Uncomfortable Truths – More News from Albuquerque Public Schools

Some friends discovered I was attempting, again, to work as a substitute teacher for Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) and told me to not waste my time and talents.  They then shared with me some of the recent changes and more issues at APS that shocked and horrified me.  I do not have a student in the APS school district; thus, all I can do is relate their stories here in the hopes of generating enough angst that someone in the Department of Education will rip the scab off the injury called APS, and begin some sunshine disinfectant.

Government Largess 2An Educational Assistant (EA; Teacher’s Aide) was called upon to be a substitute teacher in Seventh Grade math; because APS is bereft of substitute teachers and is experiencing a teacher drought.  The EA is not a licensed substitute teacher; thus, when asked how this is legal, to have an EA substituting outside her regular work and expertise, she said she “didn’t know” and then acknowledged this is standard practice.  The EA went on to further elaborate saying that when she has asked for a substitute teacher because her teacher was out or off, she had a very low probability of ever getting a licensed substitute teacher and generally had to teach the class, with no extra money for doing extra work.  Why does the NM Professional Licensure classify licenses, and charge horrendous fees for licensure, if EA’s can be “regularly called upon to substitute teach?”  My friend has worked in four other states in the US as an Educational Assistant/Teacher’s Aide, and has never been licensed to be a substitute teacher; yet, somehow in APS, she can be regularly called upon to substitute teach.

While discussing teacher performance, another classic APS child abuse issue was uncovered, all while a good teacher is being forced out of her position.  Because of the teacher drought, APS is experiencing, and due to reduced registrations in a Bi-Lingual education school, an illiterate teacher in both Spanish and English, who had to pass a state-mandated test to get the license to teach bilingual students, is going to keep her job for another year.  This intellectually challenged teacher has been reported to APS more than a dozen times for swearing, insulting, and not being able to teach; but this teacher was just offered a full-time position teaching bilingual students, when she cannot speak/read/write in either English or Spanish at an academically acceptable level to teach others.  Due to falling registrations, a Kindergarten teacher, who was the last one hired at this school, is being laid-off.  The teacher, being terminated is a stellar teacher, works hard, is well-liked by staff, parents, and students.  Since joining APS, this phenomenal teacher has been assigned to “catch” those students from the most impoverished homes and get them up to speed academically.  Reported by all who know this teacher, she is exemplary in her assigned duties; fully 180-degrees separate from the illiterate teacher who landed her job under shady circumstances or nepotism.  Yet the bad teacher is being kept and the good discharged.  APS, and by extension, the NM Professional Licensure board, are committing child abuse on such a scale, there should be criminal charges.

I have been in business a long time, and one of the fundamental rules of business is if people are assigned to work, and mandatorily required to put in extra time, those people must be paid for their extra time.  In discussing job mandates and requirements with more than forty-different full-time, substitute, and EA instructional staff members of APS, a regular theme arises; if the school mandates the instructional staff is required to work, they will not be paid for their extra time.  For example, the EA discussed above, was called to substitute teach, spent 90-minutes after work writing notes to the regular teacher, and will not be reimbursed for her extra time.  Please note, this is 90-minutes on top of her regularly scheduled, non-paid, mandatory overtime.  Thus, every day, this EA loses 90-minutes of pay at the end of the day and between 60 and 90 minutes at the start of the day, with no reimbursement to cover this employer-mandated time.  With a regular school year average of 38-weeks, 5-days per week average worked, and roughly 150-minutes per day unpaid, an average EA salary of $15,116.50 ($9.95 per hour), this EA is losing approximately $2,836.70 each school year.  Where is the NM Department of Labor?  Where is the NM Legislature?  Where is the NM Public Education Department (NM PED), who also happens to be in charge of overseeing licensure?  As I understand this is a widespread general practice for all teaching staff, but I can attest that the administrators leave promptly on time and arrive on time, and if they must work late they are reimbursed for their time.  Why is the teaching staff treated differently?

Government Largess 4With a total grant budget of $1.6 Billion, no numbers have been found for the amount of tax revenue APS is handed, the school district is certainly well funded.  From the 2018-2019 school survey on APS performance, we find a common theme from the citizens to the APS school district, reduce administration costs.  The answer from APS school administrators was to, “Increase Counselors, Social Workers, Security and other staff to support our student’s mental and physical health … Increase Custodians across the schools [sic].”  The Albuquerque Journal reports that APS is the lead agency for taking tax dollar revenues.  With Bernalillo County and City of Albuquerque, plus property taxes, all being collected at ridiculous rates, APS must be getting a significant chunk of revenue; still, APS demands more money “For the children.”

Understanding checkpoint, we have more than one instance of a teacher unable to perform their duties, and verbally abusing students.  We have a functionally illiterate teacher who landed her position based on either shady circumstances, or through nepotism, and we have a recorded phenomenal teacher being summarily discharged during a teacher drought.  We have citizens, parents, and a concerned community begging for reduced administration, where APS then responds they are increasing administration.  Then we have non-licensed staff forced to work outside their licensure because the administration cannot obtain substitute teachers, and teaching staff forced to work extra hours without proper compensation.  Where is the public outrage?  Where are the lawyers?  Where are the politicians demanding answers?  These problems are not new to APS; why the silence?

You're FiredDuring the summer of 2019, for the first time in 15-years, APS full-time licensed teachers received a pay raise.  Not for the first time in 15-years, the teachers saw a slew of additional requirements, mandates, and reductions in alternative licensure to “pay” for the teacher pay raise.  All while the school board received yet another pay increase.  The voters have already told APS NO on a slew of tax increases and bond sale schemes; however, in November 2019, APS is trying again to raise taxes, raise money, and raise administrator salaries.  Albuquerque, the next time Bernalillo County, City of Albuquerque, or APS asks you for more money, ask them when they will deliver education to students, a reduced administration, and fix the teacher drought?  It is blatantly apparent to me that when APS, City of Albuquerque, or Bernalillo County claim, “It’s for the children,” they really mean they want a pay raise on your blood, sweat, and tears; tell them no!

© 2019 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

The images used herein were obtained in the public domain, this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Uncomfortable Truths – An Open Letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Congressional and Senatorial Representatives of the United States of America

I-Care

I write by way of greeting; I write by way of exhortation to action, as the current status quo is reprehensible and unacceptable.  Uncomfortable truths are those realities where bureaucracy has superseded logic and leadership, creating situations where the harm of the patient/customer is the first and only business.  There are good people at the Department of Veterans Affairs; but, these people are being crushed by the bureaucracy, the stifling mental inertia, and the lack of actionable leaders to propel change at the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and the National Cemetery.

An example of uncomfortable truths: I witnessed a veteran enter the emergency room of the VA Medical Center, and be actively, but passively, abused.  Because he was a regular, and sometimes came in and was obstinate, and because he was homeless, he had a history with this emergency room and staff.  The staff actively overlooked him, they talked bad about him, they cussed him out behind his back, and his service was suboptimal at best when he was finally treated.  As this veteran was not the only one being treated in this manner, this was brought to the attention of hospital leadership; the person reporting the abuse was terminated without cause.  This is a leadership issue, a process problem, and an excuse not to change.

Another example of uncomfortable truths: the VBA needs/wants “New and Material Evidence” to process/review/correct a claim.  The Primary Care Provider and all specialty clinics at the VA cannot provide “New and Material Evidence,” as they are not diagnosticians.  Thus, the veteran is left stuck between two bureaucracies that refuse to help, because the rules do not allow the providers to help; this a leadership problem and a process issue.  How can the veteran afford outside insurance to obtain the “New and material evidence?”

Earlier this month, the OIG sent out a report over death at the VA due to leadership inefficiencies and can be found here, VA-OIG report.  Over the last week, three more incident reports have been discharged from the VA-OIG.  Report 1: Has a veteran dying of suicide, because the decision-making process, a process designed specifically to improve communication to aid high-risk patients were not implemented, tracked, and reported properly.  The decision-making process is expected to employ a full patient-care team (PACT) in evaluating and making decisions that affect the patient’s care.  The process was not followed, and the veteran who is already at high-risk for suicide and known to the PACT was deactivated, leading to a veteran’s death.  The VA-OIG made a recommendation to improve the process, the same process that was disabled, leading to a dead veteran.  How does this make sense?

The uncomfortable truth is multi-faceted in this case.  Leadership does not do record audits to ensure the deactivation of high-risk patients does not become “lost” in the bureaucracy.  Leadership is not flagged when the PACT disagrees with the treatment of a patient.  Finally, the VA-OIG has no teeth to reprimand, insist, and improve compliance; they can only make recommendations after the fact.  Congressional representatives and Senators, you allowed the VA to have its own dedicated inspector general, why?  What will you do to enhance the leadership at the VA?  Do not tell me again; we will hold “Committee Meetings.”  These committee meetings have been, and continue to be a feckless waste of taxpayer time, money, and never addresses the core issues apparent.

