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

Ziggy - The GovernmentIn 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 PuzzleThe 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 51st 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 BearThe 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.

NO MORE BS: Intention and Discernment – Tools Worth Knowing

Foghorn Leghorn - MedicationParents, how many times have you witnessed a toddler going about their day, an idea crosses their face, and you can tell they are about to do something that gets that toddler in trouble?  I heard a comedian talk about witnessing this as the toddler saw the cat sleeping in the sun, the toddler crossed the room and kicked the cat.  When asked why the toddler claims “it was accident.”

What is intention?

Intention is all about deliberate action, using a plan, and involving ideas in action.  According to Webster, intention is also the healing process of a wound, but this definition is not part of our discussion.  From Latin, we find intentio as “stretching purpose” and originates with intendere meaning “towards, stretch, and tend.”

Calvin & Hobbes - Irony HurtsConsider these definitions for a moment and the story about the toddler kicking the cat.  We have a plan, a purpose, and a deliberate action.  How does the parent discern the act was deliberate; the use of observation as to what the toddler had done to the cat previously, what the toddler was doing immediately before they kicked the cat, and the attempt to use an excuse to get out of trouble.

Discerning Intention.

Never Give Up!When defining discernment, I am not entering holy waters to discuss the pieces of discernment that belong to discerning for religions.  Discernment is the ability to obtain sharp perceptions, observations that empower decision-making.  Discernment can be psychological, moral, or aesthetic.  Discernment is also defined through the contexts; scientific, normative, and formal. The process of discernment involves going past the mere perception of something and making nuanced understandings about its properties or qualities.

Note, there is also a legal definition, or standard, for discernment, “the cognitive condition of someone who understands; savvy, understanding, apprehension knowing about their actions before, after, and during the act;” which is where things get sticky when discernment and intention cross paths.  Hannity and Carlson disagree on the actions of the jury in the Derek Chauvin case.  Not being a lawyer and not knowing all the legal jargon, the best I can do is form an opinion.  I base my opinion on other high-profile cases where the media has condemned an individual as guilty before the judge and jury are formed.  Meaning, I feel the jury was intentionally and unfairly biased against Derek Chauvin due to the influence of the media and the mob outside the courtroom’s doors.Thin Blue Line

There was a shooting of a teenage girl in Columbus, Ohio, by a police officer.  The girl had a knife in hand, did not listen to the police officer responding, and lunged at another person before being shot.  Again, we come to discerning intention and split-second decision-making.  Only, in this instance, the officer has no history of the person holding a knife, only reports of a stabbing and an apparent altercation involving a knife when they arrive on the scene.  I offer no judgment in this case as this case continues to unfold, details are still being investigated, and family interviewed.  Yet, the media is already off and running their biased opinions, and mobs have formed for mobocratic justice, which is never just nor proper.

Calvin & Hobbes - Ontological QuandryUnfortunately, this pattern repeats too often, and thus the need to understand discernment and correctly discerning intention.  My intent is not to make you as adept at this practice as a police officer. In a Republic, and even in many democratic societies, the citizens need to discern and discern intention, two separate processes.  The media will sell a lurid and emotionally charged story with all the bias of a bull in a China Shop and never care about the consequences.  But, the citizen does not have the same luxury or legal protections as the media.  Hence, we must discern what the media relates and discern the media’s intention before we ever read or listen to their story/reporting of events.  Thus my intent in this article and bringing up this topic, we, the citizens, are held to a higher law than the media and cannot afford to form mobs, trust the media’s reporting, or even rely upon the press reported “facts” to discern and discern intent.

How do you make a decision requiring action?

GearsThe process for critical thinking, leading to intentional decision-making, with purposeful action, generally follows the following pattern:

      1. Gather data
        • Requires knowing the validity of the source data and trusting the sources.
      2. Organize the data
      3. Make preliminary decisions and determine an action to take.
      4. Beta test the decision through application to a minimal audience to refine the solution and ensure the integrity of the data.
      5. Roll out the entire decision, including the solution and the reasoning, take timely action.
      6. Monitor and make course corrections as needed.

Detective 4These steps are useless unless we understand our own intention before launching a decision-making process.  Consider, do you intentionally believe that others are doing their best or giving their best efforts?  Do you intentionally shut down your own opinion to consider the perceptions of others in making decisions?  Where in those steps do you stop and take a moment to ponder the short and long-term consequences of the solution devised?  When making decisions, do you ever consider the axiom, “If a solution is not Win/Win, everyone loses?”  Do we fear failing to make a correct decision if the future teaches us something new about the data changing the pattern of decision-making?  How do you learn?

Let us briefly examine that axiom, “If a solution is not Win/Win, everyone loses,” does not mean making everyone happy.  A good compromise leaves everyone upset and feeling cheated and settled on the issue under consideration.  Yet, the media and many politicians firmly believe that unless they win everything they desire in a solution, they have been robbed and feel justified in stirring up public angst and creating a worse problem.  The adults in society must understand both the good and the ill in creating Win/Win solutions, or all is lost, and the patients run the asylum.

Anton Ego 4In going back to the analogy of the toddler kicking the cat.  Does the solution in the short-term mean corrective behavior modification for a long-term lesson learned?  Does the better solution involve instruction as well as behavior modification?  Have we, the parents, discerned correctly the intention of the toddler sufficient to justify our decision?  Will the cat be safe around the toddler in the future because of the action we take at that moment?

How do you learn?

In answering this question, we must return to the topic of failure.  Do we consider failure a learning moment?   Do we appreciate the power of failing as integral to achieving success?  A close relative of mine in high school went out for the track team as a pole vaulter.  I looked into pole vaulting to learn more and was surprised at the ways, means, and multiple times the pole vaulter will fail.  The technical skills to pole vault are incredible, almost as unbelievable as being an operations manager in a manufacturing environment and being a parent.  Hence, the need for discernment and intention.

2012-08-13 07.37.28I close with a challenge, use discernment more intentionally in learning your way through failure to success.  Liberty and freedom allow us the power to fail our way to success, but only if we consciously choose to learn and discern better our steps in decision-making.  Know your intent, take a moment every day to consider your intent, and purposefully make decisions to live your intentions.  Trust yourself to discern.  Your confidence in discerning is key to understanding and using your intention to power decision-making as a process.  Please remember, what I am discussing requires time, you will fail, but you will also win and win BIG!  Enjoy the journey of discovery!

© 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.

NO MORE BS: M.I.C.E – The Driving Force for Politicians

ApathyM.I.C.E is an acronym I first discovered by reading Tom Clancy and representing Money, Ideology, Compromise, and Ego (MICE). Tom Clancy used this acronym for the reasons why spies become spies, I find MICE equally describes those seeking political office in democratically elected societies.  Frankly, I think it is time to shift the paradigm on how and why we select politicians to represent us.

Money

There is a lot of money buying influence in politics.  Interestingly, the money earned by a political representative is not the main reason for getting elected.  The money these representatives are looking for and desiring is the purchase of influence.  Consider Speaker Pelosi (D), 2018 she had assets of $257 Million, with $97 Million in liabilities, meaning that she has $1600 Million in assets.  Speaker Pelosi (D) makes $223,500 annually.  Pres. Biden has similar disparities between income and assets after liabilities.  Many of America’s most infamous politicians have the same disparity between income and assets after liabilities.  Purchasing influence is a massive business in politics.  Does anyone still remember all the influence-peddling the Clinton’s did and continue to do?  Even before they came to the White House, their influence-peddling was infamous!quote-mans-inhumanity-2

Ideology

Ideology, according to Webster, is “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.”  What ideological processes define a Republican?  What ideological processes define a Democrat?  Are these ideological beliefs stable, or are they changing like dirty socks for clean socks?  What can you observe about how ideology predicts behavior in the politician?

These are serious questions, as too often we, the American Citizen voting, cannot tell the difference between a Republican and a Democrat.  Worse, how often is what is said on the campaign trail thrown away the second the vote totals indicate a win?  Sen. McCain (R) is a perfect example of this; his ideology and spinelessness led many of his constituents to ask why the difference between actions on the campaign trail and actions in political office.

Want to know how someone will act long-term; ask them to define their ideologies, for there is nothing better to predict behavior than ideology.  How do you spot a thief in a crowd; ask them where they stand on taking a pen from a cashier after signing a check.  Ideology is the penultimate method for predicting behavior, and not enough ideological emphasis is being placed upon politicians seeking office!Government Largess

Compromise

Speaking of Sen. McCain (R), he was a legend on compromising.  Unfortunately, Sen. McCain’s definition of a compromise included throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Compromise officially is defined by Webster as a method of settling a dispute through mutual concession [emphasis mine]!  Each side makes concessions to reach an agreement that benefits both parties equally.  As a point of reference, it is often said that a good compromise leaves everyone mad and disappointed.  Yet, politicians continually abuse this word, manipulate their voters, and chaos ensues in the name of “compromise.”

Next time you hear a politician discussing compromising with the opposites on the side of the aisle, ask them what was given up reaching a compromise; if the giving was one-sided, it was NOT a compromise!  Take any recent legislation, and you will find no compromise, lots of hands getting greased to purchase influence, and a ton of abused and injured voters!Life Valued

Ego

The official psychological definition of ego is “the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.”  However, the only people using this definition are missing the point.  For the rest of the population, our definition of ego is much easier to understand.  The ego is a person’s image of their own self-importance, and where politicians are concerned, narcissism (a thoroughly overinflated ego) describes a politician perfectly!  Ego has been synonymous with self-conceit forever, and herein lies the problem where political leaders have been selected for too long.

Detective 4Canada’s President Justin Trudeau, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, US President’s Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, and so many other world politicians fill the ego bucket with self-conceit and narcissism that we could run out of ink trying to print a complete list!  Therein lies the answer, those desiring to hold public office should understand that ego plays a role in defining ideology, and ideology predicts future behavior.  The natural order contains natural consequences, for these bitter self-conceited people hold onto power long after their ideas have turned to destruction, the harm they cause has reached epic proportions.  The citizenry is numb from all the problems created by the egotistic politician.

While the book, authored by John Steinbeck, “Of Mice and Men,” has little to do with this post, it does proclaim this post’s sentiment.  There are MICE, and there are Men.  MICE who desire to be controllers of their fellow men and men and women who resist and continue to strive to see justice done in their name by elected representatives.  None of those for whom MICE applies should be allowed to hold elected office.  The only way to ensure a change occurs is for voters to demand more information on character, ideology, and ego and watch carefully for selling influence.

Millstone of Designed IncompetenceIt is past time for people to gather, stand, and insist upon better government representatives, including improved behavior from current sitting representatives.  I weep for Germany’s neighborhoods destroyed by Merkle’s policies.  Canada not only deserves better representation but cannot afford the government blight thrust upon her.  France, Greece, you will have to change, fundamentally change, or your countries will be lost to history as failed experiments.  America, what can I say that has not been said before; you need to understand what a Republic is, why a Republic is better than a Democracy, and you need citizens to awake and arise to the power they possess in cutting the strings to the millstone about your neck.  The millstone of government is killing you, and if you die, the world will be lost!

© 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.

NO MORE BS: Executive Orders vs. Legislation

Image - Eagle & FlagA republic is messy!  I have made this claim before on this blog, and I will continue to affirm and support the messiness that occurs in a republic, especially this our constitutional republic!  A republic requires politicians from both extremes on an issue spectrum to come together somewhere between the two extreme points for a compromise.  Please remember, a good compromise leaves everybody unhappy, but a good compromise is fair and the best way to govern.  The messiness of governing takes time and the mess and time protect the interests of the population!

The problem is that executive orders have become the tool of tyranny to make an end-run around the Constitution, stripping the legislative branch of its authority.  Just like when a legislator’s support is purchased with pork-barrel spending, passing legislation with purchased support or pork also does an end-run around the Constitution and robs the taxpayer to enrich the politician.  Both Executive Orders and Pork Barrel Legislation are immoral and unethical but have become accepted practice based upon historic legal precedence and the distorted minds of those in political power.

What is an Executive Order?

An executive order is a means of issuing federal directives in the United States, used by the United States President who manages the federal government’s operations. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources; however, the executive order is limited to the executive branch of government and the executive branch’s governmental operations.

Where executive orders are concerned, until revoked or superseded, the order remains in effect.  For example, Executive Order 9006 – Certifying the Territory of Hawaii as a Distressed Emergency Area.  The executive order was signed within 30-days of Pearl Harbor being bombed, stripped American Citizens of their rights, their property, their freedoms, and punished them.  Fred Korematsu argued before the Supreme Court that his rights and those of other Americans of Japanese descent had been violated by Executive Order 9006.  The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the government, saying that military necessity overruled those civil rights.  Here is the rub; there is no Congressional Legislation supporting this illegal seizure, the forfeiting of ownership, or Congressional Authority tied to the Executive Order; worse, there was no military reason to justify issuing the Executive Order.

LookNow, I get it, the Empire of Japan had just bombed America, and a day of infamy had descended.  The legal rights of Americans, regardless of their birth heritage, were stripped from them, not by Congressional Action signed into law by the President, but through an Executive Order.  Worse, this order has never been rescinded, and who knows what skullduggery continues to occur under this Executive Order.  As a historical sidenote, there was no justification for Executive Order 9006 – Certifying the Territory of Hawaii as a Distressed Emergency Area.  No military rationale, no social justification, and yet, this Executive Order caused tremendous illegal and unconstitutional actions in the island of Hawaii, which spread to all of America and saw many Japanese heritage Americans stuffed into internment camps.  Losing property, lives, livelihoods, and never receiving any compensation.

Do you need more proof that Executive Orders are in effect long after they should have been rescinded?  Look no further than Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote in his majority opinion in the 2018 case of Trump v. Hawaii that the Korematsu decision was explicitly repudiated.  In non-legal speak, Chief Justice Roberts refuses to be associated with Executive Order 9006 and the earlier court case, Korematsu v. Roosevelt decision, but did not rescind the order, make null the order, or demand the order be superseded.  The cravenness of Chief Justice Roberts to right a historical wrong is beyond contemptible!

What is legislation?

From Webster, we learn that legislation is the action of legislating “specifically: the exercise of the power and function of making rules (such as laws) that have the force of authority by their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization.”  The executive branch must sign these legislative actions before they become of full legal force.

Are Executive Orders Legal?

Executive orders have been made legal, as the judicial branch of government has essentially told the legislative and executive branches to argue the problem out amongst themselves.  Now, legal scholars will nit-pick the heck out of what I am about to say, but since I am not a legal scholar, decide for yourself; here is my opinion and understanding.  Yes; executive orders are legal.  Insofar as they guide the executive branch in directing the executive branch’s affairs, and is not intended to control the citizenry or be the “law” under which citizens lose their rights and privileges.  But, as for application to the US Population as a whole, no!  No, executive orders are not legal because the executive order acts outside the executive branch’s domain and attempts to supplant legislation.

DutyImportant to note, broad powers were granted to the US President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Sections 2 and 3 describe the various powers and duties of the President, including that “[the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  The judicial branch has granted significant leeway to the President to act.  When added to the powers Congress has consented to the President to run the executive branch of government, executive orders’ legality v. illegality remains a legal gray area.  Sometimes the President has been smacked down with their Executive Orders due to a stricter reading of the US Constitution. Other times a more lenient reading of the US Constitution and Congressional powers has allowed Executive Orders to stand.

The key to limiting Executive Orders is if the Congress considers an issue necessary enough to legislate.  However, do not be fooled; tremendous power is being wielded when a president sets their pen to paper and drafts an Executive Order.  Interesting to note, the lists of presidents with the most Executive Orders are as follows:

Are Executive Orders the same as legislation?

Executive Orders state mandatory requirements for the Executive Branch and have the effect of law. Historically executive orders were issued with a law passed by Congress or based on powers granted to the President in the Constitution and consistent with those authorities.  However, since Pres. Clinton America has witnessed the exponential rise of executive orders to bypass the legislative branch and control law through executive fiat and not legislation.

