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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference

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

© 2012 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

Employee Organization – Or “A Referendum on Knowing Societ[ies]”

Tribus (n.d.) discusses organizational change, the need for education, and the power of learning.  In ‘Changing the Corporate Culture: Some Rules and Tools,’ a principle relating to unintended consequences is discussed herein.  The principle is the difference between a ‘Learning Society’ and a ‘Knowing Society’ as discussed by Tribus (n.d.).  With the ‘Right to Control’ firmly embedded in an employer’s pocket of control, the unintended consequence is that every employee becomes a heavily guarded fortress of knowledge as a means to survive in a corporate organization.  Every employee must ‘know’ his job or risk losing that job.  This mindset has lead to terms like, ‘Group Think,’ ‘Knowledge Management,’ etc., and creates the legal arguments and problems swirling around ‘Intellectual Property.’

One term not found in Tribus (n.d.) is that which I have labeled as ‘Keystone Mentality.’  A keystone is found in architecture when building an arch.  The keystone is the center stone in an arch that provides the balance upon which the entire arch hinges.  A ‘Keystone Mentality’ is found in every business in the world where a single employee hoards knowledge, considers hoarding knowledge appropriate to ensure job security, and never gets sick or takes vacation, as they (the Keystone Mentality) erroneously perceive that the business will suddenly stop if they take a break.  ‘Keystone Mentalities’ gossip, rumormonger, betray fellow employees, and generally take ‘any means necessary’ to protect their position from intruders.  The ‘Keystone Mentality’ is the hallmark of a ‘Knowing Society’ created through employee churn, developed in the fires of adversity, and held in positions of power by those who refuse to learn because there is a ‘Keystone Mentality’ to take the slack or rely upon.  Quid pro quo is the least of the unethical behavior allowed when managers rely upon a ‘Keystone Mentality.’

Another aspect of a ‘Knowing Society’ is nobody learns anything.  Since the expectation is that everyone already knows, why share knowledge.  Where is the incentive to not be a ‘Keystone Mentality?’  Where is the incentive that encourages a person to bend, to be humble, teachable, or to learn?  Learning requires humility, compassion, empathy, and leadership of people.  A consequence from many “Knowing Societ[ies]” not mentioned by Tribus (n.d.) is that ‘Knowing Societ[ies]’ build psychopaths, sycophants, and pathological liars.  ‘Knowing Societ[ies]’ are managed by people, who, if they do not know something, bluff, ‘fake it until they make it,’ and the cloning of Neanderthals becomes accepted practice, this is often referred to as, ‘good corporate politics.’

Young students are instructed to never stop learning.  Why do graduates of high school, college, advanced degrees in business choose to stop learning every facet of the organization to which they are employed; the answer lies in the ‘Right to Control’ and the demands for ‘Knowing Societ[ies] in the places of employment.  Corporate training for a new position mostly entails discovering whom to turn to for answers.  It becomes a game of who do you know, that I know, that they do not know, so we can look good for another boss, who is pulling the same game in the chess match of corporate politics.  The larger the organization, the more frustrating this problem becomes.  Small business and even some mid-size businesses have one or two people, who have been with the company since inception, know everybody, have their fingers in all the pies, and feel all the pulses. Gossip from these people can make and break careers.  Being anathema to change, ‘Keystone Mentalities’ will always act first from a position of corporate survival, then from a position of power to receive quid pro quo, and then, maybe, for the good of the company.  The issues caused by and demonstrated as a result of current principles utilized by ‘Knowing Societ[ies]’ are unquestionably clear.

‘Learning Societ[ies]’ require leaders who know people and are humble enough to teach and be taught.  Learning remains a two-way street with responsibility and accountability flowing from teacher to student and back to teacher in a never-ending circle.  Leaders in a ‘Learning Society’ will ask questions, employees will ask question, the answers come from other leaders and employees, knowledge is shared so everyone wins.  The organizational health is sacrosanct, and when everyone wins, everyone prospers.

Shifting the employment paradigm requires organizations to embrace learning, encourage experimenting, and demand accountability for new learning being applied.  Until the ‘Right to Control’ resides in the individual’s power and not in the organization’s, a true shift from a ‘Knowing Society’ cannot occur.  Some organizations provide lip service to learning being key and crucial to success.  The Federal Government does lip service to reduce spending with the same affect.  Until the individual is free, accountability and responsibility in the workplace, in a society of professionals, and in our communities will continue to diminish.  These principles are not new; Tribus (n.d.) speaks of them, talks about them, and has been insisting this is the path to tread.  Nothing changes until the basic equation shifts.

