Welcome to Winners At Work Blog section.

Download PDF

Download PDF

by

Tim Baker

WINNERS-AT-WORK

presented to the Second International Conference on researching Work and Learning at the University of Calgary, Canada (26th to 28th of July)

Abstract

This paper presents a model of a new employment relationship covering eight core attributes. A new employment relationship based on new mind-sets about the management/labour relationship is the foundation for achieving sustained productivity in the current climate of increased competition and accelerated change. The model offers practitioners strategies for merging the often conflicting needs and interests of workers and organisations.

Introduction

It is argued in this paper that a new employment relationship is the foundation for organisations to attract good staff and keep existing employees interested, committed, and productive in a climate of accelerated change, uncertainty, and global competition. Furthermore, it seems increasingly likely that until this “new codependency” (Noer, 1997), based on new mind-sets about the management/labour relationship, evolves, the abundance of human resource techniques in the popular management literature will continue to be superficial and unsustainable attempts at addressing the perennial challenges of how to treat people at work in order to motivate them in pursuit of higher performance. Developing new ways of treating the management/labour relationship presents a big challenge for practitioners How can new paradigms about the employment relationship evolve after 200 years of “them and us” thinking about management and workers borne out of the industrial revolution? On the other hand, the futility of popular human resource strategies will become more evident in an increasingly competitive environment where all the old employment conventions are being challenged.

This paper aims to define some of the key attributes of a new employment relationship. The outcome is to develop a model for the purposes of measuring and monitoring the extent to which modern organisations have evolved from the old employment paradigm to embrace the merging of workers’ and organisations’ needs and interests.

Much of the management literature enthusiastically advocates the pursuit of a new employment relationship (e.g. Adamson,1997; Albrow,1997; Baker, 2000; Bridges, 1994; Drucker, 1992; Eldridge, Cressey, and MacInnes,1991; Gee, Handy, 1989; Hull, Lankshear,1996; Grint,1997; Noer,1997) without providing practitioners with the necessary tools to change the mind-sets of employers and employees. On the other hand, the implementation of the proliferation of modern human resource techniques and strategies designed to increase organisational output bypass the core issue of challenging the traditional worker-manager relationship. What is needed are practical change management approaches and techniques that are grounded in the conceptualisation of the new employment relationship.

Rationale for a New Employment Relationship

After some 200 years of industrial organisation, solutions to the problem of motivating employees to give of their best have proved to be surprisingly elusive and are still being relentlessly pursued by an army of organisational analysts and behavioural scientists. There is no shortage of advice in the popular management literature on techniques and strategies to get workers to give of their best. Morgan (1993) points out that we can not hope to create new organisational forms with traditional thinking. “We have to get beyond tinkering with existing organizational structures. We have to imaginize and explore creative possibilities that can add new chapters to the history of how we organize and manage” (p.10). Heightened competition fueled by the move to a global economy has bought into sharper focus the need to abandon traditional thinking about the employment relationship.

For the past 25 years in particular we have witnessed unprecedented changes in the way organisations conduct business. Companies have embraced new concepts, undertaken new initiatives for improvement, and in so doing have changed the way work is performed. As Neusch and Siebenaler (1998) put it, organisations in recent times have:

… done TQM and JIT. They’ve been Kaizened and QFDed, activity-base costed, reengineered, flattened and right-sized, moved from low gear to third gear in speed-to-market, and have focused mightily on customer satisfaction. They have asked employees to work in teams and to become involved, empowered, committed, and productive (p.xv).

As other writers acknowledge, these initiatives are a response to the demands on organisations to become more maneuverable in the marketplace (Kanter, 1983; Peters, 1992; Peters & Waterman, 1982). However the results have generally failed to gain sustainable commitment from employees. In other words, while most companies pay employees for a whole day’s work, they still fail to get the whole employee (Neusch and Siebenaler, 1998:xv).

The strategic potential to achieve competitive advantage for companies is shifting away from the traditional factors such as production and process technology, economies of scale, financial resources or protected and regulated markets. The emphasis seems increasingly likely to be in the direction of adequate deployment and management of workers. Organisational leaders are compelled to view their employees increasingly as an investment needing careful attention, rather than a cost factor that needs to be reduced. The individual in this context is being seen as an “entrepreneur within the enterprise” (Wigand, Picot, and Reichwald, 1997) and consequently finds themselves as central to business success. Increasingly, qualifications, capacities, experiences and the creative potential of the worker are primary success factors in the current, competitive times.

Despite the need for a change in strategic emphasis, organisations are generally not viewed by workers as a cooperative enterprises where sharing of the cake is negotiated on any principled basis. Worker/management-owner conflict has been the dominant historical model, and not surprisingly this dichotomy has lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy: owner/management beliefs about workers needing tight control mechanisms and specific roles has encouraged workers to adopt a narrow and detached view of their organisational role. The challenge in redesigning organisational roles is one of instilling a set of attitudes recognising, emphasising and reinforcing the importance of interdependence of the whole work force of a company and the significance of each individual for the whole.

For this to occur, there is a need for a new way of viewing work. On the surface, at least, the contemporary workplace signals losses for the organisation and the employee. On the one hand, employees have lost job security and the sense of long-term organisational identity. On the other hand, organisations have lost the predictability of managing a dependent and internally orientated work force (Noer, 1997). What alternatives are available to traditional ways of dividing up work? According to Noer (1997),

[o]rganizations that will thrive in the new reality are those that will be filled with employees who have the option to leave, but choose to stay because of the work. Those that fail will be populated by employees who are only there because they are afraid to go elsewhere (p.218).

For this to occur new paradigms about the worker/organisation interface are necessary.

There are enormous advantages, and arguably little choice, in breaking the bonds of the traditional manager/worker relationship for the individual and the organisation. With a new perspective about work and their role in the organisation, the worker can choose to invest themselves in potentially more satisfying, meaningful work, engage in continuous learning, and reclaim their self-esteem, if lost under the old system. The organisation payoff is equally positive: a work force filled with free independent employees working on tasks they find fulfilling - resulting in long-term competitive advantage in the global market place (Noer, 1997). Grint (1997) refers to this new association as “corporate citizenship.” Workers have a responsibility to the organisation to be involved, committed, and supportive. In return, workers have rights the organisation should honour. Obligation, consent, and participation are elements of organisational citizenship (Fairholm, 1997). Values become the adhesive of citizenship in the organisational setting. This new approach to the employment relationship is still based on cooperation, or new codependency as Noer (1997) refers to it, but without the restrictions of the old industrial model of them and us.

Comparing and Contrasting the Traditional and New Employment Relationships

An attempt should be made to conceptualise the traditional relationship and its apparent shortcomings before contrasting some of the corresponding core characteristics of a new working relationship. In broad terms, the traditional employment relationship consists of the manager specifying the work requirements and in return for a willingness to comply the worker receives a wage. This has been the conventional lynch pin of the relationship between manager and worker. Any failure to heed a work instruction, on the one hand, or to pay the agreed wage, on the other, means that the contract collapses. Table I illustrates the old employment paradigm and juxtaposes it against similar attributes of the new employment relationship model.

Table I The Traditional Employment Relationship Model

SOURCE: Adapted from Noer, D.M. (1997). Breaking Free: a Prescription for Personal and Organizational Change. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, pp. 214-17.

In contrast, the new employment relationship model attempts to combine the workers’ needs with organisational outcomes. It emphasises cooperation that incorporates the often conflicting needs, interests and feelings of both the worker and the organisation. Noer (1997) refers to this as the “yin and yan freedom dance.” “In a yin-yan relationship, both halves are incomplete and need each other to achieve the unified whole” (p.214). Noer specifies five aspects of what he describes as the new codependency: flexible employment, customer-focus, focus on performance, project-based work, and the connection of human spirit and work. These attributes serve as a useful starting point for conceptualising a new employment relationship model. In contrast and comparing similar aspects of the employment relationship and building on Noer’s (1997) work, the writer has included three additional attributes: loyalty, learning and development, and open information. These additional aspects of the relationship serve to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the issues associated with creating a new mind-set in the workplace. Table II illustrates the new employment relationship model.

