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.