The time is now for business leaders to encourage employees to become knowledge workers, contractors, and freelance consultants.  The time is now to begin and to embrace the path outlined by Tribus (n.d.); shift the paradigm in employment; and change, lead, and re-discover the power of education.

© 2012 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

Additional Reading:

Tribus, M. (n.d.). Changing the Corporate Culture Some Rules and Tools. Retrieved from: Changing the Corporate Culture Some Rules and Tools Web site: http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/den/change_cult.pdf

Freelance or Consultant vs. Employee: Or, The Structure Wars

Labels, like manners, matter.  Social researchers are always resurrecting or creating new labels, classifications, and divisions to increase variable control.  Through variable naming and onto controlling, social researchers slip bias for particular variables into research reports, slanting conclusions, creating disharmony in the population, and destroying unity.  The results can be seen and witnessed in every facet of American Life.  Republicans are constantly pitted against Democrats, both are pitted against Independents, and inside these general classifications are heaps of additional labels, splitting the general classifier into ever smaller and more easily controlled sub-groups such as Constitutional, Conservative, Progressive, etc.  From this disharmonious adventure in social research has come a plethora of laws benefitting one sub-group against other sub-groups, upholding gender against gender, religion against religion, culture against culture, and forcing courts to choose.  The end result, everyone loses.

This same division has caused business organizations problems aplenty since the WWI era.  Government has forced business to uphold cultures, genders, and personal choice over what is best for the organization.  The relationship between law and the organization is going to be reviewed in future writings.  This first review assesses the definitions for freelance or consultant and employee as well as the relationship behind labels, and the dilemma and burden of the hierarchy of business organizations.

Freelance

According to UseLegal.com (2012) freelance workers are self-employed; work for their selves, bid for open work, and are independent of the business hierarchy.  Contractors and Consultants are considered in this category.  Freelance employees possess some tax benefits, risk problems, and American Business has embraced these classifications for filling work in times past to reduce payroll expenses.  Freelance workers must justify their work, intentions, and pass a 20-point test from the IRS to qualify as a freelance worker.

Employee

Again from UseLegal.com (2012) the actual definition of an employee is quoted herein, “An “employee” is defined as “a preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions” or “an individual in the excepted service (other than a preference eligible) . . . who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service.” Ramos v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24378 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2009)”  Essentially, a person can be hired by an employer, but does not attain employee status and protection until that person has been hired for a continual year by the same employer, is not under a ‘probationary period,’ and or appointment.

An employee agrees to be controlled by an employer; the production of that person is only one of the controls granted to an employer; conduct both on and off the job can be controlled, along with the means and manner of producing the work specified.  The right to control is the primary determining factor in this relationship.  The right to control is also the deciding line between freelance workers and employees.  Upon this single imperative hang tax law, responsibility of parties, risk, and every item in employee/employer relationships, hierarchical structures, and will ultimately decide who or which party is in charge.

Fancy axioms have been created to express a need to become more creative in thinking, to break the model of dependency, and drive ingenuity and creativity back into the workplace, but these axioms do not reduce control and their purpose is immediately lost when applied to restoring workforce employee choices.  To change the paradigm, business organizations must evaluate their ultimate motivation with regard to employee relationships, and employees must decide as individuals how they can best foster their knowledge, experience, talents, and skills whether in a climate of self-control or company control.

Long has it been claimed that, “Those who pay, rule.”  By choosing to be an employee, the rights of the employee to control his responsibilities are surrendered to the employer in exchange for less tax burden, regular paychecks, and a continuity producing security.  Supervision, management, or control is placed upon an individual’s agency in exchange for less risk.  Less risk breed’s complacency, complacency breed’s compliance, compliance breed’s servitude, and thus the individual is captured in a system of control producing a menial mindset.  This menial mindset is expressed by phrases like, “Captured by the system,” Taken over by the man,” “Brainwashed,” etc., and has created a dilemma in every business organization.  The dilemma is this:  although business organizations have control over processes and individuals, this control restricts or prevents employees from doing exactly what business organizations desire in an employee, which is the ability to use ingenuity, logical thinking, and freedom of action so necessary in business interactions and transactions between employee and customer.

The epitome of this dilemma is that the federal government has consistently made having control more expensive through taxation, mandating benefits, and increasing controls thus forcing businesses to choose to either exert more controls upon employees or go out of business.  This simple fact is the driving force behind shifting the employment paradigm.  It is past time for freedom in employment to break out, to return to valuing knowledge acquisition in business transactions, and to enhance freedom in all aspects of individual lives and livelihoods.

© 2012 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved