Competition – DNC-Consulting

Serial Betrayal – More Government Attacks Against Citizens

Angry Wet Chicken Government laws, rules, regulations, and the tyrannical thumb of bureaucrats upon the scale of justice mean citizens lose, not gain, freedoms. Consider the oppression created by the European Union to “protect” wine industries but, in so doing, eradicated competition and locked-in prices to which the government takes through taxes, tariffs, and trade. The cost, though, is to stop the majority of innovation, the role of technology, and the promotion of class warfare.

For example, in reviewing the history of wine, there are several events where a member of the royalty got into a particular product, and the upper classes adopted the same tastes, regardless of costs, and to the detriment of all citizens. Tea, Port wine, Champagne, and so many other products through history repeat this process, and the government is used to protect the product, to the detriment and cost of all citizens. Consider this for a moment; similar tactics would be considered protectionist, monopolistic, and highly illegal in any other industry. Yet, because the government takes these actions, they are allowed to bend the rules, act in a manner disrupting all citizens, and worse, betray the foundational anchors of a society to trust their government. When trust in government is destroyed, the government has no moral standing to represent its citizens. Few understand this is a precious commodity, and even fewer, especially in government, will admit to honoring it.

A few examples are required to help drive home this truth; please note those specifically named politicians represent the problem, not the only people betraying and using government jargon and bureaucrats to hide and obfuscate the citizenry. Ridding the body politic of these examples is a small step in the right direction, but the bureaucrats are the primary source of power; thus, reducing the size of government is the answer, not merely replacing the elected heads abusing their office for personal gain and political power.

Senator Mitt Romney finds himself on top of this list of characters not deserving of his office, and who, with his family, should be as investigated as Biden and Clinton. Sen. Romney recently changed his mind about SCOTUS Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. Because of a supposedly in-depth discussion, the senator now considers the nominee “mainstream.” Senator, what does “mainstream” mean? Why should a judge be “mainstream?” Finally, which stream is “mainstream?”

I have made my mind up on this disastrous nominee based solely upon her non-qualification for a judicial appointment, let alone the ability to sit on the “Court of last resort.” Her judicial activism, her refusal to use logic and common sense in her decisions, her flaccid legal mind, and her disastrous leaning toward pro-child pornography are just a few reasons she should NEVER sit on the Supreme Court of this the United States of America. Good senator, your Yahoo! News article fluff piece does nothing to explain why you changed your mind. If Judge Jackson was not qualified for a district judgeship, what has changed in the last few weeks to change your mind? I smell serial betrayal of the citizenry and more mealy-mouthed yellow spinelessness that cost you the US Presidency!

Three state governors also help to elucidate the principle of serial betrayal and deserve removal (in shame) from public office and a transparent investigation. New Mexico, Utah, and Michigan, your governors Michelle Lujan Grisham, Spencer J. Cox, and Gretchen Whitmer, respectively, are serial betrayers worthy of Benedict Arnold, Doña Marina, or Brutus. Consider their actions, not their words, and you will find innumerable betrayals made for personal power, political gain, and the demonization of the citizens for the promotion of those who consider themselves elite. From mask-wearing, mask mandates, government brutality against citizens, and the passing of laws to the destruction of the citizenry, these governors do not deserve janitor’s office, let alone commander-in-chief.

Under the rule of Grisham and through a disastrous legislature, New Mexico became what is termed an“Adult-use Cannabis” state, which means that for recreational use, cannabis can be sold and consumed by adults. In a state teeming with homelessness, poverty, and already suffering from drug and alcohol abuse problems rampant in the citizenry, the legislature, cheered on by the governor, began to sell cannabis. The excuse sold to the people, “The state needs to expand its revenue base.” How does selling an addictive substance to a citizenry already near collapse from the weight of homelessness, illegal immigration, and government regulation improve the tax base? Simple question, never asked by the cheering media nor answered by the betraying elected leaders proposing another sale of an addictive and harmful substance. Ziad K. Abdelnour Quote: "Trust is earned, respect is given, and loyalty is demonstrated ...

