You were recently hired in a boundary-spanning role for the global unit of an educational and professional publishing company. The company is headquartered in New York (where you work) and has divisions in multiple countries. Each division is responsible for translating, manufacturing, marketing, and selling a set of books in its country. Your responsibilities include interfacing with managers in each of the divisions in your region (Central and South America), overseeing their budgeting and financial reporting to headquarters, and leading a virtual team consisting of the top managers in charge of each of the divisions in your region. The virtual team’s mission is to promote global learning, explore new potential opportunities and markets, and address ongoing problems. You communicate directly with division managers via telephone and email, as well as written reports, memos, and faxes. When virtual team meetings are convened, videoconferencing is often used.
After your first few virtual team meetings, you noticed that the managers seemed to be reticent about speaking up. Interestingly enough, when each manager communicates with you individually, primarily in telephone conversations and emails, he or she tends to be forthcoming and frank, and you feel you have a good rapport with each of them. However, getting the managers to communicate with one another as a virtual team has been a challenge. At the last meeting, you tried to prompt some of the managers to raise issues relevant to the agenda that you knew were on their minds from your individual conversations with them. Surprisingly, the managers skillfully avoided informing their teammates about the heart of the issues in question. You are confused and troubled. Although you feel your other responsibilities are going well, you know your virtual team is not operating like a team at all; and no matter what you try, discussions in virtual team meetings are forced and generally unproductive. What are you going to do to address this problem?
In opposition to such apparent decadence, Schmitt postulateautochthonous decision. He argues that the bourgeoisie has sapped healthy German Lebensphilosophie, in an analogous way to the way thebureaucracy saps the notion of the political. He is in agreement withthinkers such as Spengler when they make a vitalist critique of thebourgeoisie. However, for Schmitt this critique also follows from hiswork on sovereignty. Already in Law and Judgment  (see1914:14:ff.1) he noted that one cannot understand the legal order inrational terms alone, as a bureaucrat might understand the law in termsof legal precedent. Schmitt announces that the actual decision (whichmight change the precedent) is always an irreversible particularity.Here Schmitt draws attention to a fundamental distinction in his workthat is little remarked upon: that between constitutive andconstituting power. For Schmitt, power must always be understood interms of its possible constituting function: attempts that place powerwithin the realm of established constituted power (e.g. a set legalorder) miss the fundamental aspect of law and of power. Thus, Schmittremarks on bureaucratic interpretations of law (1985a: 71) “everyrationalist interpretation falsifies the immediacy of life. III The Failure of German Democracy The increasing uncertainty and chaos in the Weimar republic led manyto fear a communist revolution. In a true Schmittean spirit (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), the climate of the Weimar republic brought together the conservative revolutionaries with the Nazis. Fearingcommunism, which for Schmitt would be the triumph of the non-politicalsphere (class), and detesting the bureaucracy of democracy, which theycompared to the notion of the content last man in Nietzsche, theywanted an active nihilism to give democracy its last push. They saw aclass of Hero’s emerging in opposition to the bourgeois after thedemise of the democratic state. This democratic state, as was clear toSchmitt from his analysis of the situation, cannot demand to name anenemy from the people and cannot control the enemies that emerge withinits own ranks. However, Schmitt split from many conservatives in how he thoughtthis ‘revolution of will’ should be brought about. Many conservativesblamed modernism for the bureaucracy and hankered after a return to Godas the sovereign and the hierarchies of aristocracy. While Schmittagreed that modernism gave rise to humanitarian democracy as much astechnology, he did not think we could return to the past. He thoughtthat as politics had lost its lieu propre (proper place), and had beenintruded upon by the realm of economics, anything now had the potentialto be political. Thus, he saw in modernism something that wascompatible with the will. As he noted in Der Bergriff (1963:75):>GET ANSWER