The True Nature of Quotas (1)

 Unreasonable quotas breed misconduct; when that misconduct is exposed, the organization loses public trust and collapses.


It is a pattern of ruin that has played out time and time again.


Where exactly did this root of all evil—the "quota"—come from? Humans never seem to learn their lesson; this destructive cycle repeats endlessly, forcing me to ponder the issue. I’m not sure if I can successfully unravel the origins of the quota system, but I’ll give it a shot. I suppose I’ll think it through as I write.


To start, let’s imagine working part-time at a cake shop. You are told to sell a certain cake throughout the day. Your shift is eight hours long. You work as a shop assistant. Up to this point, we wouldn't call it a "quota," even though you are working an eight-hour shift. You could argue it *is* a quota of sorts, but certainly not an unreasonable one.


But what if you were told, "You absolutely must sell 100 of these today"? That is where the quota comes into play. Would you accept such a condition? Sales depend on more than just the salesperson's effort; factors beyond their control—such as the cake's taste, the day's weather, or the shop's location—play a role. It is absurd to foist the entire burden onto the salesperson and hold them solely accountable for the outcome. Naturally, most people wouldn't apply for the job if faced with such terms.


Yet, if you are a full-time employee, you often have no choice but to accept them. This is likely due to the power imbalance inherent in employment. Part-timers have the luxury of quitting if they dislike the situation, whereas full-time employees have their livelihoods at stake, forcing them to swallow even unreasonable demands.


But surely, something is wrong here. Where does this absurdity stem from? It likely arises from the practice of holding individuals entirely responsible for results, even though uncontrollable factors inevitably influence the outcome, no matter how much effort is put in.


You often hear people claim that everything is "within the scope of expectations"—acting as if they can foresee the future—but the reality is that unexpected things happen quite frequently. Take the people who say such things—sometimes they end up getting arrested. That’s a scenario they surely never anticipated, isn't it? Ultimately, results belong to the future, and the future inevitably holds elements beyond human prediction; therefore, imposing a "quota" based on future outcomes carries an inherent risk of failure. There are times when effort pays off and things go well, and times when, no matter how hard you try, they don't. And when things don't go well, misconduct arises.


"Do your utmost and await Heaven's will."


That is the Confucian teaching. And then there is:


"Insha'Allah" (If God wills it).


That is the Islamic expression. I have written about this before (*Insha'Allah (1)*, *Insha'Allah (2)*). Humanity has understood this for a long time: that results belonging to the future depend on Heaven's will—on the will of God. To impose quotas without acknowledging this is tantamount to ignoring the existence of Heaven's will and of God. Ultimately, it stems from a lack of faith. Without faith, humans become arrogant enough to believe they are omnipotent. They become arrogant enough to think they can control every future outcome. That is why they cannot even grasp what is wrong with imposing quotas.


Quotas stem from human arrogance that denies the existence of God.


And that arrogance invites misconduct and ruin. Indeed...


The Way of Heaven is to be held in awe.


I would like to explore this further, but I will leave it here for today.


Guided by love and compassion.


←

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Two Theorems of Religion

 To summarize all the scriptures, I believe they can be summed up in two theorems: 1. God (Buddha) loves all of us. 2. The God (Buddha) who loves us all is the only one who is omniscient and omnipotent. First, if God (Buddha) does not love us, then we are finished. We would be hopeless. No matter how omniscient and omnipotent God may be, if He does not love us, He has no meaning to us. It is precisely because He loves us that He has meaning to us. Next, second, no matter how much God loves us, if He is not omniscient and omnipotent, then He is meaningless. If God is not omniscient and omnipotent, then we can imagine situations where "even God cannot save this person." And the exception clause "this person is impossible" is always over-interpreted, weakening God's love, leading to "this person, this person, too, cannot be saved," and ultimately to "no one can be saved." "This person is the only one He can't save." When we say thi...
Read more

Bodhisattva Never Disparaging

 "All will be saved." I've even gone so far as to think that this is the same as what Bodhisattva Never Disparaging, who appears in the Lotus Sutra, already proclaimed: "I do not despise you. You will all become Buddhas." Isn't it the same thing when I say "All will be saved" and when Bodhisattva Never Disparaging says "All will become Buddhas"? So what I'm doing is just copying Bodhisattva Never Disparaging. It's an honor. This bodhisattva was always spreading the word, "I do not despise you. You will all become Buddhas," so everyone found him annoying, and he ended up being persecuted by people throwing stones at him and hitting him with sticks. So what did this bodhisattva do? "He ran away to avoid them and shouted from afar, 'I do not despise you. You will all become Buddhas!'" Not cool. Instead of facing them with dignity, he cowardly runs away, turning his back on the enemy and howling from afar l...
Read more

Are all good people poor?

 For some reason, I just read Toyoko Yamazaki's "The White Tower" (a socially conscious novel about medicine) recently, and my wife, who apparently watched the TV drama the whole time, recalled a scene in which a lawyer who supports the underdog has to move out of his office because he can't even pay the rent. After laughing at his poverty, she suddenly asked, "Are all good people poor?" Come to think of it, all the "good" doctors and medical scientists in "The White Tower" are poor. A prime example is Assistant Professor Satomi, who lives in a cramped apartment complex despite being a doctor. In contrast, the doctors and professors who own luxurious mansions are all portrayed as vulgar, obsessed with money and fame. It seems like this is the natural outcome when written by socially conscious author Toyoko Yamazaki. She was a former newspaper reporter, so it must be true. "Good people are poor. Rich people are bad." This reminds...
Read more