Governor Cox ruled that when the Utah Jazz began awarding scholarships based on race qualifications, as not racist, his colors were evident as a betrayer in deed, not merely by word. Worse, look to the wording of his first action as governor, what is known as the Utah Compact on Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion: A Declaration on Five Principles and Actions to Create Equal Opportunity. First, we need to clarify that nothing in this declaration was needed as existing laws are regularly enforced already on the books. Yet, this new declaration adds some pretty ambiguous wording that is not clarified and will make judicial activism worse, not better. Leading to the first question, why was this signed into law by the governor who is expected to lead a state?

What does “economic inclusion” mean, and why should all Utahns or any citizens in a direct representative government agree this wording is essential? What is a “racially equitable state?” Utah and every other state in America’s union are already racially equitable, only made inequitable by the bureaucrats enforcing the government’s wishes. Consider the housing projects created by the federal government, supported by state governments, where race is inequitable by design. Tell me why the government doesn’t just end the housing programs and the racial division they created to have a class of people always ready to riot? 25 Quotes on Friendship, Trust, Love and Betrayal

What are “cultures of inclusion?” The US Constitution already declares in words of soberness, “All men are created equal.” The Utah State Constitution declares in Section 1 the following:

“All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess, and protect property; to worship according to the dictates of their consciences; to assemble peaceably, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances; to communicate freely their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”

As a point of fact, Section four of the Utah State Constitution remains an even more powerful declaration, more easily understood, supporting equal rights, where equal rights promote a society of inclusion, where cultures of inclusion are grown and sustained.

Further in the declaration on racial equity, diversity, and inclusion, we find another phrase with no meaning and lots of availability for abuse, “… equal opportunity and access to education, employment, housing, and healthcare.” The recent COVID-Farrago saw healthcare limited based upon race, and Governor Cox did nothing! The recent COVID-Government sponsored pandemic also saw employment and housing decisions influenced unequally, opportunities to pursue life, liberty, and happiness were restricted, and Governors Cox, Grisham, and Whitmer were leading the pack in cheering and advancing unequal treatment under the law. Why? Why is equality something to be turned on and off based upon skin color, obeisance to government mandates, and the cudgel of government used against citizens who have the right to be left alone? Betrayal Sayings and Quotes ~ Best Quotes and Sayings

In reading the five actions you have committed Utahans to follow, Governor Cox, I am left in a mental swamp equivalent to the Okefenokee Swamp. Racism in America, especially in Utah, only exists because the government is building a disgruntled class of people who can be depended upon to riot explosively anytime their government benefits are threatened. This is not equality and does not promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you have insisted that all Utahans are racist by default. I OBJECT!

Action item two declares the need to invest more in creating the perpetually aggrieved class. More welfare, not less, breeds more discouragement, anger, and racial inequity. Since the government has created racial problems and supports racial inequality through government action, why do we not reduce government to improve racial justice and inclusion? The remaining action items do nothing to advance anything but more government top-down actions, which further promote racism as a government action!

30 April 2020, the Michigan State Supreme Court stripped Governor Whitmer of her legal basis of powers for violating the citizen’s rights to representative government. Yet, Gov. Whitmer was able to continue to abuse, despise, and detest through government actions the rights, liberties, and lives of Michigan’s electorate for the entirety of the government-mandated COVID-Pandemic. Is there any more glaring example of treason and betrayal by an elected official, let alone a sitting governor, on a massive power grab? Newsom and Cuomo cannot pale the hubris of this governor, Gov. Whitmer; you deserve to be named beside Benedict Arnold, Doña Marina, or Brutus as the greatest betrayers and traitors in history.

Serial betrayal of the electorate appears to be a game; how much can a politician get away with, remain in power, and be considered honorable? Hollywood got something right in the Pirates of the Caribbean” movies when Captain Jack Sparrow said, “The deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and mutineers.” I believe in the rule of law and so wish you your day in court, in front of a jury of your peers, where justice may be served. I am not your judge, juror, or executioner. I am a concerned citizen who is fed up with the gamesmanship of politics!

Knowledge Check! America is a Constitutional Republic, a democracy, and a direct representative style of government; thus, I ask, who are you representing? The demographics of Utah reflect that the governor is not representing the majority of his constituents. The demographics of New Mexico and Michigan are similar but also reflect that the constituents are not being represented by the governments and governors currently executing the offices held. On the mayoral level, too many mayors are learning how to deceive, mimic despicableness, and manipulate the media to play the games and achieve elected offices beyond their maximum level of incompetence. Why is this happening, the gamesmanship of politicians? The bureaucrats consider themselves to possess lifelong employment in a cushy and “influential” office; they have lists of media heads to call and whisper to and lists of donors and influential people schmooze.

The answer to solving these problems is a more informed electorate and smaller government!

© Copyright 2022 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.

Competition, Collaboration, Cooperation, and Compromise: Revisiting the 4-C’s

Ziggy - The Government In 2014, I wrote about the powerful tools of competition, collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. I have been considering a revisit of this topic for several days, as the need for compromise, collaboration, competition, and cooperation seem to continue to fade and be plasticized. I also feel a dire need exists for every citizen to know what is happening and how to recognize when you were fed rotten mushrooms when you expected steak.

Andragogy - The Puzzle The inherent discussion is condensed from Thomas (1992), who advocated this combined approach to organizational design as a masterstroke to getting people working together. The same basic philosophy can be seen in the writings of Goldratt and Cox (2004), Lencioni (2002), Lundin, Paul, and Christensen (2000), Boynton and Fischer (2005), and Boylan (1995), among many others. Notably, these principles have been understood throughout time; Jucius (1963), in speaking of the broader issues in personnel management, understood the combined power of collaboration, cooperation, compromise, and competition and wrote extensively about using these effectively in the organization. Cruickshank and Davis (1958) understood these principles as a combined and more effective tool than different general direction strategies. All of these authors have strove to ensure business leaders understood the practical application and inherent need for the organization to adhere to these principles as a combined effort of all organizational members. McNichols (1963) strove to keep these items combined in executives’ minds, thus empowering them to discover solutions employing all the strengths in the consolidated collective use of competition, collaboration, compromise, and competition. The empowerment felt in combining these tools elevates the individual focus into a collected culture and body, and the solutions for an organization are improved dynamically.

Collaboration

Collaboration is strengthened by cooperation, compromise, and competition. Collaboration is all about action, working together with another person or entity to produce or create a product or service. However, like all words on this list, the term has a dark side and a legal standard born from the historical collaboration with enemy forces as a traitor. Collaboration originates with Latin from Collaborare, meaning to work together.

Senator McCain would call his political gymnastics with the then-Senator Obama as collaboration, or working peacefully together for the common good; but in honesty, the resulting product was more the traitorous use of collaboration. Unfortunately, the same pattern is visible in many current politicians who “make deals” to “make history.” Instead of writing laws suitable for everyone and are constitutional, while scrutinizing the legislative branch for runaway government.

Competition

Competition is the act of competing, and competing is all about striving to achieve something through defeating or establishing superiority over another. Competition must end in collaboration, cooperation, and compromise; in fact, competition will breed collaboration and cooperation to reach a compromise before those competing against; this is why competition is so powerful but not independent of the others. The fires of competition are crucial to purifying those collaborating, compromising, and cooperating into a single, honed unit that can more effectively work together.

The dark side of competition is what is witnessed in too many governments’ capitals. The hostility of establishing superiority has created monsters of hate, envy, spite, malice, and the citizenry are left betrayed and confused. The competition between political parties has bred such tremendous angst that neither political party can see past the next election and realize the competition they are in is meaningless, at best! I was disgusted with the political response to the Bush/Cheney election and the “Chads.” But, since that election, the rhetoric has only climbed higher and higher. The parties try to make enemies of each other and the citizens until a war of words and silly emotional jokes are running around, displaying their childish stupidity.

Compromise

Every adult in the room should be aware by now that a good compromise leaves everyone upset. This is a simple truth of humanity and has been apparent in every age of recorded human history. As a verb (denoting action taken) or a noun, the common definition of compromise boils down to the same thing, settling a dispute by mutual concession. Webster and Cambridge Dictionaries are pretty clear on this topic. Every side concedes a little for the whole to gain a lot. Compromise without cooperation or collaboration is nothing, and competition is an added value, or force multiplier, to ensuring more decisive compromise.