For example, President Obama, where the Paris Environmental Accord was concerned, ran around Sen. Harry Reid and the Senate, issued an executive order. America was then obligated to the Paris Environmental Accord.  Under the US Constitution, the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur” (Article II, section 2). … The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification [Emphasis Mine].  The Senate never ratified the Paris Environmental Accord, so President Trump was in his power to issue a countermanding executive order and remove America.  21 Jan 2021, Biden then issued another countermanding order and recommitted America to the Paris Environmental Accord.  Still making an end-run around the Senate and refusing the American people the opportunity to have a voice in the affairs of government, especially where costly environmental laws and obligations are concerned.

LinkedIn ImageIs it clear that executive orders’ abuse is strangling America and creating chaos across the entire globe!  All because the politician currently in power refuses to engage in the correct and legal processes of conducting the people’s business, and all political parties are guilty!  The precedent for issuing Executive Orders controlling business outside the executive branch started with Pres. Abraham Lincoln when he made an end-run around a contentious Congress and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Not that the Emancipation Proclamation was not needed, not that it did right, not that it was not the exact tool at the precise time, simply that Congress refused, and the President acted through Executive Powers rather than Congressional Legislation.  Setting the legal precedence for the current abuses of Executive Orders in the last five presidents.  Six if you count the current sitting president who issued 15 Executive Orders on his first partial day in office as a “show of strength.”

Legal, yes; legal, no, is a gray area!  Not what the founding fathers intended when drafting the US Constitution.  Want to drop down a rabbit hole of incredible size and shape, look up old Executive Orders, read them carefully for the powers claiming their legality, and then look at recent legal decisions quoting those old Executive Orders.  Lawyers have a saying, “Bad cases make bad case laws.”  That saying is especially true where Executive Orders are considered.

In rule by Executive Order, there is a great caution.  Rule by executive decree is tyranny!  Making end-runs around the co-equal branches of government is a slippery slope that becomes easier and easier once begun upon.  A recent example of this is found in the Obama Presidency.  President Obama is on record claiming he could not issue executive orders to fulfill the wishes, hopes, and desires of the liberal few.  Then, a few short months later, after issuing a slew of Executive Orders, President Obama issued Executive Orders, flip-flopping like a boneless chicken breast, and granting the liberal few their hopes and wishes by executive diktat.

3-direectional-balanceWhat I am going to put forward is not fearmongering but a need to awaken the American People to the dangers of rule by Executive Order.  The Emancipation Proclamation is an Executive Order.  If a President can remand or supersede any previous Executive Order, what is to stop a President from rescinding the Emancipation Proclamation?  Nothing!  The chaos caused by Executive Order rule in a Constitutional Republic is a danger that all people, of every political flavor, need to recognize and communicate to those in power to cease this abuse forthwith!

Those in power can only abuse the controls and restrictions placed upon the government through other governing tools.  Therein lay the protection for the American People and the risks to the American People.  Hence, the need to know, understand, and act to protect the government from overreach and freedom theft.

© Copyright 2021 – 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.
All rights reserved. For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/

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.

  1. 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.”
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

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

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

© 2016 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

 

 

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.

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.

References

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.

Ethical Dilemma Examples. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29th, 2014, from http://examples.yourdictionary.com/ethical-dilemma-examples.html

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.

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

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

US Chamber of Commerce. (2014). Article: General Foundation – The Millennial Generation Research Review. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://www.uschamberfoundation.org/millennial-generation-research-review

© 2016 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

 

Understanding Competition, Collaboration, Cooperation, and Compromise – Shifting The Paradigm to Unify and Enhance

Every time an author discusses separating collaboration, cooperation, compromise, and competition into separate pieces and offering one of these as a strategy for success, I want to shout, “none of the offered ‘strategies’ offer the ‘greatest general benefit’ without the support of all the others.” 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, 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. 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, or force multiplier, to ensuring stronger compromise. None of these can stand alone without elements of the others to support, edify, and multiply the efforts of the humans involved.

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.

Examples of how 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, 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 the 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, invested in the 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 and partition. 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 the standards for collaboration, but it means finding common ground in collaborating for a common goal, enhanced in the fires of competition.

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

© 2014 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved