Does the Concept of Enterprise Still Have Legs?
Click this link to read the PDF VERSION of
this article
Click this link to SEND FEEDBACK on the article
Click this link to VIEW FEEDBACK on the author's articles
It was
fifty years ago today Muhammad Subuh taught the band to play – then he went and
introduced the notion of ‘enterprise’ into Subud [1] and, for some, the music
stopped. Bapak continued to define and refine the idea in talks given right up
to his death, thereby creating a set of goals, the achievement of which would
be, in effect, ‘proof of concept’.
Those goals were:
• Enterprise would give us something to
engage our hearts and minds in order to stop us thinking and fantasising about
the spiritual.
• Enterprise would provide a structure
through which we could put into practice in the arena of the big, bad world the
reality of what we were being shown in the latihan.
• Enterprise would offer, to those
members who had discovered their inner talents, a stage on which to express and
develop them more easily.
• Enterprise would supply the readies
to fund not only our latihan premises and national centres, but also specialist
schools, homes for the elderly, hospitals and other social work projects caring
for the poor and underprivileged thereby demonstrating how the material could
be controlled by the spiritual.
• Enterprise would financially support
cultural projects as members’ ‘true inner culture’ came to life.
Achieving these goals would demonstrate to the world
that we were not just a bunch of humble, navel-gazing crazies, but a force to
be reckoned with. And the inevitable result of this, it was believed, would be
the worldwide spread of the latihan, heralding a new dawn – the Brother and
Sisterhood of all mankind under the
Fatherhood of God.
The reality is that none of the goals has been
attained. In fact, the only positive results from half a century of energetic
striving are a smattering of businesses run as Subud enterprises (the
principals still attempting to adhere to Bapak’s principles), a collection of
Subud members in ‘business’ and a few financially successful individuals
(some of whom would have been successful anyway).[2]
The downside consists of the shambles of the large
enterprises – Anugraha, BSB, PTS Widjojo, Premier Hotels et al – plus a large pool of impoverished,
disillusioned members and ex-members, many still harbouring resentment over the
loss of their capital, or their property, or their self-esteem, or all three.
In a recent talk (9th
Dec. 2007, Pamulang) Ibu Rahayu asked, ‘Are there any people in Subud doing enterprises? Are
there any enterprises left in Subud?’ The image of a general overlooking a battlefield littered
with the corpses of his own defeated army springs to mind.
On the face of it, the enterprise idea has
self-eviscerated but, as hope springs ever eternal, it seems worth asking the
following question. Does the concept of successful, latihan-guided enterprise
funding Subud's charitable and cultural aims still have legs?
To begin to answer the question it is necessary to try
to understand why the concept has so far failed.
Many large, and most small to medium businesses go
under because of one or more of the following three main causes: these also
apply to all failed Subud enterprises but have been exacerbated by certain
‘unique to Subud’ behaviours:
Universal Failure 1: The original business concept is flawed: there is no market and/or the
product (or service) offered is not as good as the competition’s. Market
research is either not employed or the results are poorly interpreted or
ignored.
Unique Subud Behaviours: A number of enterprises were based on ‘received’ ideas for businesses
and/or inspired ‘inventions’. Any positive feeling felt in testing about a
proposed project's viability was interpreted as a thumbs up from God;
consequently, further analysis was deemed unnecessary and never carried out.[3]
Universal Failure 2: The principals trade beyond
their financial capabilities: the business is under-funded (expansion and trade
opportunities are missed) or over-borrowed (interest payments exceed profit;
the bank, or investors, have control).
Unique Subud Behaviours: No financial planning done because ‘positive’ testing invariably
obviates a ‘Plan B’. An over-reliance on/misinterpretation of Bapak’s ‘you are
your own capital’ dictum prevailed alongside a belief that the angels were
actively working on our behalf as brokers and that, as Subud members, we were
‘the chosen ones’ with God solidly on our side.
Universal Failure 3: The principals trade beyond their management capabilities at board
level by failing to recognise the need for strong finance, sales, middle
management and production teams.
Unique Subud Behaviours: Major strategic and tactical mistakes are made because of a lack of
experience aggravated by testing routine business decisions such as hiring and
firing and promotions from within. Vested interest, backed up by testing,[4]
was allowed to override principles – the enterprise’s raison d'être being sacrificed for
short-term gains. There was a commonly held belief (gleaned from Bapak's advice) that, because God was
the Chief Executive Officer, we only had to start and success was somehow
guaranteed.