Table II The New Employment Relationship Model

Each of the eight attributes is briefly discussed below. The model provides practitioners with a conceptual framework for assessing their organisation’s evolution from tradition to new mind-sets. It should be pointed out that many organisations are in flux between the old and new model, and that although this is a generalised treatment of core issues, there may be other attributes that need to be considered and incorporated in the model.

Core Attributes of the New Employment Relationship

Flexible Employment Casey, Keep, and Mayhew (1999) offer a fourfold definition of employment flexibility. They define flexible employment as either functional, financial, temporal or numerical. Functional flexibility has the capacity to serve the interests of both the worker and organisation. Functional flexibility refers in the ability to transfer labour between tasks and break down job demarcations (Cook, 1998). Various forms of flexible employment offer managers a range of options in structuring and deploying the workforce. Management techniques may including retraining, multi-skilling, motivation and incentive schemes (Greene, 2000) as a ways of achieving competitive advantage in the form of product quality and range, or the reliability of service. An organisation’s commitment to functional flexible employment can be measured by the degree to which there is evidence of the commitment and application of these four management initiatives. The desirability of embracing flexible work practices however needs to be balanced with several potential limitations.

From the perspective of workers, there are both positive and negative forms of flexibility, which relate to questions of who defines it, in whose interests it operates, and what skills and negotiating power workers’ possess to negotiate terms and conditions (Cook, 1998). Although organisations are confronted with a potentially wide range of alternatives, in reality their real choices will tend to be constrained by a range of pressures, government policy, social norms and pressures, competition, training structures and work organisation (Casey et al, 1999). The implementation of any given form of flexibility within a particular organisation or work setting is dependent upon a these and perhaps other variables.

“Enterprise flexibility” (Casey et al, 1999), however, does not necessarily have to mean the same thing as deregulation or casualisation. Apart from external factors, how flexibility plays out in any given situation will be heavily contingent upon particular managerial policies and approaches to its use. Flexible forms of employment do not have to be used primarily as a cost-cutting device, despite research suggesting that in many organisations flexibility is synonymous with deregulation and the opportunity to cut labour costs (NACAB, 1997).

On the other hand, the implementation of flexible employment strategies can create opportunities for workers to gain a broad range of inter- and intra-departmental skills beyond the narrow confines of their initial job description. Moreover, the new information economy places a premium on the worker’s ability to move from a job in one organisation to another, to learn new jobs in the same company, to do several different types of tasks in the same day and to adjust quickly to several different kinds of employment cultures and different group situations. Organisations can, at the same time, become more maneuverable. In short, functionally flexible workers enhance their employability in the marketplace and organisations remain pliable to meet the demands of a rapidly changing marketplace.

Customer-focus One of several challenges managers face in implementing customer-focused strategies in organisations is overcoming role conflict for customer workers. Theoretically, role conflict, a likely consequence of all forms of customer work, occurs for an actor when the actor perceives that the set of demands from two or more constituencies to which an actor is held accountable (a) are incompatible or inconsistent with one another in such a way as both sets cannot be met and (b) are simultaneously pressed on the actor (Heiss, 1990; Katz & Khan, 1966; Merton, 1968). Troyer, Mueller, and Osinsky (2000) content that customer workers are open to experiencing role conflict because they are often confronted with competing demands from the two constituencies (i.e., the organisation and the customers) due of their unique “boundary spanning role” (Adams, 1976).

Customer work under the traditional employment relationship places employees in the unique position of answering to two bosses, the organisation and the customer. Although not formally designated as a superior, the customer nonetheless represents an additional set of interests and demands to which the customer worker must respond. Figure I illustrates the unique position the boundary spanning role of the customer worker and the potential for conflict between the needs and expectations of the customer on the one hand and the organisation’s policies and procedures on the other.

Figure I Boundary Spanning Role of the Customer Worker

Reducting role conflict for customer workers in either representative (customer service) and influencing (sales) roles (Adams, 1976) requires different approaches. Autonomy may be crucial to representative roles, because impression management is important to these roles, and autonomy affords the role incumbent the opportunity to role make. On the other hand, resource adequacy and role clarity may be crucial for individuals in positions that involve an influence role. Organisational leaders working under the new paradigm are likely to promote and encourage these strategies as a means of reducing role conflict; a symptom of the traditional employment relationship.

By serving and fulfilling customer’s needs, given appropriate strategies and incentives, skills and growth opportunities by organisational leaders, workers are helping themselves and their organisation. Alternately, pleasing the boss and playing organisational politics in the interests of their organisational career is an unhealthy artifact of the old reality. As Noer (1997) advises: “Being clear about who your customer is and spending your time providing value-added service is a much less energy draining and more personally affirming use of (employee’s) time than wallowing in the internal ambiguity of a dying bureaucracy” (p. 215). From the organisation’s perspective, it is better served by insisting on workers identifying and measuring there own value-added contribution to servicing the needs of their customers. Managers need therefore to provide the necessary means by which their workers can focus and assess their contribution to satisfying the customer’s needs. The more time and effort spent focusing internally by the manager or the worker, will detract from a customer focus.

Focus on Performance Although multidimensional models of performance that include job and non-job dimensions have been introduced, they lack a unifying theoretical framework (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Campbell, 1990; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Without a theoretical underpinning there is little guidance for choosing which dimensions of performance (job or non-job) to include or exclude from a performance management system. Accordingly, researchers and organisational leaders tend to use customised performance measures, a practice that results in using measures that do not typically allow for comparison among jobs or across companies. Researchers have noted that this lack of generalisability of the performance criterion hinders the validity of many predictors of performance (Austin & Villanova, 1992).

Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez (1998) are the first to consider the theoretical implications for performance measurement and its link with identity theory. Role theory provides an explanation for why work performance should be multidimensional, and identity theory suggests how to determine which dimensions to include in a model of work performance. The amalgamation of both theories by Welbourne et al (1998) broadens the scope of performance to incorporate four additional roles other than the jobholder.

Apart from job role, Welbourne’s et al (1998) research identifies organisation, team, career, and innovator roles as viable indicators of performance. They employ two criteria to identify this multidimensional definition of performance in an organisational setting. First, they reviewed several compensation systems in different organisations and the roles they were designed to elicit. Second, they chose roles that had been emphasised in the literature as important for organisational success. In sum, they suggest that employees enact multiple roles beyond that of jobholder (role theory) and, employing identity theory, they suggest that those roles that are considered important from an organisational perspective should be measured through a comprehensive assessment of employee performance.

Employees can and do enact many potential useful roles while at work. Welbourne et al (1998) suggest that there may, and probably are, other relevant roles that should be considered in performance. However, they provide a useful and credible starting point in viewing performance as a multidimensional concept. Moreover, these roles are distinct from each other and identify components of performance that cannot necessarily be measured via a firm’s traditional approach to performance appraisal systems.

The idea that roles are important for understanding employee behaviours is not a new concept. Although applying role and identity theories to performance measures offers one original approach to expanding prior research on performance measurement. In putting these fairly well-established pieces of theory together, Welbourne’s et al (1998) model provides an innovative contribution to solving an important piece of the performance measurement puzzle. More research is needed using their unique approach as a way of linking individual contribution to organisational output.

In adopting a valid multidimensional performance system, workers are likely to make contributions beyond their traditional job skill base. Organisations, on the other hand, can utilise and reward workers for a variety of non-job contributions that contribute to broaden the notion of productive work practices in an organisation setting.

Project-based Work In a climate of rapid change and increasing uncertainty, an emphasis on project-based work as distinct from functional servitude is arguably in the best interests of workers and their organisation. One of the ways in which organisations are able to increase both internal system efficiency and responsiveness to the external environment is through the processing of information horizontally via ad hoc and ongoing project teams rather (Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, and Melner, 1999) than vertical functional silos. Workers, with an increasing need to embrace themselves as temporary employees, are able to gain cross-functional experience, knowledge and skills from project-based teams that may be applied in other employment settings or as preparedness for self-employment opportunities. The important question is, if cross-functional teams are, amongst other things, suppose to promote optimal allocation of capital, human resources, information and knowledge through the establishment of company-internal linkages, how are these linkages created and functional identities overcome?

