Leading the Call Center: Flavor of the Month Philosophies

Chinese CrisisHaving just completed a project that saw me leading a team in a call center, I want to make something clear; quick fixes and flavor of the month philosophies do not work.  I cannot stress this enough; yet, the practice continues to the detriment of call center employees and the organizations served by call centers.  Flavor of the month philosophies is the latest bestseller to fix the problems in business.  We have all seen these programs including, FISH, WAIT, Strengths Quest, and so much more.  These ideas are good ideas, and they possess value, but when changed monthly, these programs, never do more than briefly mark the surface intellect of the call center.  I am not disparaging these ideas in the least; let me elaborate as to why the flavor of the month idea fails.

The project previously mentioned when concluded saw the call center director very much converted to a program of definite value in and using one’s strengths entitled Strengths Quest as presented by Clifton, Anderson, and Schreiner (2006).  The culture of strength promotes unity, and by extension, organizational power, when combined intellectually, becomes the corporate culture.  Integration in business, especially in call center operations, remains crucial to bottom-line health.  The call center director invested a lot of organizational resources to capture everyone’s strengths, publish these advantages, and use this information to measure the call center.  The problem was the staff has no idea why they are investing company time in completing the “Clifton Strength’s FinderÒ (CSF),” and many completed this assignment while taking calls and distracted.  How verifiable is the data if the attention of the person completing the task is diverted?

My assignment, as a call center supervisor, included gauging the employees in the call center about their strengths.  Of the 10-employees in the call center, two had forgotten and blatantly said they do not care.  Three expressed a desire to retake the CSF to more fully focus on the task instead of completing it between calls.  Four employees asked why and what is the purpose of taking the CSF.  Finally, all the employees, when asked how they use the CSF data in their daily actions, expressed the same answer, I do not know.

Let’s be clear; there is nothing wrong with the latest flavor of the month programs to improve an organization, provided the leaders understand change, embrace change, train and teach “the what” and “the why,” and then remain committed long after the excitement over the bright new object fades.  I had the misfortune of working in a call center where the entire corporate culture was expected to change with every fresh flavor of leadership, and the organization is a mental mess.  What is a leader to do when each new flavor-of-the-month is presented as a potential fix for organizational dilemmas?  I suggest the following as a launching point for corporate discovery and leadership support.

  • If the organization is going to invest resources in a particular program, do not change for a set period, which includes pre- and post- measurement and evaluation. If the organization does not know where they start, they can never know what happened or where to go in the future.blue-money-burning
  • Organizational change must be more than surface polish or potential money (Blue Money) is lost, never to be recovered. Organizational change needs to fundamentally affect the organization and be allowed to produce measured results.  Does this mean that if something is not working, we keep at it?  No!  It means to provide sufficient time and measurement to gauge the application and the organizational change.  Many times beta-testing the proposed change can identify the processes, procedures, and other trouble points to be mindful of, or correct in beta-testing, to ensure full organizational change may occur with a higher chance for success.
  • Get everyone involved, enthused, and a willing advocate for the change. Getting everyone involved is not producing marketing materials and desk references.  Getting everyone involved requires explaining why and detailing what in the organizational change.  Getting everyone involved means there will be feedback, pushback, and rebellion.  Expect pushback, but never allow pushback to derail reform.  Pushback is a healthy activity that provides essential opportunities for the leader to explore solutions, answer questions, and evaluate the results.
  • Teach and train; train and teach. Learning should be a constant and desirable outcome of organizational change.  Teaching is not training, training is not teaching; but, both are critical skills needed for leaders and learners.  Teaching is helping someone else acquire knowledge.  Training is teaching a behavior or ability.  Teaching is usually one-way communication using measurement tools, e.g., tests to gauge knowledge learned and retained.  Training should be two-directional communication, is completed through experience in closely monitored environments, and includes 360-degree feedback to improve the training environment.  Never allow teaching and training to become the same confused term; while the words are closely related, they are not the same action.
  • When was the last time you discussed what you are reading with front-line employees? When was the last time you engaged a front-line worker about what they are reading, thinking, and ask for suggestions to improve?  When was the last time you asked to be trained on a process, procedure, or organizational action by those who do it all day?  If recently, did you ask why, a lot?  I promise you will be surprised when you have these conversations, especially since they open up opportunities to explain and expound, learn, change, adapt, and engage with those you lead.
  • Organizational change requires enthusiasm from all parties to begin to engage and deepen the shift from surface polish to fundamental culture adaptation. Enthusiasm takes many shapes, sizes, and colors, including the loyal opposition of followers, opinions, and feedback.  The leader must exemplify and honor, or support, the enthusiasm around them as a tool for succeeding in changing the organization.
  • Clarify intentions. Clarify processes.  Clarify procedures.  Clarify by asking follow-up questions and reflectively listen to obtain mutual understanding.  Clarification remains one of the most critical tasks in organizational change.  When confusion rears its ugly head, respond with explanation and follow-up, as detailed in two-directional communication.  When the comprehension is doubted, ask for feedback as an opportunity to increase clarification.  Clarification is both a tool and an opportunity; do not waste this opportunity and tool by neglecting those needing clarification.
  • Organizational change needs a mechanism for gathering data from many sources, including the employees affected, the vendors, the suppliers, and the customers. Open the valve for data to flow back.  One of the most horrific organizational changes it has been my displeasure to witness was increased because the leaders operated in a vacuum and never allowed data flow that was contradictory to the previously agreed upon results.  The leaders in this organization worked hard to refuse hard data, which contradicted their bias, and this ruined the business, the employees, and the customers.