Looking back, the sense of ‘how can we fail with God
on our side’ hinted at in Bapak’s talks and blown out of all proportion by
ourselves, plus his continuous pleas for us to ‘stand on your own two feet’
seduced many members onto the enterprise bandwagon, many of whom should never
have been businessmen ever. Thus was created, in many small businesses, an
unholy alliance of exploiters and the gullible (cemented by the mantra of
‘working together for God and Subud’), or a confederacy
of clueless dunces – both concoctions
being recipes for disaster.
I include myself in the latter category, and am guilty
of many of the things I criticise.
Now, bringing all these polar opposites together may
well have been part of Bapak’s ‘cunning plan’ but, if so, he never warned us
about what we were letting ourselves in for, merely once alluding obliquely to
‘grains of rice rubbing together until they are smooth’ as though that were an
inevitable, positive outcome once we engaged – a spiritual equivalent of the
bodybuilder’s ‘no pain, no gain’. But we had no idea how difficult, how painful
that process was to be, or how scarring would be the effects on our lives. I do
know, from a member on the board at the time, that Bapak was bemused and
somewhat piqued at the failure of Anugraha, so perhaps he had no idea either,
or basically got it all wrong.
Over my thirty years of working in or for Subud
enterprises, I attended many seminars organised to
help develop, or help save, existing businesses. The recurrent,
underlying theme I perceived during conversations held between sessions, was
one of steaming resentment. It became clear that
this was due to our shared inability to
confront our fellow board members, business partners or bosses over
unacceptable actions and attitudes. This was not only due to a lack of courage;
there existed an unwritten rule that ‘negativity’ was forbidden. Also,
not only had disastrous business strategies become entrenched through the
immutability of testing results, but the more powerful (whether through financial
clout, charisma, or both) were ignoring the physical, emotional and spiritual
needs of weaker brethren, creating carte blanche for themselves and for
anything they could get away with, while still claiming it was all for God and
Subud.
Ibu Rahayu also asked in the recent Pamulang talk
quoted earlier, ‘Why is it that Subud members still steal from other Subud
members?’ She went on to explain that it was because they often excuse their
actions to themselves instead of correcting their actions and behaviour through
their latihan (omitting any mention of manipulation by the Subud financial
hierarchy or ‘testing abuse’ as discussed earlier). And of course, apart from
money, one can also steal others’ ideas, their opportunities for growth and their
reputation.
Many years ago, I moved my business into offices owned
by a fast growing group of Subud companies (now defunct). One of my clients had
also been very involved with the group, but had pulled away with fingers burnt.
I told the Managing Director (not a Subud
member) of my plans, assured him there would be no collusion and politely hoped
he didn’t mind.
‘You’re in Subud aren’t you?’ he enquired and I said I
was. ‘Well, whatever you’re doing with them, get it in writing because that
won’t protect you.’
I remember being shocked at the time, but later came
to realise he was reflecting an attitude held by many outsiders after dealing
with Subud enterprises and their ‘God is our guide’ way of doing business.
The sub-text to these negative
stories is a basic lack of integrity, a
strange denial of the tenet of morally correct living as laid down by Bapak but
ignored by many of us who acclaimed him as God’s spokesman on Earth. This seems
to be on a par with the way fundamentalist Christians and Islamists so easily
override the truths in their holy books – ‘Thou shalt not kill’ – unless it’s
to protect our oil supplies, that is – and the inner jihad perverted to ‘Allah wills we destroy all
infidels’.
If we Subud human beings – the basic building blocks
of Bapak’s enterprise concept – are so flawed, so unable to get to grips with the
material world, so incapable of plain honesty, the questions now are
(assuming he knew what he was talking about): was Bapak casting his pearls
before swine, and could the latihan have made silk purses from sows’ ears had we used it
correctly?