According to research in the social identity area, the adverse effect of these functional identities can be overcome in a team of individuals from diverse functional areas by creating a new team-based character or “superordinate identity” (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Mackie and Goethals, 1987; Tajfel, 1982). In the context of cross-functional teams, superordinate identity refers to the extent to which members identify with the team (rather than merely with their functional areas) and perceive a stake in the success of the team. The superordinate identity construct captures the cognitive aspects of a member’s relationship with the team and is different from social cohesion, which represents the affective component of the team-member relationship (Ashforth and Mael,1989).

Previous research in organisational behaviour has focused primarily on boundaries at the organisational level. According to Cross, Yan, and Louis (2000), “boundary activities are those in which the focal organizational entity engages to create and maintain its boundaries and to manage interactions across those boundaries” (p. 842). In contrast, studies on work units up until recently have generally ignored researching evidence of intra-organisational boundaries. As the first to conceptualise boundary activities at the work unit level, Yan and Louis’s (1999) empirical research investigated the presence of several types of boundary activities in a large organisation undergoing transformation from a functionally dominant organisation to a cross-functional structure. From their research findings, Yan and Louis (1999) conclude that boundary activities migrate downward from the organisational level to the work unit level as core work processes are redesigned, work force diversity increases, team-based structures are adopted, or sophisticated information technologies are employed.

A central tenet of Yan and Louis’s (1999) argument, is that organisational transformation, such as restructuring and process design, occasions changes in the locus of need and responsibility for boundary management. They maintain that the need for boundary activities will not be eliminated as a result of organisational changes such as the implementing cross-functional project teams. Boundary activities may be transferred to other organisational levels. Previously, organisational functions, with clearly defined roles, helped sort and divert extraneous demands, and managers served as ultimate arbiters of priorities. Where functional hierarchies give way to cross-functional teams and managerial ranks are reduced, these bureaucracy-based buffers are removed; the new work unit is left to improvise means of buffering environmental forces.

Yan and Louis’s (1999) research findings substantiate Hirschhorn and Gilmore’s (1992) earlier precaution that “[m]anagers are right to break down the boundaries that make organizations rigid and unresponsive. But they are wrong if they think that doing so eliminates the need for boundaries altogether” (pp.104-105). It seems that many new boundary-related activities emerge during system transformations and warrant management attention.

Human Spirit and Work

The spirituality at work movement is getting the attention of corporate America and possibly elsewhere partly because of the recognition that nourishing the soul at work may be good for business (Ashmos and Duchon, 2000). This growing interest in spirituality at work can be understood in relation to several trends in western society that impact on the individual and the organisation (Beyer, 1999; Brandt, 1996; Conger, 1994 Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). In sum, the pressure of global competition has lead some organisational leaders to recognise that a potential competitive advantage maybe gained by unleashing workers’ full expression of their creative energies. And from the worker’s perspective, organisational work increasingly defines their self-concept and connection to others (Bertram and Sharpe, 2000).

In practice, the worker and the organisation have a joint responsibility for bringing to the workplace the notion of meaningful work. Isaksen (2000) making a distinction between different levels of the meaningfulness of work. In broad terms workers bring to an organisation a general meaning about their vocation and through their interaction with a work environment develop a personal meaning about their day-to-day work.

Workers have a responsibility to find a vocation that is stimulating. Noer (1997) reminds us, “[t]here is power, excitement, and amazing productivity when our work is congruent with our personal mission and values” (p.217). Organisations also have an obligation to provide workers with the opportunities to participate in meaningful, stimulating tasks and projects where ever possible. “If organizations can provide the spark that ignites (employees’) reservoir of human spirit and allow (them) to apply it to work that (they) perceive as meaningful, (the organisation has) unleashed a powerful competitive weapon of creative energy” (Noer, 1997, p.217). By overcoming some of the inhibitors to meaningful work in the workplace, managers can contribute to the potential of creating an environment in which flexibility, optimism, and creativity are more likely to be expressed by their employees in their roles.

There are several specific factors that have the potential to inhibit a meaningful work mind-set in the workplace. Lack of meaning can be restrained as a result of either (a) poor working conditions, (b) a poor fit between worker interests and job opportunities, or (c) a lack of belief in one’s own attempts to construct meaning (Isaksen, 2000). It may be possible therefore to strategically intervene on all three levels as a basis for enhancing the prospects that workers could be more likely to construct meaning, or at least, not to be deterred from finding meaning in their daily work.

Loyalty and Committment

If loyalty is still an important and sought after organisational value, can it be sustained in the new reality or is it doomed to the scrap heap of the traditional employment relationship? Much of the contemporary disenchantment about the prospects of generating employee loyalty and organisational commitment results from the confusion about the concept itself (Powers, 2000). Employee loyalty does not seem to have a universal definition. Perhaps it should be recognised that employee loyalty is a fluid concept founded on the general premise that it is whatever the employee and employer agree it is (Powers, 2000). The challenge is to understand the term in the context of what both parties (employers and employees) now perceive to be a fair exchange in the 21st century.

It is argued that companies can use career management strategies as a way of developing a different, more pragmatic, less paternalistic kind of organisational loyalty from workers and in the process sustain employees’ commitment to achieving organisationally desirable outcomes. In some studies, a positive relationship between organisational commitment and career commitment is evident (Baugh and Roberts, 1994). Recently, Carson, Carson, Roe, Birkenmeier, and Phillips (1999) found that employees who are committed to both their organisations and to their careers had the highest level of “job satisfaction” and “empowerment”. By fulfilling some of workers’ concerns about future employability and flexible work patterns with support and appropriate resources, organisations may be able to retain the services of valued workers for longer than might otherwise be the case. Specifically, comprehensive policies of managing work/home conflicts, opportunities for skill development replacing the generally limited scope for organisational advancement, increasing career paths and training for part-time workers, and substituting the notion of organisational loyalty with loyalty to their work team are some of the strategies organisations can offer that may partially fulfill the needs of the modern worker.

The idea of organisations entering into a career development partnership with their employees by assisting them to become more employable goes against the grain of traditional HR management, which is based on the assumption that employees are captive and propriety assets. But it is in tune with the current reality of a market-driven work force. Loyalty and commitment have traditionally been seen by managers as two sides of the same coin, believing that employees who lack loyalty to a company must also lack commitment to their work (Cappelli, 2000). But there are many ways to engender commitment to the work without requiring loyalty to the company. Moreover, the confusion of loyalty and commitment underlies another widely held but false belief: that commitment can exist only in a long-term relationship. Commitment can be, and often is, practiced on a short-term basis is many arenas other than the workplace i.e., completion of a course of study. There is no reason to believe that this can not be the case in employer-employee relationships. Indeed, short-term relationships can often create higher levels of commitment than long-term relationships. The challenge for organisations and workers is to enter into a new exchange process that reflects the realities of the times.

Learning and Development

Should learning and development activities in organisations focus on developing the individual or be concerned with achieving organisational outcomes? Human resource development (HRD) literature predominantly advocates an either or approach. In other words, theorists and practitioners embrace and argue passionately for HRD to adopt a performance perspective (organisation) (Kuchinke, 1999; Maitland, 1994; Rummler and Brache, 1990; Stryker and Statham, 1985) or learning perspective (individual) (Aktouf, 1992; Barrie and Pace, 1999; Berger and Luckman, 1966; Elliott, 2000; Fisher and Torbert, 1995; Nadler, 1984). What is needed is an integration of both viewpoints. In an organisational context, even embracing both philosophical views of HRD does not go far enough to keep pace with a rapidly changing marketplace. Another paradigm on HRD that focuses on problem solving (situation) (Anderson, 1995; Argyris, 1964; Bandura, 1997; Kincheloe, 1995; Kohlberg and Mayer, 1972; Lawler, 1992; Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford, 1995; Walton, 1985; Watkins and Marsick, 1993), with its situational emphasis, is gaining prominence in the literature. But like the learning and performance perspectives of HRD, the problem solving approach has its shortcomings. The focus of the debate should shift from which paradigm is more representative of HRD to what does each approach have to offer workers and organisations. It is argued that HRD should embrace a holistic approach that emphasises the three dimensions of the individual, organisation, and situation. This eclectic framework will enhance and sustain the legitimacy of HRD by providing the platform for learning and development initiatives to meet the individual growth needs of workers and at the same time fulfill organisational output requirements. Table III summarises the three dominant HR theories.

Table III Classification of Theories of Human Resource Development

SOURCE: Kuchinke, K.P. (1999). ‘Adult Development Towards What End? A Philosophical Analysis of the Concept as Reflected in the Research Theory, and Practice of Human Resource Development.’ Adult Education Quarterly, 49, 4, p.151

In practice, understanding the premise of each approach can lead HRD professionals to more informed choices. For instance, an HRD professional who is faced with lagging work performance might approach this issue from any one of the three proposed approaches. From the person-centred perspective, names of top performers could be posted on the luncheon bulletin board and monthly award ceremonies for these employees held to instill pride in the good performers. From the product-centred philosophy, piece rate or pay-for-performance systems may provide incentives to work harder. From the principled problem-solving perspective, an open-book management strategy could be proposed where employees are given full information about the implications of poor performance for the stakeholders and charter cross-functional teams to investigate the root causes of the problem and develop solutions. An HRD practitioner who can select from a number of different approaches will be likely to have a wide range of choices than one who is tied to only one perspective. Further, being aware and knowledgeable of the different HRD approaches will enlarge a firm’s range of options in developing a company-based set of guiding philosophies, values, strategies, and practices. In terms of HRD management, approximately one third of the HRD budget can be devoted to the self-development of workers, a third for specific training to carry out their organisational role with skill and competence, and a third to develop problem solving capabilities knowledge. The end result will reinforce the legitimacy of HRD and contribute significantly to the amalgamation of individual concerns and organisational objectives.

Open Information Worker participation has moved from the periphery to the centre of corporate philosophies and organisational restructurings. Participatory programmes take many forms and emphases. A crucial characteristic in the success of all these forms and processes is open communication between organisational leaders and employees. Open information channels are suppose to lead to the exercising of initiative by workers in the pursuit of organisational objectives. However, enhancing workers’ capacity to contribute to organisational decision-making processes, whilst appealing, is problematic for both workers and organisations. The “initiative paradox” (Campbell, 2000) can, on the other hand, be addressed.

Organisations have always had to wrestle with the question of whether and how to constrain employees’ independent judgment and initiative. For organisational leaders the new demands associated with the employee role contain a paradox. Because job descriptions are unlikely to anticipate all the possible work situations an individual might face, managers need employees who will exercise their own judgment when they encounter out-of-the-ordinary work situations. Consequently, they desire employees who show initiative and judgment. On the other hand, desiring predictable outcomes, managers also expect the employees’ diagnostics and actions to mirror their own. This is what Campbell (2000) refers to as the initiative paradox: employees are expected to use independent judgment and initiative, and simultaneously expected to think and act like their boss.

The initiative paradox raises two related questions. Can managers eliminate the unanticipated consequences associated with employees’ “enterprising qualities” (Campbell, 2000)? Are employees’ enterprising qualities truly universally desirable, or do particular job and organisational circumstances make them relatively more or less valuable to a manager or an organisation?

Since the real value of “proactive” employees hinges on a resolution of the initiative paradox, Campbell (2000) proposes four potential resolutions. Table IV below summaries these possibilities.

Table IV Potential Resolutions of the Initiative Paradox

SOURCE: Campbell, D. J. (2000). ‘The Proactive Employee: Managing Workplace Initiative,’ The Academy of Management Executive, 14, 3, p. 61.

Campbell’s (2000) model provides practitioners with a useful framework for addressing the paradox of employee participation. Despite the limitations, the model has useful guidelines for developing workers’ participatory practices utilising a variety of open information channels between workers and management.

Conclusion

This model of the new employment relationship is hopefully a catalyst for further discussion and a progression of thinking towards the conceptualisation of a new employment relationship. Ultimately the model presented in this paper is an attempt at providing a practical framework for applying a new worker-organisation paradigm in organisational settings. Clearly, the significant changes in work and the workplace being experienced today have generated a need to think differently about the employment relationship. This has put a strain on the tradition industrial relationship model of them and use that has largely encompassed some 200 years. The main influences for the need to develop new mind-sets has unquestionably been the intensification of competition and globalisation creating a climate of accelerated change and uncertainty. These factors have stimulated practitioners to review, perhaps on an ongoing basis, their organisational structures and employment arrangements. The successful resolution of some of the issues outlined in this paper will hopefully contribute to sustained productivity gains and be in the mutual interests of workers and organisations.

Bibliography

Adams, J.S. (1976). ‘The Structure and Dynamics in Behaviour in Organizational Boundary Roles’, in Dunnette, M. D. (Ed.), Handbook in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (pp. 1175-1199). Chicago, Rand McNally.

Adamson, S.J. (1997). ‘Career as a Vehicle for the Realization of Self,’ Career Development International, 2, 5, pp. 245-253.

Aktouf, O. (1992). ‘Management and Theories of Organizations in the 1990’s: Towards a Critical Radical Humanism?’ Academy of Management Review, 17, 3, pp. 407-431.

Albrow, M. (1997). Do Organizations Have Feelings? London, Routledge.

Anderson, J.R. (1995). Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. New York, John Wiley.

Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York, John Wiley.

Ashmos, D.P. and Duchon, D. (2000). ‘Spitituality at Work: a Conceptualization and Measure,’ Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 2, pp. 134-145.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989). ‘Social Identity Theory and the Organization,’ Academy of Management Review, 14 (January), pp.20-39.

Austin, J.T. and Villanova, P. (1992). ‘The Criterion Problem: 1917-1992,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, pp. 836-874.

Baker, T.B. (2000). ‘Not Just a Job!’ AIM Management Magazine, 12 (June), pp. 20-22.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Barrie, J.R. and Pace, R.W. (1999). ‘Learning and Performance: Just the End of the Beginning - a Rejoinder to Kuchinke,’ Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10, 3, pp. 293-96.

Baugh, S.G. and Roberts, R.M. (1994). ‘Professional and Organizational Commitment Among Engineers: Conflicting or Complementing,’ IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41, pp. 108-114.

Berger, P.L. and Luckman, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York, Doubleday.

Bertram, E. and Sharpe, K. (2000). ‘Capitalism, Work, and Character,’ The American Prospect, 11, 20, pp. 44-48.

Beyer, J. (1999). ‘Culture, Meaning, and Belonging at Work.’ Paper presented at the 1999 Chicago Academy of Management meeting.

Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). ‘Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research,’ Human Performance, 10, 2, pp. 99-109.

Brandt, E. (1996). ‘Corporate Pioneers Exploring Spirituality Peace,’ HR Magazine, (April), pp. 82-87.

Campbell, J.P. (1990). ‘Modeling the Performance Prediction Problem in Industrial and Organizational Psychology,’ in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (2nd Ed.), (pp.687-732), Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press.

Campbell, D.J. (2000). ‘The Proactive Employee: Managing Workplace Initiative,’ The Academy of Management Executive, 14, 3, pp. 52-66.

Cappelli, P. (2000). ‘A Market-driven Approach to Retaining Talent,’ Harvard Business Review, (Jan-Feb), pp. 103-111.

Carson, K.D., Carson, R,E., Roe, C.W., Birkenmeier, B.J. and Phillips, J.S. (1999). ‘Four Commitmment Profiles and Their Relationship to Empowerment, Service Recovery and Work Attitudes,’ Public Personnel Management, 28, pp. 1-13.

Casey, B., Keep, E. & Mayhew, K. (1999). ‘Flexibility, Quality and Competitiveness,’ National Institute Economic Review, (April), pp. 70-81.

Conger, J.A. (1994). Spirit at Work. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Cook, J. (1998). ‘Flexible Employment: Implications for Gender and Citizenship in the European Union,’ New Political Economy, 3, 2, pp. 261-277.

Cross, R.L., Yan, A., and Louis, M.R. (2000). ‘Boundary Activities in Boundaryless Organizations: A Case Study of a Transformation to a Team-Based Structure,’ Human Relations, 53, 6, pp. 841-857.

Devine, D.J., Clayton, L.D., Philips, J.L., Dunford, B.B., and Melner, S.B. (1999). ‘Teams in Organizations: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Effectiveness,’ Small Group Research, 30, 6, pp. 678-711.

Drucker, P. (1992). Managing for the Future. New York, Harper Row.

Eldridge, J., Cressey, P. & MacInnes, J. (1991). Industry Sociology and Economic Crisis. Hemel Hempstead, Harvester.

Elliott, C. (2000). ‘Does HRD Acknowledge Human Becomings? A view of the U.K. Literature,’ Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 2, pp. 187-195.

Fairholm, G.W. (1997). Capturing the Heart of Leadership: Spirituality and Community in the New American Workplace. Westport, Connecticut, Praeger.

Fisher, D. and Torbert, W.R. (1995). Personal and Organizational Transformations: the True Challenge of Continual Quality Improvement. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Gee, P.G., Hull, G. and Lankshear, C. (1996). The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the New Capitalism. St Leonards, NSW, Allen and Unwin.

Greene, B. (2000). ‘Independent Contractors: An Attractive Option?’, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, (June), pp.183-204.

Grint, K. (1997). Fuzzy Management: Contemporary Ideas and Practices at Work, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Hamel, C.K. and Prahalad C.K. (1994). Competing for the Future. Boston, Harvard Business School.

Handy, C. (1989). The Age of Unreason. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.

Heiss, J. (1990). ‘Social Roles,’ in Rosenburg, M. & Turner, R.H. (Eds.), Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, (pp. 94-129). New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction.

Hirschhorn, L. and Gilmore, T. (1992). ‘The New Boundaries of the Boundaryless Company,’ Harvard Business Review, (May, June), pp. 104-115.

Isaksen, J. (2000). ‘Constructing Meaning Despite the Drudgery of Repetitive Work,’ The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 40, 3, pp. 84-107.

Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters. London, Routledge.

Katz, D. and Khan, R.L. (1966). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, Wiley.

Kincheloe, J.L. (1995). Toil and Trouble: Good Work, Smart Workers, and the Integration of Academic and Vocational Education. New York, Peter Lang.

Kohlberg, L. and Mayer, R. (1972). ‘Development as the aim of education,’ Harvard Educational Review, 42, 4, pp. 449-496.

Kuchinke, K.P. (1999). ‘Adult Education Towards What End? A Philosophical Analysis of the Concept as Reflected in the Research Theory, and Practice of Human Resource Development,’ Adult Education Quarterly, 49, 4, pp. 148-160.

Lawler III, E.E. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High Involvement. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Lawler III, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., and Ledford, G.E. (1995). Creating the High Performance Organization: Practices and Results of Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management in Fortune 100 Companies. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Mackie, D.M. and Goethals, G.R. (1987). ‘Individual and Group Goals,’ in Hendrick, C. (Ed.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology. Newbury Park, CA, Sage.

Maitland, I. (1994). ‘The Morality of the Corporation,’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, pp. 445-458.

Merton, R.K. (1968). Social Structure and Social Theory, New York, Free Press.

Morgan, G. (1993). Imaginization: the Art of Creative Management. California, Sage.

Motowidlo, S.J. and Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). ‘Evidence that Task Performance Should be Distinguished from Contextual Performance,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, pp. 475-480.

Nader, L. (1984). The Handbook of Human Resource Development. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (1997). Flexibility Abused - A CAB Evidence Report on Employment Conditions in the Labour Market. London, NACAB.

Noer, D.M. (1997). Breaking Free: A Prescription for Personal and Organizational Change. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Neusch, D.R. and Siebenaler, A.F. (2nd Ed.) (1998) The High Performance Enterprise: Reinventing the People Side of Your Business. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Peters, T.J. (1992). Liberation Management. New York, Knopf.

Peters, T.J. & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence. New York, Harper & Row.

Powers, E.L. (2000). ‘Employee Loyalty in the New Millenium,’ S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 65, 3, pp. 4-8.

Rummler, G.A. and Brache, A.P. (1990). Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Stryker, S. and Statham, A. (1985). ‘Symbolic Interaction and Role Theory’, in Lindsay, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed.), 1, (pp. 311-378). New York, Random House.

Tajfel, H. (1982). ‘Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations’, Annual Review of Psychology, 33, pp. 1-39.

Troyer, L., Mueller, C.W., and Osinsky, P.I. (2000). ‘Who’s the Boss? A Role-Theoretic Analysis of Customer Work,’ Work and Occupations, 27, 3, pp. 406-427.

Walton, R.E. (1985). ‘Towards a Strategy of Eliciting Employee Commitment Based on Policies of Mutuality,’ in Walton, R.E. and Lawrence, P.R. (Eds.), Human Resource Trends and Challenges. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School.

Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1993). Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systematic Change. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Welbourne, T.M., Johnson, D.E., and Erez, A. (1998). ‘The Role-based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-based Measure’, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 5, pp. 540-556.

Wigand, R., Picot, A., and Reichwald, R. (1997). Information, Organization and Management: Expanding Markets and Corporate Boundaries. Chichester, England, John Wiley and Sons.

Yan, A. and Louis, M.R. (1999). ‘Migration of Organizational Functions to the Work Unit Level: Buffering, Spanning, and Bringing Up Boundaries,’ Human Relations, 52, 1, pp. 25-47.

In the post-job organisation, managers must find ways to integrate corporate requirements with the personal needs of workers

Management Today June 2000 pp. 20 - 22.

By Tim Baker, BEd BA AIMM AITD

Organisational Development Consultant

WINNERS-AT-WORK

Managers who wish to increase and sustain the productivity of their work force will find that a career development model serves well to merge workers’ needs with organisational interests.

But, there is a need for a new approach to career development. The difficulty management faces of attracting and keeping motivated and talented staff is hardly new. Balancing individual and organisational needs has been an issue for as long as organisations have existed. More than a quarter of a century ago, D. Katz made the point: “We need to cope with such organisational realities as the attracting of people into organisations, holding them within the system, insuring reliable performance and, in addition, stimulating actions which are generally facultative of organisational accomplishment.”

Phrases such as “holding them”, “ensuring reliable performance” and ‘,stimulating actions” illustrate the problem of maximising productivity. They focus on organisational outcomes at the expense of workers’ needs. The balance has been in favor of the organisation. Has much changed in the 35 years?

The dilemma has come into sharper focus in recent times as employees seek a deeper sense of meaning in their working lives. This search, coupled to economic pressures, has forced a new relationship between workers and organisations. People increasingly want to define their lives and their work on their own terms. In general, the evidence indicates that employees want to enjoy work, to feel they can make a contribution, to feel respected as people, and to learn and grow.

Seldom, however, has the workplace been a worker-friendly, flexible structure that could accommodate any type of sociological change. The need for rapid responses to an increasingly competitive and customer-driven global marketplace has forced managers and organisational consultants to reinvent the organisation. Yet, workers, living with the natural resistance and the feelings of upheaval and insecurity that change brings, have not responded as managers have planned.

Organisational transformation how- ever, deals with the deeper issues of personal growth, vision, trust, creativity, purpose, leadership, mastery, and cultivating organisational spirit. These transformation issues have a direct influence on the notion of career paths.

S.J. Adamson, writing in Career Development International, acknowledges that, for at least the last thirty years, theoretical and practical definitions of career have emphasised structure, succession and status. Career has been viewed as the sequence of attempts to move onward and upward through organisational hierarchies. He argues that we now need to accommodate a new perspective about career development that goes beyond this narrow view. The career, in other words, should he seen as a vehicle for the continuous realisation of self.

From the worker’s perspective, P. Simonsen points out that: “People whose only career development planning involves the expectation of promotions to management or to higher levels of management may find themselves on an indefinite plateau or even downsized.”

So, the old systems of hierarchy, titles, putting oneself in line for the next higher position, career paths, and so on sit in opposition to the realities of today’s organisations. And the opposition will only become more pronounced in tomorrow’s.

Little wonder that employees need help refraining their thinking about careers in this chaotic environment. With the old paradigm no longer viable, new ones must be developed and communicated by managers. As careers change, so must career planning and development resources both within and outside the organisation.

Work itself is changing so rapidly that job descriptions are obsolete almost as quickly as they are written. However, it is not only job descriptions but the nature of the jobs themselves that are becoming antiquated. W. Bridges points out in Fortune, that work is not going away, but jobs are. The environment in which an individual can be hired to do a specific job and nothing else is long gone.

The new entrepreneurial model can be qualified as “people doing whatever needs to be done to make the business a success”. Many companies are asking employees to “act like an owner”. So, managers want workers to take more responsibility for their work. Yet, managers have traditionally focused almost exclusively on organisational output, which is what they have always measured the employees against, at the expense of nurturing personal growth.

Since jobs are no longer socially adaptable, the answer must be to create the “post-job” organisation.

It is ironic that most managers need employees to stop acting like jobholders, yet they know only how to hire, pay, communicate with, and manage job- holders. Most organisations also maintain policies, strategies, training programs, and structures meant only to enable employees to be more successful in their job activities.

The irony is intensified when it is taken into consideration that a wave of job-free workers intent on doing what needs to be done rather than doing their jobs would wreck most traditional organisations. just as individuals need to rethink their assumptions and strategies, organisations too need to rethink almost everything they do.

Career development can be positioned as a change agent to bridge old and new realities, to reinforce the messages of change needed, and to educate employees about what’s in it for them. To be successful in this regard, P. Pritchert and R. Pound claim in High-Velocity Culture Change that you must hit with enough shock effect to immobilise the old culture at least temporarily.

An integrated and comprehensive career development system can affect the organisation’s culture in several positive ways. The table below contrasts old elements of a typical culture with a new paradigm for individuals to consider in their career development.

The significant changes in work and the workplace we are experiencing today have created a need to think differently about “human capital” in organisations. The main influence for this change has unquestionably been the rise in competition that in rum has stimulated employers and their managers to review, perhaps on an ongoing basis, their organisational structures and employment arrangements.

The organisations that emerge successfully from the turmoil of the 1990s will have to reinvent themselves; the paternalism and dependency that evolved with the industrial, age are no longer viable. Everywhere we hear that the old employment contract has changed or disappeared. Most workers have heard that they need to change. But most companies have not yet recognised that organisational culture needs to change as well. And even of those companies that are aware that the reformations to be made must be so pervasive as to require a change of culture in the organisation, many have not yet been able to define the new culture that must emerge.

A possible solution is the implementation of a comprehensive, integrated career development system that win act as a catalyst for bringing individual expectations into line with organisation- al realities. It could provide a framework for updating or creating systems that support new behavior to achieve the results an organisation needs to survive and thrive in the new economy.

The approach to career development must be aligned with and support the organisation’s new or desired culture if it is to have the greatest effect. Many companies have tried, without understanding the forces driving the culture or without having a goal, to create a development culture, to implement career development or other programs that soon came to be derided as “flavor of the month”.

Although well-meaning, they could not be sustained because the components did not fit the new culture or because they lacked enough elements of change to contribute to the development of the desired new culture.

The model outlined here offers a way out of that cul-de-sac of reactive change for change’s sake. it warrants further investigation as a way of serving the collective interests of workers, management, owners, the organisation and the state.

The changing individual paradigm

References

Adamson, S.J. “Career as a vehicle for the realisation of self.” Career Development International 2/5 (1997): 245-253.

Bridges, W. “The end of the job.” , Fortune September 1994: 50-57.

Chawla, S. and Renesch, J. (ed). Learning Organisations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Workplace. Portland: Productivity Press, 1995.

Katz, D. “The motivational basis of organisational behavior.” Behavioral Science 9 (1964): 131-46.

Pritchett, P and Pound, P,. High-Velocity Culture Change. Dallas: Pritchett & Associates, 1993.

Simonsen, P. Promoting a Development Culture in Your Organisation. California: Davies-Black, 1997.

A whole new set of skills are becoming necessary to enable people to manage the dynamics of a constantly changing workplace.

Management September 1997 pp. 11-12

by Tim Baker BEd BA AITD AIMM

Organisational Development Consultant

WINNERS-AT-WORK

We are currently faced with a period of rapid and dynamic change. Managers are aware of and involved in some of these changes in their organisations. Over hundreds of years, a formula for running a business has developed. This formula

has been very successful since, in general. people have prospered tremendously in the last 200 years. Yet, in today’s world, this old formula is being challenged.

Economic downturns, increased education and increased global competitiveness have forced people to change. Many of these factors existed previously and were handled adequately under the old business formula. Today, there is one major difference that makes the traditional or old formula inadequate. The difference is rapid change.

Today’s successful workplace formula must cater for increasingly rapid change. To do this, information must be received more quickly, evaluated more quickly and decisions must be made more quickly by managers.

To achieve results, all staff need a new set of skills and attitudes. The traditional formula is too slow in handling change, the new formula allows for more innovation, creativity and information flow within an organisation.

A comparison of the old and new formulas could he categorised under the following headings.

Employee expectations.

The old formula in meeting employees’ expectations included job security, adequate pay and conditions and a clear direction in the workplace.

This has been replaced by a new formula of involvement and participation in decision making, systems of recognition and expectations of on-the-job and off-the-job training. In short, most employees expect to he more involved in their organisations than simply turning up to work.

Responsibilities to employees.

The old formula saw managers responsible to employees by giving them clear direction and meeting award conditions. Under the new formula managers are responsible to employees to ensure that they have adequate training to undertake their ever changing roles, to adequately provide clear direction in terms of career planning and to allow employees to participate in the decision making process.

Rewards systems.

The old formula rewarded and recognised competence in employees in terms of their ability to master technical skills in the workplace. The new formula goes beyond technical competence and includes greater involvement and participation. The successful employee now and in the future is a team player who is prepared to take on greater responsibility.

Management skills.

Managers were assessed as being excellent in their job in terms of the amount of control and close supervision they were able to impart to their staff. The new formula of success in the marketplace highlights the need to he flexible to changing circumstances, providing superior customer service, empowering employees through the development of team work.

Team work.

The old formula for successful teamwork constituted strong leadership from the manager and a balanced blend of strong and weak team members thus ensuring stronger members carry weaker members in the team environment.

The new formula for effective team work involves decentralised leadership and self directed work teams.

The changing workplace will continue to have major implications for managers. New skills for the 21st century manager to he successful in implementing the new formula include:

• Coaching
• Counselling
• Team building
• Empowering
• Involving people in decision making
• Supportive creative thinking
• Giving feedback
• Teaching employees to problem solve
• Dealing with conflict
• Managing change
• Training and facilitating

Managers who succeed in the 21st century will he able to embrace these new skills and impart them in their changing workplace to bring about greater decentralisation of decision making. This will allow employees to contribute creative solutions to ongoing workplace challenges.

A step-by-step plan to being an effective counsellor

Management Today January/February 1997 p.14

by Tim Baker BEd BA AITD AIMM

Organisational Development Consultant

WINNERS-AT-WORK

The most vital skills a manager needs today is the ability to counsel employees on performance. It is often the one-to-one interaction between a manager and individual that brings about major performance improvements. If it is not done well, a counselling session can damage the relationship between manager and team member.

Managers often avoid the opportunity to counsel staff. Surveys have shown that they avoid this fundamental management skill for a number of reasons:

• It is better to let sleeping dogs lie.
• They are afraid to open a can of worms.
• They feel uncomfortable in the role of counsellor.
• The risk is greater than the reward.
• They believe that you can’t change people.
• They have never had any training.

To create an appropriate climate during the counselling session, the manager/staff member relationship must be supportive and developmental. If the staff member sees it is a develop- mental conversation rather than a stressful confrontation, they will he more receptive to change. A stressful confrontation between manager and staff member undermines the supportive relationship required to create the appropriate climate.

The ideal manager is a “helper”, who provides support for staff. Motivational skills centre around helping skills. Since direct help is not always helpful, deciding what assistance to provide in a given situation is a skill in itself. The combination of listening and helping is counselling.

Conducting successful counselling

You are ready to begin a counselling session. You feel confident. You have completed the preparation details. You have reviewed the counselling pitfalls and will avoid them. Someone will answer your phone. You are ready to listen. Your notes and pencil are in front of you. Your employee walks in.

1. You put the employee at case by being warm and friendly.

2. You define the reason for the discussion.

3. You express your concern about the area of performance you feel needs to he improved.

4. You describe the performance problem or area that needs improvement and define its impact on you, the employee, the unit and the company.

5. You acknowledge and listen to the employee’s feelings.

6. You seek the employee’s opinion on ways to improve performance.

7. You ask open ended questions to encourage employee analysis and to draw out specific suggestions.

8. You let the employee know that you respect his or her ability to solve, problems and develop solutions.

9. You offer suggestions when appropriate, but build on the employee’s ideas where possible.

10.You agree on appropriate actions.

11. You schedule a follow up meeting to ensure accountability to provide feedback on progress [within ten days].

12.You promise to provide feedback on progress.

The session is over. You are relieved and pleased that it went so well. Congratulations!

Towards a New Strategic Career Development Model:

Merging Organization and Individual Needs and Interests.

This article is an excerpt from Mr Baker’s Doctor of Education studies at QUT. His central question is: How can managers increase and sustain the productivity of their work force given the past, present and future challenges facing organizations? He argues that the solution for merging worker’s needs with organizational interests can be best served by the development and implementation of a career development model.

Need for a New Approach Towards Career Development

The dilemma for management of attracting and keeping motivated and talented staff is hardly a new concept. Balancing individual and organizational needs has been a perpetual issue for as long as organizations have existed. Over a quarter of a century ago, Katz (1964) made the point that “(a)t a practical level …we need to cope with such organizational realities as the attracting of people into organizations, holding them within the system, insuring reliable performance and, in addition, stimulating actions which are generally facultative of organizational accomplishment.” Katz used phrases such as “holding them”, “insuring reliable performance”, and ” stimulating actions”. These expressions illustrate the problem of maximising productivity. They focus on organizational outcomes at the expense of workers’ needs. The balance has been very much in favour of the organization. It could be argued that little has changed in the past 25 years.

This dilemma has come into sharper focus in recent times as employees are seeking a deeper sense of meaning from their work lives. According to Rolls (Chawla & Renesch, 1995:102), “(t)his search by employees, coupled with intense economic pressures … have resulted in a new relationship between people and organisations in the workplace as people address the pressing issues and try to find answers to staying solvent in a whitewater environment.” People want to increasingly define their lives and their work in their own terms. In general the evidence seems to indicate that employees want to enjoy work, to feel they can make a contribution, to feel respected as people, and to learn and grow. On the other hand, the workplace has not been a worker-friendly, flexible structure that would accommodate sociological changes. So the need for rapid responses to an increasingly competitive and customer-driven global marketplace have forced managers and organizational consultants to reinvent the organization and workers, living with their natural resistance and their feelings of upheaval and insecurity that change brings, have not responded in the way managers have planned. Organizational transformation however, deals with deeper and more pervasive issues such as personal growth, vision, trust, creativity, purpose, leadership, mastery, and cultivating organizational spirit.

These transformation issues have direct impact on the notion of career paths. Adamson (1997) acknowledges that for at least the last thirty years both theoretical and practical definitions of career have emphasised structure, succession and status. Career has therefore been viewed as the sequence of attempts to move onward and upward through organizational hierarchies. He argues that we need to accommodate new perspectives about career development that go beyond this narrow view. The career, in other words, should be seen as a “vehicle” for the continuous realisation of self. From the worker’s perspective, Simonsen (1997:15) points out that “(p)eople whose only career development planning involves the expectation of promotions to management or to higher levels of management may find themselves on an indefinite plateau or even downsized.” So the old systems of hierarchy, titles, putting oneself in line for the next higher position, career paths, and so on are contradictory to realities in today’s - and will be even more so in tomorrow’s - organizations. Is it any wonder that employees need help reframing their thinking about careers in this chaotic environment? With the old paradigms no longer viable, new ones must be developed and communicated by managers. As careers change, so must career planning and development resources both within and outside the organization.

Work, itself, is changing so fast that job descriptions are obsolete almost as quickly as they are written. It is not only job descriptions, but the nature of jobs themselves that are becoming antiquated. As Bridges (1994) points out, work is not going away but jobs are. The possibility that an individual can be hired to do a specific job and nothing else is long gone. People doing whatever needs to be done to make the business a success represent the new entrepreneurial

model. Many companies are asking employees to “act like an owner”. So, on the one hand, managers want workers to take more responsibility for their work, and on the other hand, they have traditionally focused almost exclusively on organizational output, which is what they have been measured against, at the expense of nurturing personal growth.

Career Development as Change Agent

Since jobs are no longer socially adaptable, the answer must be to create the post-job organization. It is ironic that most managers need employees to stop acting like job holders, yet they know only how to hire, pay, communicate with, and manage job holders. Most organizations also maintain policies, strategies, training programmes, and structures meant to enable employees to be more successful in their job activities. Ironically, a wave of job free workers intent on doing what needs to be done rather than doing their jobs would wreck most traditional organizations. Just as individuals need to rethink their assumptions and strategies, organizations too will have to rethink almost everything they do (Bridges, 1994).

Career development can be positioned as a change agent to bridge old and new realities, reinforce the messages of change needed, and educate employees about “what’s in it for them.” To be successful in this regard Pritchett and Pound (1996) claim that you must hit with enough shock effect to immobilize the old culture at least temporarily. An integrated and comprehensive career development system can affect the organization culture in several positive ways. Table II (Simonsen, 1997:22) below contrasts old elements of a typical culture with a new paradigm for individuals and their career development.

Table II The Changing Individual Paradigm

SOURCE: Simonsen, P. (1997). Promoting a Development Culture in Your Organization. California: Davies-Black, p.22.

The significant changes in work and the workplace we are experiencing today have created a need to think differently about our “human capital” in organizations. The main influence for this change has unquestionably been the rise in the competitive climate which in turn has stimulated employers and their managers to review, perhaps on an ongoing basis, their organizational structures and employment arrangements. The organizations that will emerge successfully from the turmoil of the 1990’s will reinvent themselves - the paternalism and dependency that evolved with the industrial age are no longer viable. Everywhere we hear that the old employment contract has changed. Most workers have heard that they need to change, but most companies have not yet recognised that the organizational culture needs to change as well. And of those companies that are aware that the reformations to be made must be so pervasive as to require a change of culture in the organization, some may not have defined the new culture that must emerge.

It seems that a possible solution could be the implementation of a comprehensive, integrated career development system that will provide the catalyst for bringing individual expectations in line with organizational realities. It could provide a framework for updating or creating systems that support new behaviour to achieve the results needed to survive and thrive. The approach to career development must align with, or support, the organization’s new or desired culture to make the greatest impact. Without understanding the forces driving the culture or a goal to create a development culture, many companies have tried to implement career development or other programmes that came to be referred to as “the flavour of the month.” While well meaning, they were not sustained because the components did not fit the new culture or cause enough change to contribute to the development of a desired new culture. This potential model warrants further investigation and must serve the collective interests of workers, management, owners, the organization and the state.

References

Adamson, S.J. (1997). ‘Career as a vehicle for the realization of self’, Career Development International, 2/5, 245-253.

Bridges, W. (1994). “The End of the Job”, Fortune, September, 50-57. (can be found in Hearn et al 1996)

Chawla, S. & Renesch, J. (ed.). (1995). Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Workplace. Portland: Productivity Press.

Katz, D. (1964). “The motivational basis of organizational behaviour”, Behavioural Science, 9, 131-46.

Pritchett, P & Pound, R. (1993). High-velocity culture change. Dallas: Pritchett & Associates.

Simonsen, P. (1997). Promoting a Development Culture in Your Organization.California: Davies-Black

The changes in employment conditions require a new paradigm with which to understand the relationship between management and employees.

Management Today October 2000 pp. 6 - 7.

by Tim Baker BEd BA AIMM AITD

Organisational Development Consultant

WINNERS-AT-WORK

In the recent academic
literature the attempt by management to move into a new relationship
with their employees has generated a divided response between those
who view it as a hypocritical attempt to “screw the work
force” in a different, and rather more subtle, way than before
(Statt,1994); and those who see it as a real attempt to change the
basis of the employment relationship for good - in both senses of the
word (Grint, 1997; Eldridge, Cressey & MacInnes, 1991; Hyman &

Mason, 1995; Drucker, 1976; and Schuller & Hyman, 1986). Without
elaborating on the compelling arguments put by both sides, the most
constructive view in the interest of all stakeholders is an objective
and critical appraisal of how and why people behave as they do in work
organizations. In this respect, a thorough psychological analysis is
the enemy of the quick fix and that role, ultimately, may one day be
seen as the most important contribution industrial psychology can make
to the world of work. The focus needs to shift from issues of
disagreement in the employment relationship to areas of agreement.

There is a need for a new way of
viewing work. On the surface, at least, the new reality signals losses
for the organization and the employee. On the one hand, employees have
lost job security and the sense of long-term organizational identity (Noer,
1997). On the other hand, organizations have lost the predictability
of managing a dependent and internally orientated work force (Noer,
1997). What alternatives are available to traditional ways of dividing
up work? According to Noer (1997:218),

[o]rganizations that will thrive in
the new reality are those that will be filled with employees who
have the option to leave, but choose to stay because of the work.
Those that fail will be populated by employees who are only there
because they are afraid to go elsewhere.

Before defining this new working
relationship, an attempt should be made to clarify the traditional
relationship and its apparent shortcomings. The traditional employment
relationship consists of the manager specifying the work requirements
and in return for a willingness to comply the worker receives a wage.
This has been the conventional lynch pin of the relationship between
manager and worker. Any failure to heed a work instruction, on the one
hand, or to pay the agreed wage, on the other, means that the contract
collapses.

The current manager-worker relationship
is easy to follow despite its short comings. However as Belbin
(1997:3) rightly points out that “[t]he essence of the crisis is
that, while the management model is simple, people are
complicated”. Managers being managers are given responsibility
and workers are given tasks. This creates a dilemma. Workers who are
not given responsibility tend to shirk responsibilities and therefore
never become responsible. And the fewer the people who take on
responsibilities, the greater the burden of responsibility that falls
on the shoulders of the manager. In reality, managers can disappoint
and those in subordinate roles can surprise others by their initiative
and enterprise. As Belbin (1997:4) puts it: “When people do not
fit the managerial paradigm within which they are meant to operate,
anomalies give rise to disorder and set in motion a second round of
derivative anomalies as people attempt to find their way around the
problem”.

On the surface, the obvious answer
would seem to be a less formal employment relationship where managers
provide workers with the freedom to be flexible and innovative in
their approach to problem solving. However, these approaches,
advocated widely in new management literature, open the door for
workers to manipulate the system. The grey areas, which are absent in
the traditional manager-worker relationship, open the way for
political operators to seize the opportunity and exercise their
unwelcome skills. This often results in what Belbin (1997:4) refers to
as “…undermining authority without adding value”. Managers
may feel threatened and revert back to the simple demarcation of
responsibilities in the traditional relationship.

The problem is that we have not
developed a new mode of working relationship to escape the pitfalls of
the traditional system based on a new mind-set. There is, under the
old mind-set, a considerable price to be paid for developing a new
model for the manager, worker and organization. Under a new employment
relationship, managers will not be able to give and supervise tasks to
their subordinates to the same extent. Workers, on the other hand, are
expected to take greater responsibility and be more accountable for
their output. While any new system would emphasize negotiation between
manager and worker in terms of crucial aspects of employment,
agreement should not be presumed.

Nevertheless, there are enormous
advantages in breaking the bonds of codependency for the worker and
the organization. The worker in the new reality can choose to invest
themselves in satisfying, meaningful work, engage in continuous
learning, and reclaim their self-esteem.

The organization payoff is equally
positive: a work force filled with free independent employees working
on tasks they find fulfilling-resulting in long-term competitive
advantage in the global market place (Noer, 1997). Grint (1997) refers
to this new association as corporate citizenship. Individuals have
rights the organization must honor. Workers also have responsibility
to the

organization to be involved, committed,
and supportive. Obligation, consent, and participation are elements of
organizational citizenship (Fairholm, 1997). In other words values
become the adhesive of citizenship in the organization. This new
approach is still based on codependency, but without the restrictions
of the old industrial model of them and us.

This is not an easy process and
requires new ways of thinking for both individuals and organizational
leaders. The employee must choose to break free and claim the new
freedom and the organization must accommodate and facilitate that
choice. What is required therefore is a new model that incorporates
the often conflicting needs, interests and feelings of both the worker
and the organization. Noer (1997: 214) refers to this as the “yin
and yan freedom dance.” “In a yin-yan relationship, both
halves are incomplete and need each other to achieve the unified
whole.” Noer specifies five aspects of the new codependency:
flexible employment; customer-focus; focus on performance;
project-based work; and the connection of human spirit and work. These
aspects of the new relationship serve as a good starting point for
discussing a new codependency. The table below illustrates this new
codependency and is based on Noer’s “yin-yan freedom
dance” (1997: 214).

Table I The
New Worker-Organization Codependency

SOURCE: Based on Noer, D.M. (1997). Breaking
Free: a Prescription for Personal and Organizational Change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass., pp. 214-17.

The development of more complex organisational forms – such as cross organisational networking, partnerships, alliances, use of external consultants for core as well as peripheral activities, multi-employer sites and the blurring of public/private sector divide – has implications for both the legal and the socially constituted  nature of the employment relationship.

The idea of a clearly defined employer-employee relationship becomes difficult to uphold under conditions where employees are working in project teams or on-site beside employees from other organisations, where responsibilities for performance and for health and safety are not clearly defined, or involve more than one organisation.

This blurring of the relationship affects not only legal responsibilities, grievances and disciplinary issues and the extent of transparency and equity in employment conditions, but also the definition, constitution and implementation of the employment contract defined in psychological and social terms.

Do employees perceive their responsibilities at work to lie with the wider enterprise or network organisation? And do these perceptions affect, for example, how work is managed and carried out and how far learning and incremental knowledge at work is integrated in the development of the production or service process?

So far the investigation of both conflicts and complementarities in the workplace has focused primarily on the dynamic interactions between the single employer and that organisation’s employees.

Introducing notions of multi-employer relationships on the employment relationship also calls into question the single employer assumptions underpinning both the approach to employment law and employment rights and to the management of the employment relationship.

The questioning of the appropriateness of the assumption of a single employer in employment law adds a further dimension to the debate about how to provide effective protection for employees in a period of diversifying employment statuses.

That diversity can be seen to include complex multi-employer relationships and not simply issues of atypical employment contracts.

The recognition of multi-employers and multiple organisations also adds a further complexity to the notion of organisational commitment, a concept already under pressure due to increased job insecurity and the growing likelihood of boundaryless rather than bureaucratic careers as the dominant employment form of the future. Here the problem is not just one of short time commitment to an organisation but of the presence of multiple employers leading to potentially contradictory pressures for organisational commitment.
In these circumstances, it would be sensible not to place too much faith in the power and the pervasiveness of notions of commitment, as evidenced in the doctrines of human resource management. The introduction of multi-employer relationships calls into question any notion of a single best way or best approach to employment management.

Employment law in the future may have to take into account these multi-employer relationships, thereby creating problems for managers establishing ‘best practice’ routines or systems designed to ensure against any need for direct recourse to the law for individual employees.

Where employment relationships span more than one employer, such systems may be more difficult to design and implement. Similarly, in the field of human resource management, it may be impossible for managers to avoid making more use of direct contractual systems of control while at the same time increasing the autonomy of employees to take charge of and manage complex relationships.

Information technology can only provide at best a partial solution to these control problems. It is possible that inter-organisational relationships will continue to depend upon a dual approach, based on contract and on status.

About Contributor
Dr Tim Baker is managing director of WINNERS-AT-WORK, a human resource development consultancy based in Brisbane. Dr Baker can be contacted at tim@winnersatwork.com.au