However, Speaker Pelosi (D) feels a distinct need to continuously offer this word as what happened in a political committee. But, she uses compromise as a verb with the following definitions:

- Bringing into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behavior.
- To cause to become vulnerable or function less effectively.
- Weaken (a reputation or principle) by accepting standards that are lower than is desirable.
- To accept standards that are lower than is desirable.

Hence, let me be explicit, compromise when discussing the 4-C’s uses the term as a noun or a verb using the common definition. Do we understand why Speaker Pelosi (D) and many other politicians from both sides of the aisle use compromise as a verb or plasticize compromise as a noun to describe the political chicanery happening outside the light of day?

For example, we could use the compromise of BREXIT as to why BREXIT went from a good thing to a punishment. We could use ObamaCare as a perfect example of political compromise, where lower standards became acceptable, and America’s healthcare became vulnerable due to the reckless and feckless behavior of the politicians involved! We could use the wasted time of the District of Columbia becoming the 51^st state legislation as a dispute brought by foolish behavior that forces the US Constitution to be violated by lower standards than desirable.

Cooperation

Cooperation is a process; this fact can never and should never be forgotten. A process requires investment from all sides, time, trust, and a clear goal to achieve. Cooperation is the rendering of assistance through ready compliance, not compulsory means! Cooperation can do nothing without the shared responsibilities of collaboration and compromise; when competition is added, the cooperation is strengthened, not weakened. Yet, even cooperation can be abused, turning friends into enemies, family into distant associates, and countries to war.

WWI and WWII brought the dark side of cooperation into life, and the same hatreds borne from those conflicts still exist today! Consider the US Civil War; President Lincoln wanted to forgive the Confederate States and welcome them back into the Union with open arms, no hate, no animosity, no recriminations. When President Lincoln was shot, the South was not brought back into the Union, except as an outcast. The citizens of the confederacy were treated horribly then and now through the punishment of the law. There are still actively used laws to punish the Confederate States, keeping the area in depression; this is the dark side of cooperation.

Angry Grizzly Bear The first post on this topic explicitly dealt with business and how businesses can use the combined power of the 4-C’s to more powerfully work together, advance towards a common goal, and achieve greatness. The same lessons taught in business should be applied to government offices and the elected officials holding public office. Yet, what do we find daily reported as news; childish behavior, tantrums, and vile deprecations towards those in the minority party. Even though history proclaims that today’s majority party is tomorrow’s minority party; hence, we should not be making enemies of each other. We should not be using the dark side of the 4-C’s as weapons of state to destroy but employing the light side to build, create, and grow.

References

Boylan, B. (1995). Get Everyone in Your Boat Rowing in the Same Direction. New York, New York: Barnes & Noble.

Boynton, A., & Fisher, B. (2005). Virtuoso teams: Lessons from teams that changed their worlds. FT Press

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Collins, J. (2006). Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany Good to great. London: Random House Business.

Collins, J., & Hansen, M. (2011). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and luck: Why some thrive despite them all. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Collins Business Essentials – A Collins Business Book: An Imprint of Harper Collins.

Cruickshank, H., & Davis, K. (1958). Cases in management (2nd ed.). Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin.

Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2004). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement. (Third Revised ed.). Great Barrington, Massachusetts: North River Press.

Jucius, M. (1963). Personnel management (5th ed.). Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons.

Lundin, S. C., Paul, H., & Christensen, J. (1996). Fish! A remarkable way to boost morale and improve results. New York, New York: Hyperion.

McNichols, T. (1963). Policymaking and executive action; cases on business policy (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science (Pre-1986), 26(3), 322. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/205849936?accountid=458

Mitchell, J. (2003). Hug your customers: The proven way to personalize sales and achieve astounding results. New York, NY: Hyperion.

Punia, B. K. (2004). Employee empowerment and retention strategies in diverse corporate culture: A prognostic study. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 8(81), 81-91. doi: 10.1177/097226290400800107

Robinson, G. (1999). Leadership vs. management. The British Journal of Administrative Management, 20-21. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224620071?accountid=458

© 2021 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.

The Call Center Leader Part 5 – Tacit Knowledge Combined with the Power of 4-C’s Produces Competitive Advantage

Tacit Knowledge, as a competitive advantage, remains a highly misunderstood topic in business due primarily to the difficulty in spotting, acknowledging, and then measuring this form of knowledge. Because managers, who preempt application, see tacit knowledge as a threat, leadership is required to implement its benefits. Tacit knowledge relies upon people implementing daily processes and procedures. Tacit knowledge as a competitive advantage requires freedom to improve those processes and procedures of daily work to understand how to improve. The principles of tacit knowledge are discussed and enhanced by Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) providing excellent discussion material for leaders to contemplate.

In detailing an operational definition of tacit knowledge, Ambrosini and Bowman (2001) designed a definitive definition for tacit knowledge as “context specific, … [generally] acquired on the job or in particular situations.” Proceeding further, Nonaka (1991) reiterated that tacit knowledge is “… deeply rooted in [both] an individual’s action and commitment [to] a profession, product, market, work group, or team.” Tacit knowledge contains elements of “practical knowledge” and remains “difficult to describe” unless the knowledge is described as a “process” to perform work. Taken together, tacit knowledge is a person’s commitment and knowledge gained in experience to understand processes and improve the same.

Let’s use an analogy to drive this point home. John works for call center A; Mark works for call center B. The leadership in call center B is very demanding, but rewards those who meet the challenges and provides freedom for front-line personnel to meet customer needs. Call center A does not demand much from front-line personnel except to perform their jobs as dictated, and managers are in place to ensure the job is done and nothing more. Both call centers have high employee churn numbers, both call centers are matrix driven, and performance is measured in seconds; both call centers compete with each other for the same customer base.

Because Mark has freedom and call center B is willing to reward, Mark has been focused upon improving daily operations and customer support. Mark sends several ideas to his manager and onto senior call center leadership. Several of Mark’s ideas find their way into organizational change and are implemented.

John has a personal desire to see call center A succeed and develops ideas to improve customer support while decreasing organizational inertia. John’s manager sees these ideas, discovers the ideas are good, and decides to take them as their own. John is pressured to leave call center A over the next 8-10 months; by this time, the ideas are practically worthless and cannot be implemented due to shifts in business conditions.

Tacit knowledge was at play in both scenarios. Call center B employed tacit knowledge to compete. Call center A employed tacit knowledge to thwart and denigrate. Herein also lies the leadership challenge and the need to understand and implement the principles of combining competition, collaboration, compromise, and cooperation, also referred to as the “Principle of 4-C’s” (4-C’s). Thomas (1992) extols the virtues of combining competition, collaboration, cooperation, and compromise as a tool to achieve success in conflict resolution, organizational improvement, and people development.

The continued application of all four principles, cooperation, collaboration, compromise, and competition, provides fertile ground for resolving problems and advancing organizational objectives. These 4-C’s must work together with no single principle more important than the other. Like the four-legged stool my grandmother used to reach high cupboards, the stability of the stool depended upon all four legs to ensure strength and flexibility to work exactly. Compromise and competition do not work without collaboration and cooperation. They are all interconnected, and the business leader, wanting to lead well, would remember this relationship.

Collaboration is strengthened by cooperation, compromise, and competition. Competition must end in collaboration, cooperation, and compromise; in fact, competition will breed collaboration and cooperation to reach a compromise, before those being competed against provide collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, and remain attached and honored as successful means to reach the desired win-win agreement. The fires of competition are crucial to purifying those collaborating, compromising, and cooperating into a single honed unit that can more effectively work together. Cooperation can do nothing without the shared responsibilities of collaboration and compromise; when competition is added, the cooperation is strengthened. Compromise without cooperation or collaboration is ineffective, and competition is an added value to ensuring stronger compromise. None of these can stand alone without elements of the others to support, edify, and multiply; along with the stated relationship comes the knowledge that if the agreement is not win-win the agreement is a straight lose scenario.

The inherent discussion above is condensed from Thomas (1992), who advocated this combined approach to organizational design as a masterstroke to getting people working together. The same basic philosophy can be seen in the writings of Goldratt and Cox (2004), Lencioni (2002), Lundin, Paul, and Christensen (2000), Boynton and Fischer (2005), and Boylan (1995), among many others. Notably, these principles have been understood throughout time. Jucius (1963), in speaking of the broader issues in personnel management, understood the combined power of collaboration, cooperation, compromise, and competition and wrote extensively about how to use these effectively in the organization. Cruickshank and Davis (1958) understood these principles to be a combined and more effective tool than separate strategies of the same general direction and strove to ensure business leaders understood the practical application and inherent need for the organization to adhere to these principles as a combined effort of all organizational members. McNichols (1963) endeavored to keep these items combined in the minds of executives; thus, empowering them to discover solutions employing all the strengths in the consolidated collective use of competition, collaboration, compromise, and competition. The empowerment felt combining these tools elevates the individual focus into a collected focus, and the solutions for an organization are improved dynamically.

Examples of the combined efforts of collaboration, competition, compromise, and cooperation are found in the writings and research of Collins (2001 & 2006), Collins and Hansen 2011), and Collins and Porras (1994). These books contain many organizational examples of companies employing the combined strategy as outlined and collectively harnessing the power in cooperation, compromise, collaboration, and competition to make the long-lasting change from “Good to Great” organizations. Collins (2001) discusses Walgreen’s transformation and employs the combined power into the new highly successful Walgreen’s store model. Mitchell (2003) discusses the same principles as CEO of Mitchells/Richards Clothing Stores. By embracing the combined power contained, this CEO has kept the family business growing. Both organizations, Walgreen’s and Mitchells/Richards, embraced the energy of collaboration properly supported by compromise and collaboration and invested in internal and external competition to drive the needed organizational changes. What Collins proves is that the collective power is not particular and rare, but available to all who choose to combine not separate, collect not disburse, connect and retain not divide, partition, and mutate. Leadership demands higher practical performance than management (Robinson, 1999; Punia, 2004; and Mintzberg, 1980).

The ability to rise higher must include all the attributes, strengths, and collective power found in collaboration, competition, cooperation, and most especially compromise. Having standards does not mean compromising personal or organizational standards for collaboration. Having standards is the discovery of common ground in collaborating for a common goal, enhanced in the fires of competition.

How does a leader begin to take tacit knowledge and combine it with the power of cooperation, competition, collaboration, and compromise, to achieve positive results; the answers are quite simple.

Allow and encourage idea submission. As a small business consultant, I am continually amazed at how many ideas are already in the minds of current employees to improve the organization. Open lines of communication in the organizational hierarchy for ideas to percolate. Train the employees to use these lines of communication. I cannot count how many times I have heard frustrated employees say, “I do not know who to submit my ideas to.”
Train people to think and improve. Quality control is not just for the quality group to monitor. Quality assurance is a minute-by-minute process every employee should be engaged upon to help the company improve. Train this principle from day one with new employees and revisit this idea at least quarterly and every time idea submission drops.
Competition is for external forces, but the 4-C’s principle is for everyone internally. Why have customer service teams competing against each other creating division and chaos inside the company? While sometimes healthy, many times petty in-house competition does nothing but destroy, denigrate, and deride already stressed and harried people. Stop tearing the company down in the front-line; cease the petty competitions between teams.
Rewards and awards must contain value to the individual or they are meaningless. I worked with an employee who had an award from a previous employer on his desk. The award was a horse’s rear-end in bronze, and the employee was exceedingly proud of having been part of the team that won that particular award. The employee had not worked for that company in 20-years, but remains proud of that award and the reward that came along with it. I was also part of a call center that handed out awards that went into the trashcan before the end of the award ceremony. Rewards and awards must be valuable to the recipient. To make this happen, choose to build people by showing the award and reward. Why is the Stanley Cup in the NHL so coveted? Individual teams and players are inscribed permanently as a reminder of greatness; more importantly, everyone in the NHL sees the cup. This is a pattern that can be and should be replicated in the call center; just do not let the competition become chaotically competitive or meaningless and petty. Remember, many teams in the NHL have never won the Stanley Cup.
Tacit knowledge has value. Cherish this knowledge as the genetic power of the company to thrive. Ask questions, listen to the answers, and remember the person providing input. Too often the person providing input is not recognized, and this failure to recognize contributions does tremendous harm to morale, dampening desire to contribute, and removing further access to potentially amazing results.

Finally,

5.5 Let the tacit knowledge and award/reward systems live. Tacit knowledge has a life cycle as sure as every product, service, work process, and daily procedure. Allow change to live, allow knowledge to live, and allow the freedom to change to meet new needs. This is probably the most important point in this list of actions leaders can take to employ tacit knowledge as a competitive strategy. Recognize the life cycle of ideas and stop being afraid of employee freedom and change.

References

Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), doi: 0022-2380

Boler, J. (1968). Agency. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 29(2), 165-181.

Boylan, B. (1995). Get Everyone in Your Boat Rowing in the Same Direction. New York, New York: Barnes & Noble.

Boynton, A., & Fisher, B. (2005). Virtuoso teams: Lessons from teams that changed their worlds. FT Press

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Collins, J. (2006). Good to great and the social sectors: A monograph to accompany Good to great. London: Random House Business.

Collins, J., & Hansen, M. (2011). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and luck: Why some thrive despite them all. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Collins Business Essentials – A Collins Business Book: An Imprint of Harper Collins.

Cruickshank, H., & Davis, K. (1958). Cases in management (2nd ed.). Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin.

Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2004). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement. (Third Revised ed.). Great Barrington, Massachusetts: North River Press.

Hickman, G. (2010). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Jucius, M. (1963). Personnel management (5th ed.). Homewood, Ill.: R.D. Irwin.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons.

Lundin, S. C., Paul, H., & Christensen, J. (1996). Fish! A remarkable way to boost morale and improve results. New York, New York: Hyperion.

McNichols, T. (1963). Policy making and executive action; cases on business policy (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mitchell, J. (2003). Hug your customers: The proven way to personalize sales and achieve astounding results. New York, NY: Hyperion.

Robinson, G. (1999). Leadership vs management. The British Journal of Administrative Management, 20-21. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224620071?accountid=458

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274.

The 4-C’s of Effective Leadership: Collaboration, Compromise, Cooperation, and Competition Are Desperately Needed – A Leadership Primer

Probably the most egregious and recognizable, contentious, viral moral and ethical dilemma spanning generations of workers across the world has to be the rise of labor unions. Starting with late 1800 immigrant families, in America specifically, a desire to improve the workplace arose, and rightly so. With child labor permanently injuring and maiming, the poor working conditions, and the repressive policies of the day, workers wanted protection and found it by unionizing. First generation immigrants in America taught their children socialized employment structures from their old countries that began to change the American employment structure. The lure of unions, the protection of unions, and the religion of organized labor unions were taught in homes. My wife, a second-generation immigrant from the “Traditionalist Generation” (Hickman, 2010, p. 478), relates stories of how disadvantaged working conditions were for her grandfather and father until they were forced to join unions. Benefits, wages, time off, and other accouterments became entangled into the lure of unions, and high union demands caused the closing and bankruptcy of many companies.

Hickman (2010, p.478) would call my father a “Baby Boomer,” who related stories of how advantageous unions are as being taught from his extended family. For my generation, “Generation X” (Hickman, 2010, p.478), I saw firsthand how reprehensible and destructive union organizations are and shunned them. Finally, labor unions are reporting the “Millennials Generation” (Hickman, 2010, p.478) as not being interested in labor unions as a majority, and union membership is plummeting among “Generation X and Millennials,” this despite what research relates is a predisposition towards favoring the concept of labor unions (US Chamber of Commerce, 2014).

While there are many reasons why unions are unethical, the main focus for this post is simply that people are not treated equally under union oppression. Unions suppress the desire to work together or cooperate, then infest the attitude of “us vs. them” into every relationship in the business organization, thus destroying any concept of competition, removing collaboration, refusing every aspect of compromise, but first killing cooperation. Ethical Dilemma Examples (n.d.) reports the various ethical divisions as:

“Normative Ethics – The largest branch deals with how individuals can figure out the correct moral action that they should take…
Meta-Ethics – This branch seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties and judgments, such as, if truth-values can be found and the theory behind moral principals.
Applied Ethics – This is the study of applying theories from philosophers regarding ethics in everyday life…
Moral Ethics – This branch questions how individuals develop their morality, why certain aspects of morality differ between cultures and why certain aspects of morality are generally universal.
Descriptive Ethics – This branch is more scientific in its approach and focuses on how human beings actually operate in the real world, rather than attempt to theorize about how they should operate.” (Ethical Dilemma Examples, n.d.)

Interesting in this discussion is that the case can be and should be made for the unethical state of unions in each of the above examples. By not treating all fairly, the leadership challenge becomes one to accommodate all while offending none, but since labor unions by default are always aggrieved, the leadership challenge becomes one of showing equal treatment under the law and continuing to allow labor unions to make grievances where no grievance exist. Millennials and Gen-X’ers are aware of the plots and ploys of labor unions, desire fair and equitable treatment based upon merit more than demographic alignment and insist upon equity and strong moral character in all employees, especially in managers and leaders (Hickman, 2010; & US Chamber of Commerce, 2014). The genetic mold of labor unions being good to the exclusion of all else is a myth that is dying. My parents were disheartened by union membership. While they continue to embrace the “hope” of a labor union, the reality is far different, and none of their children ever considered joining labor unions, even when incentivized to join.

A major part of the ethical dilemma unions embed into a business culture is that of competition over cooperation, but not normal competition, a mutated and unethical form of competition where means are overlooked and justified if the ends are sufficiently lucrative to the individual in power. The first casualty in a labor union takeover of a business is the cooperative nature between people dedicated and possessing passion working together towards a common goal. Cooperation dies, labor unions thrive, and competition infests businesses without labor unions due to the business owners, managers, and stakeholders fears of workers. A perfect example is the dysfunction of government where unions represent the front-line workers. No work is accomplished, taxpayer dollars are wasted, bureaucratic inertia abounds, and the labor union is the only party thriving. The workers in government show they can get away with demanding a specific change, then non-governmental unionized employees make the same attempt, creating more fear of the non-unionized employees making demands the business leaders would have to honor or address.

No advantages in labor union controlled organizations occur between cooperation and competition because many pertinent principles are being forgotten; compromise and collaboration are first needed to begin to form advantages or disadvantages. Thomas (1992) extols this approach due to conflict resolution; so, the continued application of all four principles, cooperation, collaboration, compromise, and competition, provides fertile ground for resolving problems and advancing organizational objectives regardless of labor union involvement. These four principles must work together with no single principle more important than the other. Like the four-legged stool my grandmother used to reach high cupboards, the stability of the stool depended upon all four legs to ensure strength and flexibility to work exactly. Compromise and competition do not work without collaboration and cooperation. They are all interconnected, and the business leader, wanting to lead well, would remember this relationship.

Collaboration is strengthened by cooperation, compromise, and competition. Competition must end in collaboration, cooperation, and compromise; in fact, competition will breed collaboration and cooperation to reach a compromise, before those being competed against provide collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, and remain attached and honored as successful means to reach the desired win-win agreement. The fires of competition are crucial to purifying those collaborating, compromising, and cooperating into a single honed unit that can more effectively work together. Cooperation can do nothing without the shared responsibilities of collaboration and compromise; when competition is added the cooperation is strengthened. Compromise without cooperation or collaboration is nothing, and competition is an added value to ensuring stronger compromise. None of these can stand alone without elements of the others to support, edify, and multiply; along with the stated relationship comes the knowledge that if the agreement is not win-win, the agreement is a straight lose scenario.

The inherent discussion above is condensed from Thomas (1992), who advocated this combined approach to organizational design as a masterstroke to getting people working together. The same basic philosophy can be seen in the writings of Goldratt and Cox (2004), Lencioni (2002), Lundin, Paul, and Christensen (2000), Boynton and Fischer (2005), and Boylan (1995) among many others. Notably, these principles have been understood throughout time. Jucius (1963), in speaking of the broader issues in personnel management, understood the combined power of collaboration, cooperation, compromise, and competition and wrote extensively about how to use these effectively in the organization. Cruickshank and Davis (1958) understood these principles to be a combined and more effective tool than separate strategies of the same general direction and strove to ensure business leaders understood the practical application and inherent need for the organization to adhere to these principles as a combined effort of all organizational members. McNichols (1963) strove to keep these items combined in the minds of executives; thus, empowering them to discover solutions employing all the strengths in the consolidated collective use of competition, collaboration, compromise, and competition. The empowerment felt in combining these tools elevates the individual focus into a collected focus, and the solutions for an organization are improved dynamically.