It would appear that the Quakers managed such a
metamorphosis. Forbidden to enter the professions, they were forced into trade,
becoming acutely aware of the temptations and dangers therein. The following
passage from Arthur Raistrick’s Quakers in
Science and Industry sums up their position:
The unification of life among Quakers,
their refusal to separate business activities from the principles and
disciplines which regulated their religious life, gave them a stability and
soundness of practice which was unusual in their day. The advice on trade are numerous
and extensive, and the frequent letters addressed to Fox and others to all such
as are engaged in trade, emphasise again and again the idea that trade and
other occupations show forth truth to the world, and that traders must be
scrupulous to keep their dealings in the spirit of truth. The advice of 1675
says: ‘Let friends and brethren in their respective meetings watch over each
other in the love of God and care of the Gospel; particularly admonish that
none trade beyond their ability, nor stretch beyond their compass; and that
they use few words in their dealings, and keep their word in all things, lest
they bring through their forwardness dishonour to the precious truth of God.’
By
keeping their dealings ‘in the spirit of truth’ and ‘watching over each other’
the Quakers eventually played a major role in the Industrial Revolution,
introducing innovations in manufacturing, commerce and banking, as well as
rearing a whole flock of billionaire, altruistic families (the Frys, the
Rowntrees, the Cadburys et al). They simply succeeded where we failed – why?
It all seems to come down to one thing: a lack of
personal morality and integrity – we have no susila, in Bapak’s terminology.
Recently, I watched a dog training TV show called ‘The
Dog Whisperer’. The trainer/presenter took an unruly, totally out of control
pet into his own dog pound to let the other dogs teach it how to ‘be’ in a pack
- a matter of calming and synchronising energy levels. The unruly dog had been
allowed, through its owners’ lack of dog savvy,
to become the family ‘pack leader’ and was, therefore, aggressively frustrated
in its inappropriate role.
The other dogs simply wouldn’t allow such errant
behaviour, because they instinctively know a pack cannot keep its integrity
with such a neurosis within. It was extraordinary to watch this aggressive
animal quietening down, submissively allowing the other dogs to approach for
ritual sniffing. Within a day, this neurotic dog was pack-integrated, and its
behaviour completely changed ‘back home’.
From this, I ask myself if such a turn-around in both
group and individual dynamics can be achieved in the animal kingdom, why is it
so difficult for us (with our highly developed languages, educated minds and,
purportedly, latihan-grown ‘inner selves’) to achieve ‘correct living’ within
our packs (our Subud groups and enterprises)? Why do we find it so difficult to
be honest and caring, so hard to let go of our self-interest, to become fully
integrated?
I can only answer for myself. I simply bought into the
delusions that all members, by virtue of doing the latihan, were on the same
righteous path and were, therefore, honest and caring by default, whereas the
rest of the business world was on the ‘satanic level’ and bound for hell;
secondly, that we, the chosen few, were corporately guided by the Almighty who
was actively oiling our way to success because the spread of Subud was His
major priority. Forty years later, I look back and think, ‘Could I have been
more naïve, more wrong?’
If we ever decide to revitalise and reintroduce the
enterprise culture back into Subud, it now seems essential we do the following:
• Study our history of failure to fully
understand the traps and pitfalls we created for ourselves (the past is always
a harbinger of the present).
• Become extremely careful about whom we
team up with (e.g. work with only those who have a proven business track record
and use only proven financial and management advice sources).
• Start
small.
• Ban
business ‘testing’ (Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s).
• Constantly ask ourselves if we are
being honourable in all our dealings.
And we need a good dose of Quakerly ‘watching over
each other’ alongside ‘dealing in the spirit of truth’. This is the only way
the concept of enterprise will ever walk again.
-------------------
Notes:
1. Apparently,
he used the word ‘usaha’ which translates more into ‘endeavour’ - but that's for another essay.
2. Some of
these groupings do put money, but not nearly enough, into Susila Dharma
International, which maintains consultative status
with the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the UN
Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and currently initiates
and funds social projects worldwide.
3. It seems
extraordinary to me now that we ignored Bapak’s
admonishment that we could only receive with 10% accuracy. It figures that tossing a coin has better odds.
4. For the unscrupulous, testing provided the ideal tool for
manipulating events to their advantage or for overriding principles that got in
the way, for promulgating ‘the ends justifies the means’ attitudes and
for ‘solving’ tricky little problems presented by such trivia as debts,
contracts and the notions of honour, trust and compassion. And, as a bonus, in
Subud (still, today) there’s no arguing with ‘testing results’ – the widely
held belief that they are axiomatic being embedded in our culture.