I cannot guarantee following all these points will make organizational change succeed, roses bloom, bottom lines inflate, rainbows dance, and all of life fall into organized lines leading ever upward.  I can guarantee that without these points, organizational change that promotes an environment of learning will never be more than polish.  Consider the axiom, “Lipstick on a pig.”  The lipstick is not bad, the pig is not bad, but placing lipstick on a pig is out of place and does nothing to improve the pig.  Flavor-of-the-month changes are lipstick on a pig, not bad, but out of place until the entire organization is on board and enthusiastically supporting the move, and proper measurements are in place to gauge, measure, and report the change.

Business theorist Chris Argyris put forth a model, later discussed by Senge (1994) explaining our thinking process as we interact with the world.  This seven-step method is called the Ladder of Inference; according to this model, as we move up the ladder our beliefs affect what we infer about what we observe and therefore become part of how we experience our interaction with other people.  Organizational change can be plotted along the same model or ladder of inference.

Leadership LadderOrganizational change begins with information output; then collect data, preferably through listening and observation while doing the work; interpreting the data includes obtaining data, evaluating meaning, deciphering intent, and understanding value.  Please note, the assumptions should not be made in a vacuum and could be wrong; thus, always return to the data producers and ask questions to ensure mutual understanding.  Once conclusions are mutually understood, they become beliefs; but, don’t stop until beliefs become actions.

If a model is needed, please benchmark Quicken Loans and Southwest Airlines, both organizations are doing a tremendous job with the ladder steps, especially moving organizational beliefs into motivated organizational action.  Remember, one does not climb a ladder to view the horizon and scenery, they climb a ladder to begin working, carrying the tools needed to perform the work, and possessing certain knowledge that the work can be accomplished.  Climb the ladder of success with the intent to work, achieve, and move forward.


Clifton, D. O., Anderson “Chip,” E., & Schreiner, L. A. (2016). Strengths quest: Discover and develop your strengths in academics, career, and beyond (2nd ed.).

Senge. P. M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

© 2017 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 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.


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


Organizational Culture: A Leadership Opportunity and Responsibility

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been employed by both organizations mentioned. Both employment situations have ended, and I currently have no further business with either organization. I do continue to develop relationships inside these organizations and have great hope for both businesses to further succeed. It is hoped that the commentary here promotes and helps, as nothing said here should be taken as derogatory. The comments come from research of more than a decade in both organizations, long discussions with employees, vendors, stakeholders, and other customers of both organizations. If either organization would like to comment, their full and unedited commentary will be posted in following discussions.

Creating a culture follows a basic set of principles, namely the example of the leaders, including their words and actions, followed by repetition and the passage of time (Tribus, n.d.). Tribus (n.d.) specifically places the core and creation of organizational culture in the example of the leaders regardless of whether the leader is a leader or a manager by action and word. Hence, the example of the leaders and managers remains more potent to organizational culture than any other single item. As an example of this, Quicken Loans has “ISM’s” which the entire organization is expected to live creating the culture of the business. These Quicken Loans “ISM’s” are exemplified first by the leaders, supervisors, directors, managers, to front-line and new hires from the first interaction with Quicken Loans.

We need clarity here: a leader is never a manager and a manager never leads. While a leader might have duties similar in nature to a manager, the point of focus in the leader is to build others, while the manager’s focus will be to protect and defend their own patch of ego. A leader welcomes inputs, allows freedom, and generates followers. A manager throttles all organizational communication, refuses to accept responsibility or accountability, and destroys any who might be perceived as a threat. An overabundance and overreliance upon managers has been the major cause of problems in business for 40+ years. The dearth of leaders and leadership remains a core organizational cancer for many businesses, to the detriment of all societies, associations, and environments.

To create a culture specific to adaptability, several additional key components are required, namely, written instructions, freedom, and two-directional communication in the hierarchy (Aboelmaged, 2012; Bethencourt, 2012; Deci and Ryan, 2000; and Kuczmarski, 1996 & 2003). Again, the example of Quicken Loans “ISM’s” remains important and applicable. Quicken Loans has an “ISM’s” book available for free to any visitor and any office. This printed material forms a contract with the vendors, customers, visitors, etc., who desire a copy to judge the organization on each of the “ISM’s” printed. The same information is part of the Quicken Loans website. ISM’s remain subject to change to improve the entire organization. Ability to change is a key quality required for all organizations and cultures.

Alvesson and Willmott (2002) add another component to this discussion. As the organizational culture takes hold of an individual employee, the employee begins to embody the culture, for good or ill, in their daily interactions both personally and professionally. This hold develops into an identity adding another level of control from the organization over the employee binding them to the organization. The identity control becomes a two-edged sword, as the employee will form loyal opposition that can be misinterpreted to be intransigence, and the loss of that employee causes other employees to question their identity and the organizational culture. Or the opposite, the cultural hold is one that breeds desire to not only onboard the culture but personally invest in the organizational culture, and the employee experiences a positive feedback loop building trust in the organization.

Two examples, two separate cultures, two distinct differences in employee attitudes and behaviors are as follows. University of Phoenix has a problem with organizational culture being mentioned from the first day of training, such as employees discussing “how things used to be” and “desiring a return to previous cultures and leaders.” This attitude forms its own culture, creating distrust, and invalidating organizational change. Other attitudes and managerial expressions reinforce this negativity to the detriment of all employees, customers, vendors, and stakeholders. Regardless of the printed statements to the contrary, changes have not become embodied in the organization and the example is telling.

The second example is Quicken Loans. Talking with previous employees reveals a favorable rating of the organization. Talking with current employees on any level reveals a personal favorite “ISM” that speaks to them as a motivating influence for improving daily. The same holds true for decision-makers; many of the vendors and most of the longer-term customers all share a similar “ISM” experience. Example makes the difference!

Quicken Loans and University of Phoenix are creating a culture attuned to the kind of organization they desire, what the organizational leaders communicate, how leaders are seen exemplifying the organizational culture, and building that culture one employee at a time until that employee then begins to sponsor other employees into the organization’s culture. For good or ill, the same process of example propels the organization towards growth and development or trouble and market share loss. The organizational leader must set clear goals, define the vision, and obtain employee buy-in prior to enacting change, then exemplify that vision after the change (Deci and Ryan, 1980, 1985, & 2000). To change an organizational culture, this process must be followed.

Key to this process is Tribus’ (n.d.) [p. 3-4] “Learning Society” vs. “Knowing Society.” The distinction is crucial and the organizational culture must be learned and the process for continually learning honed and promoted to protect the culture from variables both internal and external. A “Learning Society” adapts, builds, grows, and is continually flexing in change akin to a finely crafted sword. A “Knowing Society” is overrun with bureaucracy and managers, fails to grow, cannot flex in change, and remains brittle under a polished exterior, which consequently stresses that exterior causing problems to erupt in a multitude of different areas taxing already tight resources and impacting future ability to adapt to change.

© 2016 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved


Aboelmaged, M. (2012). Harvesting organizational knowledge and innovation practices: An empirical examination of their effects on operations strategy. Business Process Management Journal, 18(5), 712-734.

Alvesson M, & Willmott H. (2002, July) Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal Of Management Studies 39(5): 619-644. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 27, 2014.

Bethencourt, L. A. (2012). Employee engagement and self-determination theory. (Order No. 3552273, Northern Illinois University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 121. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1294580434?accountid=458. (prod.academic_MSTAR_1294580434).

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–80). New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Kuczmarski, T. (1996). What is innovation? The art of welcoming risk. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(5), 7-11.

Kuczmarski, T. (2003). What is innovation? And why aren’t companies doing more of it? What Is Innovation? And Why Aren’t Companies Doing More of It?” 20(6), 536-541.

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

Technology Integration: An Evaluation – Understanding Technology

Please note:  The following is Part II of the conversation on technology and the workplace.  While written from an academic perspective, the author hopes to launch a conversation on integrating technology and shifting the current paradigm into a more holistic and practical approach to technology.  Please comment.  – –  Thank you!

Currently many organizations have a problem with technology integration. A new operating system, new legacy systems for employees, and new support systems for employees and customers have all been launched, but the resulting chaos needs to be addressed. Even while the legacy systems and previous technology, had problems, the new is not trusted and a culture of distrust is representing Dandira’s (2012) leadership dysfunction causing organizational cancer. The organizational leadership disconnection to the problems of both the external and internal customers reflects poor technology integration. The following evaluation aims to both highlight the problem and offer best practices to correct the problem, not from a distant point in the future, but from where the organization is now. The purpose of this document is to positively affect the technology integration, bringing forth a new culture while correcting inherent problems in the current organizational design and culture.

Problem Statement

Ropohl (1999) defines the problem advocating that all technology comes with social change. The ideal technological integration would include aspects of Ropohl (1999) to both alert organizational leaders to the change, while also supporting the new culture with leadership presence. The reality is that current front-line thinking reflects organizational leadership as never considering the problems with integration such as, the problems experienced in learning curves to learn the new technology, processes disconnected from legacy systems to the new support technology, SOP’s not current or plain wrong, and never planned for the cultural or technological shift, only the technology was important. The consequence as detailed by Dandira (2012), exasperated current problems with employee and customer frustration including more regionalism, less collaboration, higher stress, and, most disruptive, political culture growing and separating the organizational leaders more from the front-line employees and external customers. The growing feelings of disconnection are the main target of this research. Since technology disrupted an already exasperated problem, the solution can, and should, include the new technology integration. Measuring the technology integration and providing empirical evidence in where to pour resources is the aim of this document.

A Technology Integration Model

Using the core business combined with the disparate duties of each region in the business model, it remains of premier import to not ruin the business model, but restrain regionalism and political games. Thus, Wixom and Todd (2005) provide sound guidance. By focusing resources, as suggested by Wixom and Todd (2005) on both “User Satisfaction” and “Technology Acceptance” the organizational leaders may begin to gather the much needed data to empower decisions. The Wixom and Todd (2005) model is as follows:

  1. Focus early design on user interface. This includes “how work is done” and “why work processes flow the way they do.” Organizations invest many resources into the user interfaces, but the common perception is that broken processes will remain broken.  The process is how the use will interface with the technology to do the work of the organization.  Even small shifts in technology will change the processes and they will need reviewing.
  2. Practical utility. This is not a job for marketing, or a role to be onboarded by a single department or entity. The question to focus upon remains, “Will the user be able to utilize efficiently the new technology?” Other questions branch from this question, pointing to how work is accomplished, why, where, when, and a dream list of users for the new technology.
  3. Attitudes and beliefs influence behavior. Employ “object-based beliefs and attitudes” to positively affect “behavioral-based beliefs and attitudes” (Wixom and Todd, 2005, p. 86). This simply means dispelling the beliefs that one legacy is inherently bad because of a lack of training or another employee’s personal opinion, and another piece of technology is inherently good for the same ambiguous reasons. Currently on the production floor, there are thousands of these beliefs and attitudes hampering productivity. Omar, Takim, and Nawawi (2012) discuss the principles contained here, in-depth referring to this as technological capability (TC). TC is more than the sum total of training, experience, technology, and access to technology; TC is the inherent momentum building motivation into an organizational culture.  Note, motivation is more than desire and capturing motivation, including negative motivation requires leadership interfacing with front-line employees directly, not through command edicts and measuring adherence through statistics.

Trist (1981) employs similar methodology in coal mining as suggested by Wixom and Todd (2005), in improving technology, by focusing on end users, making the processes and procedures easier to adopt, decluttering screens, moving buttons and links to a more natural position on screens, defining terms, etc. practical usability increases and the attitudes and beliefs change dramatically. Ropohl (1999) extends this discussion in reminding organizational leaders of the social aspect to work, especially when work involves high-level technology to accomplish social interactions. Wixom and Todd (2005) quote Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) for the specific principle espoused by Trist (1981) and applicable here, “For accurate prediction, beliefs and attitudes, must be specified in a manner consistent in time, target, and context with behavior of interest” (Wixom and Todd, 2005, p. 89). Specificity of connections between actual instances and timely response remains one of the steps missed. For example, why three legacy systems that all customer service facing employees should be knowledgeable in; when 50% of the front-line employees have no access to one legacy system due to work design. One system is only used for a single process infrequently employed to complete work; yet all three systems are not trained, necessitating desk guides, QA controls, and more resource investment for no appreciable gain. These long-term employees, considered as subject-matter experts, receive tasking’s to train new hires, but the long-term employee spends more time passing on genetic knowledge, assumption, bias, and opinion, than actually training to a specific standard.

London and Beatty (1993) offer sound counsel for the remedy in suggesting 360-degree feedback loops tailed to the end of each tasking. These feedback loops should be end user controlled, so if additional questions, comments, and concerns arise, the problem does not sit in a manager’s workload, but becomes part of the directors tasking to complete to the satisfaction of the front-line employee, not the director. Wixom and Todd’s (2005) model specifies both a need for practical utility and employing technology to change end used behaviors and attitudes. Integrating technology requires building trust. Trist (1981) discusses this topic obliquely when discussing how employees treated researchers until trust and relationships of trust were established. The same trust issues arise in Wixom and Todd (2005) and Ertmer (1999) capitulates that end user trust is a critical building block in socio-technical systems (STS), without this element, all the specialized technology in the world cannot overcome the inherent mistrust and thus lack of usage of technological solutions.

While discussing safety in the workplace, Budworth and Cox (2005) provide sound guidance applicable to technology integration by insisting that trust involves four elements: “Commitment throughout the organisation [sic] (especially from the top); Competence at all levels of the organisation [sic], through directors, managers, advisors and employees; A structure; and A high level of involvement” (Budworth and Cox, 2005, 46). These elements form the bedrock of any relationship in an organization requiring trust and receive reference in Trist (1981) when discussing the organizational changes required when performing STS successfully.

Scoring the Integration

London and Beatty (1993) demonstrate a valuable insight by describing many “360-Degree Feedback” loops as only “270-Degree” (p. 353). Thus, the first effort in scoring technological integration is ‘360-Degree’s’ of feedback. Those initiating the technological shift, regardless of the technology or lack thereof need to understand the social implications of the change.  A simple scorecard is an effortless tracking system and should be made available to all parties involved in the change. Budworth and Cox (2005) expound upon trust, developing trust, and keeping trust, this is a day-to-day action an organizational leader initiates to followers.

Coombs and Bierly (2006) provide the next items for measurement in scoring technology and the integration process is as follows, “The following six measures of performance are used as dependent variables: return on assets, return on equity, return on sales, market value, market value added, and economic value added” (Coombs and Bierly, 2006, p. 421). Several of these ‘six measures of performance’ include human elements to which McKinnon (2003) and Ropohl (1999) both espouse as critical to technology and integrating technology into an organization. For example, a return on assets for computers purchased to interact with server and intranet technology requires end users. If the end user is unable to effectively use the tool, maximum return on assets remains unachievable, linking back to Wixom and Todd (2005) placing premier emphasis upon “Practical Utility” (p. 86). The same process remains traceable from each of the ‘six measures’ (Coombs and Bierly, 2006, p. 421) to the model espoused and delineated by Wixom and Todd (2005) mentioned above. The same pattern then expanded to each of the items on the scorecard. Leadership, inferred from Robinson (1999) and Toor and Ofori (2008), requires action, differentiation, and risk, along with active empathic listening, to build committed followers. The leader must be a follower and their actions transparent to build the committed trust advocated by London and Beatty (1993).

Suggestions from Research for Best Practices

Ropohl (1999) advocates, Trist (1981) implies, Coombs and Bierly (2006) infer, yet Omar, Takim and Nawawi (2012) emphatically state, a holistic approach to technology integration in STS remains a primary goal.

“…Technological capability refers to an organisation’s [sic] capacity to deploy, develop and utilise [sic] technological resources and integrate them with other complementary resources to supply the differentiated products and services. Technological capability is embodied not only in the employees’ knowledge and skills and the technical system, but also in the managerial system, values and norms” (Omar et al., 2012, p. 211).

More simply summarized, get everyone involved, allow for suggestions from outside the core group of developers and programmers, and keep the three main principles expounded upon by Wixom and Todd (2005) to be the focal point of energy. Technology must first focus on how work is done currently and designed for how work ‘will be done’ eventually. Include the SOP’s in the design; operating procedures develop from both technology and human element exposure. By not including upgrades and revisions to operating procedures while designing and integrating critical design steps, opportunities will be missed and greater expense incurred.

Discussed extensively has been some manner of ‘360-Degree Feedback’ loop in communication. Organizational leaders need to face the fact that they do not have all the answers and feedback is valuable to building the type of trust needed in a constantly changing atmosphere. While feedback loops are part of best practices, the importance of these types of communication requires realization and action. Consider the external customer, as a valuable stakeholder, stop presuming organizational leaders know what is required in every process, procedure, and organizational action taken by every employee at every organizational level, obtain feedback and then market who suggested it e.g. the actual customer gets credit, to build trust and affection for the leadership and the organization by all outside the organization. The same principle applies to internal customers or employees; when a suggestion warrants inclusion, advertise who made the suggestion, when, and display how this is an improvement. 360-Degree Feedback loops also include policies, procedures, work processes, etc. Wixom and Todd (2005) along with Omar et al., (2012) advocate this action as initially prescribed by Toor and Ofori (2008).

Omar et al., (2012) provides the concluding and paramount best practice in technological integration into an STS model, “keep it simple.” Many times an axiom a useful to remember this principle is ‘KISS’ or ‘Keep It Supremely Simple.’ Trist (1981) exemplified this principle by keeping the pieces small, the approach simple, and allowing as much holistic growth from inside the organization as possible. Organizational leaders do not need to ‘dumb down’ the message, but simplify. The difference is vast; the approach declares the difference between ‘dumbing down’ and simplified communications. Consider a ‘dumbed down’ message originates from the position of, “I am better than you, you are too stupid to bother with, and I must talk to you in small terms for your benefit;” whereas, a simple message originates from a position of equality with a desire to be understood primarily. Dandira (2012) places the responsibility for simplicity at the feet of the CEO. When the entire organization, led by the CEO, is engaged in simplification, less political games occur, less regionalism, lowered stress, and higher productivity result. Dandira (2012) calls this approach a cure for organizational cancer, discovery of an organizational cancer cure and a best practice renders itself bench-marketable.


            This document has presented a STS integration model designed by Wixom and Todd (2005) as a preferred set of principles to launch STS. Many organizations are currently engaged upon a major or minor technology shift, thus some of the early design work has been done on the technology, but none of the processes control work have been revamped and new SOP’s published. This woeful lapse will continue to hamper STS until rectified and while this primarily will rest upon organizational leaders, purchasing buy-in from employees and other major stakeholders remains an advocated best practice. By calling upon other IT integration researchers, namely Omar et al., (2012), Wixom and Todd (2005), along with Ertmer (1999), other factors discussed include measurement tools and additional principles for design, implementation, and ultimately integration. The author advocates a holistic approach as supported by the research to embolden employees, value customers, and enhance the brand experience, regardless of position or role in the organization.


Budworth, N., & Cox, S. (2005). Trusting tools. The Safety & Health Practitioner, 23(7), 46-48. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/201021810?accountid=458

Coombs, J. E., & Bierly, P. E. (2006). Measuring technological capability and performance. R&D Management, 36(4), 421-438. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00444.x

Dandira, M. (2012). Dysfunctional leadership: Organizational cancer. Business Strategy Series, 13(4), 187-192. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17515631211246267

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47(4), 47. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218016186?accountid=458

London, M., & Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a competitive advantage. Human Resource Management (1986-1998), 32(2-3), 353. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224341530?accountid=458

Omar, R., Takim, R., & Nawawi, A. H. (2012). Measuring of technological capabilities in technology transfer (TT) projects. Asian Social Science, 8(15), 211-221. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1338249931?accountid=458

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

Ropohl, G. (1999). Philosophy of Socio-Technical Systems. Society for Philosophy and Technology, 4. Retrieved June 29, 2014, from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v4_n3html/ROPOHL.html

Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2008). Leadership versus Management: How They Are Different, and Why. Leadership & Management in Engineering, 8(2), 61-71. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2008)8:2(61)

Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framework and an action program. Occasional Paper. Retrieved June 29, 2014, from: http://www.sociotech.net/wiki/images/9/94/Evolution_of_socio_technical_systems.pdf

Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/208159952?accountid=458

© 2014 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

Biology in Action – Or, Can an organization be successful inside another organization?

Program Note, much of this blog was formed and used as responses to discussion assignments at the University of Phoenix.  The assignments were completed first and this is mentioned to avoid plagiarizing myself.  This topic is vital to understanding hierarchy in organizations, understanding labor unions, and creating an organizational culture of respect.

The question was raised, “Can an organization exist within another organization?”  The short answer is absolutely.  The human body is a perfect example of this principle as it forms symbiotic relationships with all its systemic organizations to maintain the health of the whole body.  Applying the principle of symbiosis to a business organization is very possible and advocated. 

The principle of symbiosis is simple:  mutual dependence or reasoning that the overall health of the two organizations is improved by working together.  The opposite of symbiosis is virus.  The principle work of a virus is to take from the host in an adversarial capacity, regardless of the host’s physical/mental/ spiritual health or future well being.

The body has been reported to form viral and symbiotic relationships to improve the life and well being of the host.  Biological research explains the benefits of viral and symbiotic relationships to the host or body, long and short term, and why and how they work.  I mention this solely because I do not want a perception to be fostered of virus equals bad and symbiosis equals good.  Shen (2009) writes about the need for study into beneficial viruses as a method for fighting disease and improving the biological organization.

Biology has a direct bearing upon organizational design, organizational change, and organizational hierarchies, to name but a few practical applications for benchmarking biology into organizational leadership.  As an example, vendors and customers form vital links with a host organization; the most important of each party becomes a stakeholder in that organizational host.  Both parties could form a viral or symbiotic positive or negative relationship, and both positive and negative relationships can be beneficial to the host organization.

A recent event in the airline industry demonstrates the principles of symbiosis and virus in action.  Many unions in the airline industry cross between hosts.  For example, the pilot’s union crosses between US Airways and American Airlines.  American Airlines pilots go on strike for more money, but the US Airways pilots do not go on strike.  Current events declare what happened next, the unions banded together against the American Airlines host and forced a merger between American Airlines and US Airways.

Had the unions been in a symbiotic relationship the pilots and the managers at American Airlines would honestly communicate intentions, desires, and come up with a plan that benefits all sides in a win-win solution.  Always remembering, the host “American Airlines” provides parties, the managers and pilots, in the labor dispute with paychecks, employment, and other benefits, so the life of the host should be of paramount concern.  Other interested parties in this discussion are the airplane mechanics unions, the ticket counter unions, the steward/stewardess unions, and other parties such as airport organizations, flight controllers, and the American Airlines customers.  Many people depend upon the life of the host organization for their livelihoods, just as the entire body depends upon the life-processing resources of the heart.

The question remains, is the distinction clear enough?  When unions choose to be viral, they force concessions from the host, initiate mergers for personal power, and run to friendly judges and governments to empower themselves, regardless of the host.  Hostess was forced into receivership because of the labor unions closing a well known brand and destroying the lives of millions of customers and thousands of union and non-union employees.

Those in the labor dispute have a choice to make based upon their perceptions and intentions:  whether to become a virus, consuming or confiscating resources until the host is exhausted of physical and/or intellectual assets, damaged, and destroyed or to be symbiotic in nature and find mutually beneficial ground, compromising and negotiating desires to facilitate the survival of the host as well as its own survival.  Each customer, vendor, stakeholder, etc., faces this decision in dealing with the host:  Is it better to negotiate or not to negotiate? If the answer is affirmative, symbiosis is beginning.  If the answer is negative, a viral position has been decided.

Long have I maintained that the study of biology improves organizations; knowing how to differentiate between viral and symbiotic organizations provides the distinction to guide organizational change and even conduct day-to-day operations.  For example, being able to identify contractors based upon the principles of virus and symbiosis can safeguard the entire host organization.  A contractor representing a virus will confiscate or consume resources and return waste.  A contractor representing symbiosis will use resources to magnify or increase the value and health of the host organization.  The differentiation is not so much a discussion of dollars and cents as it is the distinction of service, quality, and attentiveness to the host brand.  Thorough understanding of the principles of virus and symbiosis from a study and knowledge of biology provides the basis upon which new paradigms are designed, new organizational cultures and hierarchies established, and the power of relationships are harnessed for the betterment of all, not just a few.


Shen, H. H. (2009). The challenge of discovering beneficial viruses. Journal of Medical Microbiology, 58(4), doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.002246-0

A Recent Customer Service Issue – Or, An Example of Why it is Past Time to Shift the Employment Paradigm

            Many sources, most of them veterans, will agree with this statement, “Dealing with the Veterans Administration is an activity fraught with hostility.”  On March 2013, I had the misfortune to experience another hostile occurrence.  Following is what happened.  The VA Hospital left a message in my voicemail alerting me that they had scheduled an appointment for me.  The message included instructions for me to call if this appointment caused scheduling difficulties, which it did.  I called the number, punched in the extension, was hung up on once, called back, and reached an appointment scheduler. The VA had scheduled my appointment for the middle of my workday, which required that I take time off my job to make the return call to discuss the scheduling conflict of the appointment.  The request was simple; please change the appointment to either early morning or late afternoon.  Although I requested no date preferences, travel and loss of work considerations were important and difficult to arrange and especially significant because I was a new employee and attendance is critical.

            The attitude of the appointment scheduler went from simple hostility to overt and active hostility at my request to move the appointment time.  The appointment scheduler reminded me in the most descriptive tones bordering, but not crossing into, profanity that it is “YOUR RESPONSIBILITY” [Emphasis his, meaning my responsibility] to keep the appointments as scheduled by the VA regardless of the inconvenience it causes me.  December 2012, before the start of my current employment, this appointment had been scheduled three times.  The VA canceled the appointment three times, and only once was the cancellation communicated to me prior to my driving to the hospital, checking in, and waiting for the appointment.  The same appointment scheduler provided the same hostile attitude in person as on the phone and made the following statements, quoted verbatim:

“Employment is NOT an excuse for moving an appointment with the VA Hospital System.” [Emphasis his]

“Moving your appointment is a privilege being extended to you that has not been earned.”

Judging by certifications on the walls of this person’s office, he is an example of award winning customer service at the VA Medical Center.  Having been a patient at several VA Medical Centers across the country, having been a customer at several of the VA Regional Offices, and having been a customer of the various VA Call Centers, unfortunately I have found this attitude typical.  This conversation was reported to the Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) for review.  I declined further follow-up as unnecessary.  The PACT team member did have a unique thought process; she continually returned with the same descriptive term for this incident, ‘not compassionate’.  I refuted this determination several times claiming unprofessional, irresponsible, and ludicrous, but the main complaint continued to be ‘not compassionate’.  The term simply does not fit the incident.  This incident was not created by a lack of compassion, but through an organizational culture gone rogue, hostile, and grown wild.

Returning to the incident, let us be clear and simple; the problem is not the workload the scheduler was quick to point out and often stated the amount of appointments scheduled in a month; it is not the individual; always the problem remains with the system, the organization, the processes and procedures, and finally the training.  This is institutional deterioration at its most egregious level.  “Juran’s rule (Tribus, n.d., pg 5) whenever there is a problem, 85% of the time it is in the system; only 15% of the time will it be the worker.”  This is very telling in this situation.  Before looking to the worker, examining the system will be the answer 85% of the time.  Organizational cultures are the “system” described by Tribus (n.d.) and Juran.  Organizational Designers will specify cultural steps for improvement, thus the PACT team, the focus on compassion, and the ultimate deception ‘customer focus’ hidden under the guise “Patient Aligned Care.”

The problem is a dual core issue, no personal responsibility for outcomes and no personal accountability for results.  This is the organizational culture feeding the hostility, the derision, and animosity found in all VA/Veteran interactions.  The front-facing customer service agent is not held accountable nor feels a responsibility towards the work he or she performs.  Because the same employee is protected in his work by the system, the system becomes a detriment to patient/customers and safeguards the individual from criticism and censure preventing the possibility of change in the individual.  The incredible amount of bureaucracy legislated, litigated, and lumped upon the VA must be exposed to the disinfectant of sunshine i.e. brought to the public attention, reduced bureaucracy in support of veterans and their families, and new solutions created to improve service.  The real solution is not focusing upon a culture grown wild, but short-circuiting the existing corporate culture to jumpstart a new culture.  It is past time, especially where all government agencies are concerned, to shift the paradigm, remove the job security, and breathe the life of freedom and true customer centered focus, i.e. the taxpayer, back into the various government and non-government organizations.

Considering the above incident, if the scheduler was an independent knowledge contractor whose contract extension rested solely upon the referrals and customer surveys of the VA’s customers, the above incident would not have occurred because accountability and responsibility would demand the patient receive higher value as a customer.  If the same accountability and responsibility were carried to the entire chain of command, to all the processes and procedures, and to the organizational hierarchies, the VA would not be the punchline before the epithet in a veteran’s story, but become respected for the work it does.  Yes, the VA has a difficult task to perform.  Yes, the workload is daunting.  Yes, as a government entity, cost constraints and budget decisions matter more than patient care.  Nevertheless, the patient should be more respected, valued, and serviced more appropriately.  By shifting the employment paradigm, an advantageous outcome to all stakeholders involved in the organization is a firmly projected possibility.


Tribus, M. (n.d.). Changing the Corporate Culture Some Rules and Tools. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from: Changing the Corporate Culture Some Rules and Tools Web site: http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/den/change_cult.pdf

Shifting The Employment Paradigm – Or, Hastening The Trend to Stop Knowledge Loss

Several mainstream academic and corporate researchers are reporting a trend in employment, shifting from an employer-employee relationship with fixed costs to a non-traditional or contractor based workforce, where costs rise and fall as needed to fill business needs.  American Express recently announced a huge layoff; other business organizations are also scaling back employee hours or executing mass layoffs.  Since the New Year (2013), several business organizations have announced reductions, under Federal Government pressure, making full-time employees become part-time employees with less than 20 hours a week scheduled.  Before implementing mass layoffs and the inherent drain of knowledge resulting from those layoffs, business leaders would do well to research shifting from employees to knowledge-based contractors, which has proven profitable and unencumbering to the ebb and flow of transition and to the uninterrupted, well-ordered processes of success as well as solving the unintentional consequences of unresolved patterns of cost escalating loss.

Consider the costs, not simply dollars and cents, but intellectual cost, productivity costs, time lost, and more that is now draining the resources of these organizations.  The fixed employee costs are too egregious to be borne, but the need for the work of the employee remains.  The fix to the problem continues to lie in disconnecting the employee and connecting that same worker to the organizational brand as an independent contractor.

For example, Company A employs 200 people.  Federal Government Regulations declare that the new fixed income costs have risen to $10,000 per employee, totaling $2 million annually.  Company B is a direct competitor to Company A and employs the same number of people, but 175 of these employees are contractors with various length contracts for specific work projects, hour of the day specified, and wages.  Company B, according to the IRS, employs only 25 employees at the same cost per employee of $10,000 totaling $250,000.  The advantages are obvious, realistic examples abound, and the process is slowly advancing.  It is past time to hasten this work.

Consider the loss of intellectual power during a mass layoff.  This is a potential (Blue) cost and the impact is measured in final (Green) cost outlays.  John Q. Worker, has been with Company A for three years and has moved from production labor to supervisor, mainly by his competency in keeping production running smoothly.  John and his senior team members have been groomed as subject matter experts and are recognized for their professionalism and work knowledge.  John’s team is laid off along with several lower ranking members of other teams.  The knowledge drain in production creates a debt into which training, time, and other company resources must be poured to recover the loss of knowledge when John and his team were laid off.  In a down economy, how does Company A recoup the loss of knowledge?  What happens if John and his senior team members, who all work well together, approach Company B and offer their knowledge for sale?

This single cost reflects a vast amount of organizational resources that will require double the cost outlay to replace.  How is the investment doubled? John was just one person; however, the doubling of the investment comes from the immediate lack of knowledge coupled with the need to train a replacement on the job.  Layoffs only work in boosting short-term profit margins but remain a permanent lose-lose situation for the business organizations due to the intellectual drain, the doubling of costs to replace and restructure, and the need for business to continue.  Needs of business do not go away when employees are laid off.  Yet, how many of these now doubled costs would be an issue if John was changed simply from an employee to an intellectual worker, in fact, all those who were laid off.  John and his team would remain in their current roles performing their skills and talents with freedom and independence, and the company would gain a powerful resource for improving production as well as taking a straight loss and turning it into a permanent gain.

This is the power of the independent contractor model.  Layoffs are straight loss scenarios: employers lose, employees lose, communities lose, states lose, and ultimately the entire society loses.  Jobs lost in New York make for tougher times in California.  Collins (2001) wrote, in his book ‘Good to Great,’ about this cycle of layoffs and the destruction caused.  If American Business cannot or will not choose a different model to embrace, other than employee/employer, the American Experiment is doomed to fail; doomed because the same problems inherent in ‘Right to Control’ are the root causes to runaway government power grabs, compensatory spending problems, and theft of public resources for personal gain.

Other thoughts from Collins (2001) include the following gems for consideration, regardless of your level of leadership.

“Mergers and acquisitions play virtually no role in igniting transformation…”  This means that changing organizations through merger or acquisition does not correct the core problems in an organization.

“Technology … has virtually nothing to do with igniting transformation…”  Adopting new technology does not change core problems.

“Greatness is not a function of circumstance.  Greatness … is largely a matter of CONSCIOUS CHOICE.”  [Emphasis mine]

The final quote from Collins (2001) is the perfect thought:  choose greatness, free the employee to become an independent contractor.  This brings about the final conclusion discovered by Collins (2001): “… Good to great companies paid scant attention to managing change, motivating people, or creating alignment…”  Collins (2001) declares this is possible because the workers were empowered with the dual culture of entrepreneurship and discipline.  Other authors and business researchers are drawing the same conclusions.  When the employee is empowered, truly empowered, the organizational leaders are free to drive the company because the people problem is solved and the freedom to use their skills and talents as a contractor perfects the processes and procedures.

Shift the paradigm, free the employee, and watch the business become great.

How does Company B from our example manage all the contracts?  The HR team contracts two-contract lawyers for contract design.  One full-time IT person engineers the contract website where the prospective contractor creates a contract using options personally motivating to the contractor.  Upon legal endorsement of the validity of the newly created contract, the head of the HR Team, working in concert with the head of the department, makes operational changes to meet essential requirements, which are presented to the potential new contractor for negotiation and agreement.  Upon reaching an initial agreement, the document goes back to HR Legal Team for final review and approval.  Once completed, the new contractor signs with the department head and work begins.


Collins, J. (2001). Good to great why some companies make the leap… and others don’t. (1st ed.). New York, New York: HarperCollins.

© 2013 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved