Expanding "We Spaces" Narrowing the Management Paradox : An Explanation of We Space Theory by its Originator

Since the Agricultural Revolution, roughly 12,000 years ago, we have gradually developed a two-pronged approach to managing people. One is the practice of using managers to assure that every member of an organization reporting to them thoroughly understands what''s expected of them and properly follow established goals and directives. Concurrently, bosses expect every subordinate to be as fully engaged with their assignments and designated coworkers—perform integrated self-management.

Using both approaches simultaneously is far from ideal. It usually does produce "adequate" results but considerably less than using the latter method independently. Specifically, dominance (attempted control of others) instantaneously generates subconscious resistance since it is a "perceived threat." Conversely, extended autonomy (self-management) instantaneously generates perceived acceptance since it''s a "perceived reward."

We Spaces are not new. They have been the "key features" of all social systems since before the dawn of our species. We are members of countless We Spaces throughout our lives. Yet, we pay little attention to them, especially in our formal/public institutions, since they tend to be "invisible," conveniently tucked away in our subconscious minds.

Essentially, We Spaces are the "relatively small intimate and voluntarily formed well-being zones" that provide comfort and sustenance to all of us as much as possible. They are also key to the preservation of our individual identities. It''s the recognition by all that collaboration, instead of attempts at domination, are in the best interest of everyone involved.