Relationship with an Employer – like the

“Industrial Employee” or the “Federalist citizen?”

Andrew Marsiglia, PhD, CCP

August 26, 2010

The characteristics of the Federalist citizen are fairly descriptive of my work relationship. In
order to elaborate as to why, I will look at the essence of the Federalist citizen as presented by
Jacques (1996): The Federalist citizen was a master craftsman that entered wage work as a
means to another end, that considered dependence on the organization a debased state, that
believed sub-ordination to be un-American, that made complete products and was paid for
outcomes, that believed in the omni-competence of the average person, that considered it a
perquisite and basic criterion of adult participation in society to speak one’s truth
knowledgeably, and that unified the roles of business person and politician, domestic and paid
worker, and producer and consumer.

Jacques (1996) states that the modern professional has “…roots stretching back to the middle
ages,” and “whose authority is grounded in specific occupational knowledge” (p. 89). As an
industry certified information systems professional, I satisfy Jacques’ definition. While I am not
omni-competent, I am multi-competent in my field and am expected to speak truth
knowledgably. Like most professionals I know, I find it difficult to accept low level sub-ordination
and am more loyal to my profession than to any particular company. This is in stark contrast to
the industrial employee who is characterized as being the good, permanent employee, resigned
to a specific task at a fixed wage, the sub-ordinate, the ignorant, childlike, encoded self. As a
result, my work relationship clearly has more in common with the Federalist citizen than the
industrial employee.

Reference:

Jacques, R. (1996). Manufacturing the employee: Management knowledge from the 19th to 21st
centuries. London: Sage Publications.