Report 2: Covers a veteran needing an appendectomy and had to wait for three hours for the surgeon to become available to perform the surgery.  The VA-OIG confirmed the delay in care, but essentially settled for, “Well, the patient lived, so no problem here.”  If that statement seems overly simplified of the process, tell me why the patient had to wait.  Why pay records and timekeeping records were messed up for a single month (May 2018), and how pay and timekeeping records got messed up in the first place.  The VA uses a national system for reporting time worked, but not all employees use the same payment system.  If true, why aren’t all employees, to include residents, surgeons, and staff using the same pay system?  The wait is blamed on poor communication, communication in scheduling surgery, communication between resident and surgeons, and communication because the “appropriate documentation” was insufficiently maintained.

I know from sad experience that there are nurses and doctors who write things down in notebooks, on scrap paper, and on paper charts, when the computer on wheels (COWS) is readily available.  The excuse is always, “I am too busy to use that thing.”  I know the VA has spent an excessive amount of money to get digital records, installing digital records, getting digital records to work when needed, and delivering the digital record available to mobile stations to document what is happening with the patient.  I have some grave concerns for checkbox medicine; but, blaming a surgical delay on improperly maintained documentation remains a wholly inexcusable and unacceptable statement in an official investigation.  Why was this lame excuse allowed to stand?

Report 2, exemplifies a multi-faceted problem presenting a need for a multi-faceted approach to correction.  Leadership at the hospital must be actively engaged, ensuring processes and procedures are optimized to deliver the “I-CARE” customer promise.  Communication chains are a leadership tool, and when broken, correction demands accountability and responsibility to resolve correctly.  Reporting is a leadership function to ensure liability and corrective action as a normal operating procedure.  Did anyone ask why the documentation was not maintained?  Was this lack of documentation maintenance a design flaw to hide what happened during this incident as an extension of designed incompetence?

Report 2, demands answers on two distinct issues double-dipping, and the continued practice of collective design incompetence. Double-dipping by providers working for the VA at the same time they are working at other medical institutions, is this occurring?  Why?  I understand there is a provider shortage at the VA.  I know doctors need to make money, and doctors make money by seeing patients, surgeons make money performing surgery.  The VA-OIG report appears to gloss over the practice of double-dipping e.g., on-call from one hospital while working at another, or working at another hospital while the VA expects you to be at their hospital.  Senators and Congressional representatives, are you investigating the potential for double-dipping?  Will it take a dead veteran before you even care about double-dipping occurring?  I make no accusations; I am asking honest questions on this issue in an attempt to learn more.  Will you do the same?

One of the most egregious problems at the VA is designed incompetence to allow a malefactor the ability to hide behind bureaucracy to avoid accountability and responsibility.  Designed incompetence remains a significant problem and I do not see any of the mid-level managers, leaders, supervisors, trainers, etc. acting to eliminate designed incompetence to the improvement of the Department of Veterans Affairs.  During President Obama’s Administration, I watched a Congressional Committee meeting where whistle-blowers were invited and testified about the designed incompetence that allows for an individual to pass the buck, duck responsibility, and protect their jobs and power at the VA.  I keep discussing design incompetence, because the mid-level managers, directors, and supervisors at the VA refuse to address and correct this issue.  Senators and Congressional Representatives, why do you allow this practice to continue?  Did you know that this is the primary method for discriminating and harming whistle-blowers?  Of course, you did.  I have seen several committee meetings where this exact issue was discussed, and the bloviation from the committee does nothing.  You are the leaders in our Republican Society, when are you going to act, in concert with Secretary Wilkie (who’s doing an exceptional job), correcting and insist these practices cease?

Report 3: Involves 60,000+ veterans, is this number sufficient to warrant permanent action on the proper billing of insurance companies and veterans, or does this number need to exceed some other level before it warrants your attention.  If a different level is required, what is that magical number?  I guarantee that veterans from all states and territories are involved here, as their representatives, what will you do?

Directly from the VA Website, we find two different uses for funds collected:

  • “VA is required by Public Law 87–693; 42 USC. 2651, commonly known as the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, to bill the health insurance carrier that provides health care coverage for Veterans to include policies held by their spouse. The money collected goes back to VA medical centers to support health care costs provided to all Veterans.
  • Funds that VA receives from third party health insurance carriers go directly back to VA Medical Center’s operational budget.”

You, the elected officials of the Republic of the United States of America, enacted these laws and improper billing of veterans and insurance companies, causes financial harm and distress; this is your problem!  Do you understand that even if money is returned to a veteran, the financial injury has been done?  Those veterans who have paid a bill, or the insurance company that paid a statement, they didn’t need to pay is an interest-free loan to the government, and this is wrong!

There are literally tons of money at stake here; I know my local VA Hospital said, “The funds collected when we bill insurance companies come directly to this hospital for construction projects, renovations, new equipment, and so forth.”  Report 3 is but one of how many VA-OIG reports where improper billing is occurring. Incorrect billing drives the cost of healthcare up.  Hence, Obamacare costs more because the VA is not accurately billing.  Medicare costs more because of improper billing.  You the elected officials are directly responsible for ensuring proper billing occurs as an aid in reducing the costs of healthcare.

Where are you? Will you act?

 

© 2019 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Leadership and the Department of Veterans Affairs – Shifting the Paradigm on Killing Veterans

I-Care

Since the beginning of 2019, a running theme in the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General (VA-OIG) reports, that I have delivered via email, has been the lack of leadership.  Today’s VA-OIG report is a perfect example of discussion and remains significant due to a veteran being killed by the Spinal Cord Unit in San Diego, CA.  I fully submit that VA Secretary Wilkie is trying to reform the Department of Veterans Affairs.  I fully offer that the nurses and providers, as well as other front-level employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs, are trying to do a difficult job in a bureaucratic nightmare.  I contend that the mid-level managers between the supervisors and Secretary Wilkie need removed and processes redesigned.

Using today’s report, we find causation for removing mid-level managers to streamline leadership effectiveness and potentially save patients.  The VA-OIG claimed, “At the time of the patient’s death, the SCI unit used an outdated nurse call system that required the use of a splitter to connect the ventilator to the call system, none of the respiratory therapy staff had training or competency assessments related to PMV use, staff failed to report the patient’s ventilator tubing disconnections through the Patient Safety reporting system, and SCI leaders failed to follow the standard operating procedure for the management of clinical alarms.”

Outdated technology is inexcusable, especially for all the money continually pumped into the Department of Veterans Affairs to update technology.  Who are the mid-level managers in charge of procurement that have failed to do their job and improve technology effectively?  VA-OIG, was the role of technology procurement included in this investigation?  If not, why?  If so, where is that report?  I have personally witnessed 10+-year-old technology used for patient care due to inadequate leadership efforts and procurement people wasting time, as well as other resources.  If a root cause in a patient dying is old technology, why are we not holding those in procurement an IT accountable?

Training at the Department of Veterans Affairs is a colossal joke; either the training is bloated, and the user cannot identify which parts are valuable to their job duties specifically, or the training is so shallow that the topics are considered a waste of time.  But, there is also a third option for training; training only applies to managers due to the labor union collective bargaining agreement.  Thus, the front-line worker could use the knowledge, but the union is preventing that knowledge from spreading as that policy has not been approved.  The leaders in charge of training cannot answer basic questions regarding applicability, usefulness, or point to policies and procedures that govern why certain topics are required to specific audiences.  The lines of communication breakdown in training have reached monumental proportions, and as witnessed, is killing patients.  Worse, the training at the VA is governed by third-party LMS software that can quickly be completed without ever influencing the actions of the individual.  Classroom training is a rehash of the LMS training and does not cover the gaps or explain why.  Front-line supervisors cannot answer basic questions about the why behind a process or procedure, nor can they point to a resource where the information can be discovered.

The VA-OIG noted a root cause in their investigation, “The OIG could not determine what the ventilator settings were at the time of the patient’s death, because facility staff who inspected the ventilator immediately thereafter changed the settings to check whether alarms were functional and then reportedly returned the settings to the previous levels.”  If the setting on a piece of equipment is required for a patient safety report, why are there not digital pictures taken?  I find the VA-OIG being unable to ascertain equipment settings to be a complete failure of current technology.  How many smartphones are possessed by patients, staff, providers, etc. that could snap a picture of a piece of equipment for an official record?  Does not the VA issue phones to mid-level managers?  One of the most egregious problems at the VA is designed incompetence to allow a malefactor the ability to hide behind bureaucracy to avoid accountability and responsibility.  Designed incompetence is the problem and I do not see any of the mid-level managers, leaders, supervisors, trainers, etc. acting to eliminate designed incompetence to the improvement of the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Consider for a moment the hundreds of millions of dollars lost in bloated construction projects.  The project leader has vague, inaccurate, old, etc. processes and procedures to blame the failures upon; this is an example of systemic designed incompetence, that protects a lazy employee and costs the taxpayers resources, and the Department of Veterans Affairs reputation.

The VA-OIG reported more root causes in the death of a patient to include, “… the facility did not implement risk mitigation strategies for the use of the in-line Passy-Muir® Valve (PMV) on ventilated patients. The facility did not have a backup monitoring plan when the ventilator alarms were off, patient criteria to determine when the valve should be removed, policies for facility staff and patient/family education on the use of the PMV, policies or procedures for monitoring and documenting ventilator and alarm settings while using the PMV, or a policy to use anti-disconnect devices.”  Risk mitigation is everyone’s job in a VA Medical Center.  Risk mitigation is a facet of every post and included in the third-party software training programs for providers, nursing staff, and clerical staff.  Why did this patient die from a lack of risk mitigation?  What are the tactical risk mitigation actions that support risk reduction strategies?  I have asked this exact question, as an employee and a patient, in two separate VA Medical Facilities and never received an answer beyond simple platitudes.  A root cause in a patient dying was risk mitigation strategies; VA-OIG, there is a bigger problem here that merely making a recommendation to leadership can resolve.  If a strategy is not supported with tactical action, there are no strategies; simply wishful thinking and hope statements.  Are the mid-level managers going to be held accountable for dropping the tactical ball here and letting a patient die from systemic designed incompetence?

The US Military believes in redundancy; every mechanical system has a backup, that backup has a backup, and there is a manual backup for when all else fails.  How can the Department of Veterans Affairs claim to serve America’s military veterans without redundancies?  Without training on redundancies?  Without education and real-life training scenarios, to prod thinking before an emergency occurs?  The simple answer, the VA cannot represent, serve, or support America’s veterans without these core competencies built into the processes and procedures that power a learning organization.

I am sick and tired of seeing veterans harmed, abused, and killed at the hands of bureaucratic ineptitude and systemic incompetence that protects the lazy and useless at the expense of veterans.  I am beyond disgusted that mid-level managers, supervisors, directors, etc. have the power to arbitrarily pick winners and losers based solely upon the worship that employee does to the boss when the employee cannot do the job they were hired to accomplish.  It is beyond inexcusable to see no job-specific duties, processes, and procedures that provide tactical action for strategic aims at every workstation where training is held daily to meet the strategic goals of the medical facility.  The Department of Veterans Affairs needs to begin cleaning house of the criminals, the incompetent, and the lazy that are supporting a reputation of killing veterans through designed incompetence, as they masquerade as supervisors, directors, managers, etc.; there is no excuse for killing another veteran!

© 2019 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

The images used herein were obtained in the public domain, this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Shifting the Employment Paradigm – Or, ‘Organizational Psychology to the Rescue’

Before reading further, please follow this link:  Sir Ken Robinson – Changing Education Paradigms.  Sir Ken Robinson discusses changing the education paradigms and lays out a genetic heritage in modern schools.  This same model applies to modern business and the discussion here is to shift the business employment paradigm.  The reason is simple; Dauten (2003) discusses it and makes this proclamation, “Accept that organizations call to the worst in human nature, and be LIBERATED by that knowledge.”  [Emphasis mine]  Happiness is a choice.

As happiness is a choice, all emotion is a choice.  The choice is individual in nature and comes as a response to external stimuli in the environment.  Emotional choices build upon previous choices, snowballing into consequences affecting more than the individual and current environment.  Like ripples on a pond, enough ripples and waves appear; enough waves and danger to small craft can occur.  Emotional choices are similar to ripples on a pond increasing in size and frequency until damage occurs.

Dauten (2003) goes on to describe some interesting points in his book, ‘The Laughing Warriors: How to Enjoy Killing the Status Quo,’ namely, the genetics of why organizations continue to experience the same problems, the same genetics mentioned by Sir Ken Robinson.  These genetic problems are historical in nature, aggravated by government influence, multiplied by labor unions, and are 100% correctable through simplification and shifting the paradigm.

