the other members of the development team. Larry, this is Bill, he’s working on the Nifty program, Larry’s going to be working with Marie, Bill.” “Welcome aboard Larry, glad to have you on our team, ” Bill says. And so it goes every day in hundreds of corporations across the country.

Larry probably had no idea he was, “joining a team,” when he accepted the offer the company made. Certainly the interview’s seem to indicate they were interested in his programming ability and what he would be able to do for the company, and their offer seemed to indicate they were satisfied with what he had to contribute. He is in for more surprises, however. Shortly after he joins the company they will schedule him for a series of “training” courses, that will train him in company policy, company standards, leadership, resolving conflicts, diversity, and team-building. Then there will be the weekly meetings with his, “team,” to discuss strategy, progress, and issues, as well as weekly meetings with his supervisor to work on his “development” program, and to track progress.

Finally, there is the review. The review will determine his performance over a certain period against goals set at the beginning of the review period. How does it go?”

“Well, Larry, I have to congratulate you on your performance of project goals. With one small exception, you have completed every software development task, and even had them tested and approved ahead of time. That is really outstanding work, Larry. I really appreciate that contribution to our team’s efforts, and everyone on the team agrees, you were an outstanding contributor to our effort in that area.”

Seems everything is going really well, Larry thinks. So would you.

“There is just one thing that I have to ask you about. The IR program, how did that go. Larry?”

“The Instantiation Recorder?,” Larry asks, “I had no problem with it at all. Routine, actually, just plugged in some new variables to a program I had already written, then linked everything to the RS routine.”

“The RS routine.?” the supervisor asks

“The Record Sorter.” (Larry knows the supervisor knows what the routine is, and states it in that tone, “you know.”) Just linked to that, and everything worked perfectly the first time.

“Where did you get the Record Sorter routine?”

Larry wrote it, but something tells him there is a problem here he cannot understand. He is about to find out, because Larry is honest. “I wrote it.”

“Oh!” his supervisor seems surprised. “I don’t see RS as one of your assigned goals. In fact, I thought RS was assigned to Ray Norwell.”

Larry is very reluctant to criticize anyone else, but is forced to admit, “Well, Ray had some problems, and his RS routine wasn’t ready at the deadline, so I went ahead and wrote the working routine so the program would be done on time.”

“Larry, please understand, I’m only asking this question because I don’t understand. Ray told me he did have his routine ready on time, but you refused to use it.”

“It didn’t work. QA rejected the whole program because the RS didn’t work. So I wrote one that did work, and QA approved the software.”

“Well, Larry, I’m glad the software was approved on time. But we do have a team here, and everyone is important to the success of the team. Couldn’t you have told Ray what was wrong with the RS program, and had him fix it?”

“I could have but it wouldn’t have been done on time,” Larry said, lamely.

“But it could have been done. I mean, you could have told Ray what was wrong with the program, and he could have fixed it. Right?”

“Well…Yes…”

“OK. We don’t need to go into the details about why you didn’t do that. I know you thought what you did was the best thing for the team, that is, for the goals we have to reach as a team. In the future, you know, just try to include the other members that are contributing to the effort. Let them do their part, and you can concentrate on yours. See?”

Larry, did “see” and what he saw was not good.

“I was planning to give you an ’S’ (surpassed expectations) for your project goals, but since you were not able to include every member of the team that was part of your project, I must give you an ’M’ (met expectations) for your project goals. Part of our project goals is always to improve the performance of the team as a whole in project development.”

“Your efforts in project goals were outstanding in many ways,” the supervisor continued, “and it is difficult for me to criticise you in other areas, but, it is company policy to develop their employees, and in that area, I am afraid you have not met your objectives.”

“You were scheduled for three training courses which you canceled.” The supervisor paused, to indicate how serious this is. “ If you are not interested in developing new skills and learning about the latest technologies, you are failing to satisfy the requirements of this job. Do you understand that?”

“But…” Larry starts, then, almost in despair, “none of those courses had to do with technology, and if I had attended them, the project would not have been completed.”

“Larry, if you are not interested in developing your skills and…”

“Excuse me,” Larry interrupts, “I have to go type up my resignation.”

End of review.

The following are expressions that indicate how collective (that is socialistic) your company has become. The degree of collective socialistic domination of a company is in direct proportion to the frequency with which the following terms and expressions are used by a company in descriptions of its policies and practices:

“Teams,” “teamwork,” “team building,” “ISO,” “conformance to standards,” “standard practices,” “metrics,” “if we let you do it we’ll have to let everyone do it,” “it’s policy,” “it’s corporate policy,” “it’s company policy”, “training,” “cross training,” “personal development,” “skills development,” “career development,” “career paths,” “diversity,” “diversity training.”

The true relationship of an employee to a company is as an individual businessman, selling his product or service to the company. His work is the service or product the company purchases from him. His pay is the price he charges for his product or service. There is no other legitimate business relationship between a worker and employer. Everything else confuses this relationship and reduces the benefits of the relationship for both the employer and the employee.

Collectivism in the News

“We in America…” the news story always begins, and it is never about something true about every American, or even most Americans. Americans smoke X number of cigarettes a day, Americans eat Y number of hamburgers a day, Americans watch Z number of hour of television a day.

This manner of expression might be excused as journalistic style, if the collective implications were not immediately followed up with recommendations of what all Americans must do to correct the harmful affects of their practices. It is always, “we must do more to teach our children not to…,” or some other measure or plan we must all support.

It is almost always bad news that is presented in this collective manner. “Americans suffered a loss of real income of 3% due to inflation over the six months.” Of course this means Americans must do something to rectify this evil trend, which usually translates into new government programs which will require more money, and, naturally, higher taxes, which somehow are never the thing we are all suffering from. Unless a single event, disease, or other scourge affects every single American, the collective, “Americans,” or simple, “We,” used to report any news affecting only a segment of the population, no matter how large the segment is, is deceptive.

“We have 5% unemployment, ” means 5% of the employable people were unemployed. What this really means is, if you have a job, for you, unemployment is 0%, but if you do not have a job, unemployment is 100%. The significance of the rate of unemployment is usually presented as a requirement for the government to do something to correct the unemployment rate. The real significance of the story ought to be this, though you are unemployed, 95% of the people are employed and you need to learn what that 95% are doing to remain employed. The story has no significance for the employed. (It has some significance to investors, but not as much as might be supposed.)

Collectivism in the Schools

Schools in general, but especially the public schools, are the first and most thorough collectivist training grounds. Almost every aspect of public school promotes a collective view. Those students who best conform to the schools collectivist principles will receive the highest praise and encouragement while those who are more independent will be discouraged.

Central to this collectivist view that pervades everything taught in public school is the idea that the purpose of the school is the school and all of the other student, that is, each child is considered a means to the end which is the education of all the children. A child is taught that he must observe certain rules for the sake of other students needs. There are things some students are required or forbidden to do, “to give everyone a chance,” to “make it fare for all the students,” to “help those who are having a more difficult time.”

Even when true principles are taught they are presented in a collectivist form that contradicts the truth they would otherwise learn. This is frequently very subtle, as when the children are taught they have to be quiet and behave (which they are not always taught, anymore). A public school is purchased by parents and the community for the express purpose of providing education to their children. The parents send their children to the school to be educated in the place and by the people they have paid for. When some child is noisy or misbehaves in such a way as to interfere in another child’s being able to learn, he is stealing or spoiling what the parents and others have paid for. (When a teacher or administrator do something that prevents some children from getting the education the parents and others have paid for, they are stealing too.)

The above explanation of why a child must behave will never be taught in a public school. There he will be taught he must behave for the sake all the other children and the teachers. It is not right for him to disturb the other students or to make it hard for the teacher. He must think others needs first, then about what he wants to do.

Don’t join!

You were born a member of the most important group you can ever be a member of. If you intentionally join and support any other group or organization, it will diminish your connection to the first and only group you must belong to.

You are born a member of the human race, that “group” of rational volitional individuals with whom every relationship and interaction is voluntary. The moment you join some other group or organization, some of the voluntariness must be given up to the group or organization you have joined. To the extent your ability to choose freely is diminished by being a member of any group, your humanity is diminished.

Those who join organizations do so in hopes of having or enjoying what they could not otherwise have or enjoy. Whatever they gain, however, is at the expense of other members of that organization who will, therefore, have or enjoy less. Of course all the members believe they are the gainers. In the end, they are all losers, and they all have less than they could have had on their own.

Where coercive fore is excluded there is nothing in this world that prevents individuals of any number from voluntarily interacting, participating in activities of common interest, or cooperating in any project or plan toward some commonly desired objective. If any activity requires a central “authority” in the sense of a final arbiter, nothing prevents individuals from agreeing on one. If individuals cannot come to agreement on an action which requires the investment of all those concerned, the action, morally, must be abandoned.

Whatever reason an organization exists, its ultimate purpose is its own existence. Ultimately, every organization places its own existence above any other value, even its supposed purpose, and will do anything it can to survive. (For example, the government.)

There is a very simple reason why organizations, themselves, become the ultimate purpose of their existence. There are always some members of any organization which benefit from the organization in some way they cannot benefit without it. In many cases the benefit is not a financial one, although it frequently is, but a psychological one. For many, the organization gives them a sense of purpose, or prestige, “honor,” or recognition. For some, the benefit is their very identity. (The only identity many people have is their identify as a member of some group or organization.)

In spite of themselves, these beneficiaries of the organization will do everything in their power to perpetuate the organization, not for any purpose of the organization itself, but for the sake of their own benefit. (This does not mean they will admit this, or even be aware of it.)

There is nothing that people want to do together or commit themselves to that they cannot do just as well without joining something.

Is there something you want to do with others who want to do the same thing? Do it. Is there some interest you have that you would enjoy pursuing with others who have the same interest? Then, pursue it. There is nothing in this world to prevent people from voluntarily cooperating, working, or playing together. There is no need “sign up,” “pay dues (or taxes), or to swear allegiance to anyone or anything. It is only necessary to find others who want to work or play with you in a way that you can all agree to and to do it.

But, What if I Work for a Company?

Reality is what it is, and the reality is, today, the collectivist view dominates almost every aspect of society and culture. The only place it does not dominate are in those places where the truly independent individualists refuse to be collectivized.

Most of us will not be entrepreneurs. That requires a very special kind of personality and unique abilities most of us do not have. Most of us are going to make our income in the employment of someone else.

It is almost certain, unless you are fortunate enough to find a employer who is also an individualist, the company you work for will be swimming in collectivist views and policies. Nevertheless, you do not have to swallow the collectivist line or conform to collectivist policy. The most important thing of all is your own attitude.

Never, “work for an employer.” Always be an independent business man with a product, the product being the labor or service you sell to the business that employs you. Always be an independent contractor, and always consider the employer your customer.

Unless you actually are an independent consultant or contractor, almost no employer will ever view your work for them as though that is what you are, even if you were to explain it to him; but, don’t ever do this. They will resent it and distrust you. They will not understand it is your integrity and competence you both are depending on for your mutual success, and that an independent contractor (or any employee who views himself that way) is going to be the most reliable kind of employee possible.

With this attitude, it will be easy for you to understand your obligation is to provide the best product possible within the limits of the specifications and requirements set by your employer. The employer’s obligation is to pay you the agreed amount for that product. Neither you or the employer have any other obligation. Must you attend “diversification”or “tolerance” training? No. It has nothing to do with the product you and your employer have agreed on, and in fact, would interfere with your carrying out that obligation. What do you do if you employer insists? Refuse, and be ready to find a new job. Don’t argue or explain, because either could only be necessary if the employer is too stupid to already know why you refuse, in which case neither argument or explanation is going to do any good.

I used to manage a very large communications department for a very large company. The most difficult part of that job was preventing upper management from “interfering,” in the work of those in my department. They were always more interested in people following “company policy” than the quality of the work or product.

They were also convinced that people ought to be forced, or trained, or tricked into doing things, “the company way,“and were petrified of individual initiative or innovation. Except in those rare cases where some detail regarding the method actually affected the quality of the work or product, I always attempted to insulate my workers from the irrational demands of upper management.

This was never done in defiance, because upper management, after all, were paid to carry out the wishes of the owners and investors. It was their company, and where policy involved a final product, however inane or stupid, it is what they paid for. No one had to work for that company, including me. My moral obligation was to produce the product I was being payed to produce, in my case, the literature and media my department created. When the policies of upper management conflicted with what I was being paid to do, I was morally obligated to ignore their policies. They were free to fire me if they were dissatisfied with my performance. They never did.

When any one of my employees just could not do what was required, after I was certain they understood what was required, I never tried to force, train, or trick them into doing it “my way”. I simply informed them that I would be hiring someone who would enjoy doing what was required, so they could pursue employment where they could do things their own way, which I sincerely hoped they could and would do. This actually happened twice. In both cases, the released employees personally went out of their way to thank me.