America learned early in the Industrial Revolution from those who considered themselves “enlightened” how to form organizational cultures.  Although the process was de-humanizing, the culture worked, to some extent, early in the Industrial Revolution, but the core problems in the genetic make up had not been addressed.  These enlightened founders of organizations knew the process was incomplete, stated their perceptions were not the full answer, and hoped those following would take the beginning they established and improve upon the design.  Dauten (2003) declares, rightly, “… People are hardwired for mediocrity and conformity.”  From this genetic make up comes bureaucracy, which supports more fear, and more conformity promotes mediocrity shunning change and learning in an attempt to cling bitterly to that which vexes all men, bureaucracy.

Consider the functioning culture of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Veteran’s Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, or any other behemoth bureaucratic organization that exhibits an organizational culture born from inefficiency, duplicity of work, lack of interest and enthusiasm, lack of desire to please, lack of accountability and responsibility, and much more, which causes impediment of work accomplishment, slow service, and often outright aggravation.  The example is clear; Dauten (2003) is correct; there is a genetic code calling for people to build inadequately designed organizations that down trod and digress rather than uplift and progress.  The functioning of such monolithic, controlling, inadequately structured organizations absorbs resources, devalues people, and almost repels change.  Change is feared; thus the tool of free people everywhere remains, initiate, demand, and force change.

The answer to resolving organizationally fed genetic bureaucracy is shifting the paradigms.  Paradigm is defined as a model or pattern.  One example of a paradigm is hierarchy, or work flow and command structure in a business organization.  Often linear hierarchy is the only method of describing this structure.  Shifting from a linear hierarchical structure to a circle hierarchy, parallel hierarchy, or eliminating hierarchy all together is, more often than not, unfathomable.  Thus, organizational psychology holds the answer to improving organizational dilemmas in shifting the hierarchy paradigm.  The topics of “Change Management,” “Organizational Communication,” or “Hierarchical Structure” fall into a simple paradigm in the purview of organizational psychologists intent on improving people to improve performance in business organizations.  More simply put, organizational psychologists review the genetic bureaucracy and help people rewire their individual response to environmental stimuli.  Dauten (2003) calls this the process of becoming a “Happy Warrior” “… intent on killing the status quo.”

Shifting the employment paradigm requires business leaders to consider letting go of the outdated term and perception of employee to focusing on people and their crafts.  At the same time, employees must let go of the genetic assumption that they are incapable of being a boss, being creative, or improving the job while working at the job. Letting go of these thoughts and gaining control of their rights to control their own destiny is essential to the success of the individual as well as the organization.  The Federal Government took the ‘Right to Control’ away from individuals, making them subservient to employers, and shifted the paradigm of control into an unnatural environment.  This single action has caused myriad problems, which bear fruit in the organizational culture, hierarchy, and societal problems in our modern world.

The natural order, provided to man from a higher being, is the individual right to control one’s own destiny.  The Declaration of Independence clearly delineates this natural order and describes man’s ‘pursuit of happiness.’  Once the ‘Right to Control’ was removed from the individual, the unforeseen consequences included groupthink, box thinking, drones forming larger bureaucracies, run-away mediocrity, unbridled conformity, and stifled creativity.

Shifting the employment paradigm should not need a ‘Declaration of Independence’ to bring attention to the need for change, but, if proclaiming independence through a declaration raises awareness to the problem and success is achieved, then employees the world over should ascribe.  The basic tenets of a declaration of employee independence should include:

  • The ‘Right to Control’ – Individuals want it back from their employers, unions, and government.  This ‘Right to Control’ comes with the following:
    • Schedule freedom
    • Remuneration for knowledge attainment
    • Control of the working environment
    • The power to affect change
    • Hierarchical Organization
    • Benefits that possess value – Cost and value are not the same and the new knowledge worker recognizes this fact.
    • Win-Win – Providing services in exchange for money requires a “Win-Win” scenario.  Thus, the organization wins workers, the workers win an organization to serve, both parties remain independent, and both parties can negotiate changes to improve.
    • Responsibility to:
      • Be treated as a knowledge worker
      • Treat others as knowledge workers
      • Level the knowledge playing field through acquiring new knowledge
      • Experimenting to drive value
      • Valuing experimentation in others’ performances
      • Honor – Work is honorable.

It remains imperative of the worker to take what is valuable to him/her and add these points into the conversation.  The business organization also must present that which they value and bring their points, ideas, requirements, into the conversation.  Thus, through the power of negotiation and debate, the employment paradigm is shifted.

Reference

Dauten, D. (2003). The Laughing Warriors: How to enjoy killing the status quo. Richmond, CA: Lumina Media.

© 2012 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved