| making 'People' work

To have meaningful work that enables our independence and to live with dignity should be a basic human right

Tag: Organization

Understanding Gen Y: Part 1

I recently came across an article written by a young man who identified himself as Gen Y (those born between the mid-1980s and 2000).  His article reflected on the life of his mother who had served her main profession and few employers continuously and steadfastly throughout her adult life towards the aim of enjoying a comfortable retirement.  As that time loomed near she had not achieved the financial security she needed for retirement.  Even a delayed retirement would provide her little more than a basic existence and the prospect of dependence on others as her health declined over time.

The writer vowed that he would never live his life in selfless service to employers to face the same late life insecurity as his mother.  His article provoked outraged criticism from many readers.  Comments saluted the mother as dedicated and selfless while he was branded ‘typical Gen Y’: entitled, ungrateful, insensitive and selfish.  Respondents compared their own parents who, like the writer’s mother, worked long and hard to provide for them but unlike the writer, they were proud of their parents who earned their pensions and they saluted their dedication.

The emotion of the responses seemed out of proportion to the sentiments expressed in the article.  For instance he was accused of having a sense of entitlement, yet nowhere did he write that he expected more than his mother.  He simply stated he wanted make different choices to his mother so he would have the opportunity to achieve a better outcome.  A look at the profile photos of the respondents suggests reactions could have had something to do with their ages and their own prospects for retirement in the years ahead.

Like this writer, I do not think we should call a system (economic, social or otherwise) that asks for compromises to be made during our working lives in exchange for freedom in future years, but then that freedom is unavailable, a success. Far from disrespectful, he was distressed that his mother’s financial situation did not do justice to the care she took of others during her working life.

What was typical of this writer as a member of Generation Y was his attitude that the system needs to be better. He reached out on social media so he and others can do something about it.  They think this way because we taught it to them.

As Gen X (those born between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s) parents, we have sought to do what our parents before us have done: give our children a better life than the one we had.  With experiences of relationship breakdowns, mortgage stress, complying with society’s expectations at the expense of our own fulfilment, job insecurity and social inequality guiding our parenting approach, we taught our children to never settle for less than they deserve.  We have given them the expectations of respect, equality, choice and that they can be anything they choose to be.  We denied them little and protected them from harm that often existed only in our minds.  “Why don’t you look it up yourself?” we would say when they asked us a question and we saw an opportunity to develop their independence.  We drove them from activity to activity week after week, and that was worth it because these activities developed their confidence and their collaboration skills.  Their sense of responsibility to the planet and to the disadvantaged is a credit to us because we told them it was important to care about people more than title, money and power.

And now they are in the workforce, and Gen Y – with the values we instilled in them – and the workplace are out of sync.


Since the modern workplace developed in the 1950s, a clash between the establishment and the new generation has always been the case.  Boomers in the 1960s fought workplaces fraught with inequality and patriarchy.  Gen X in the 1980s fought being ‘treated like a number’ and demanded recognition and career opportunity.  The difference with the entry of Gen Y into the workforce is the previous generations are working longer; they are staying rather than making way for the new generation.

It is far too easy to dismiss Gen Y as a self-absorbed generation that understand technology better than people.  To them, we the older generation can seem not self-absorbed enough – complying with employers for their benefit at our own expense – without fighting to change it.

Gen Y are an educated, caring, confident, connected, inquisitive, socially-minded, innovative and entrepreneurial generation.  Organisations need to harness these attributes not beat young workers into our old thinking that time served equals achievement.  It will not be enough to accommodate them; we need to actively engage with them.  We should learn how we can keep up with an automated, technology-driven and hyper-connected world.  As the world ages, Gen Y will not just be the talent that powers the organisation, they will also be the customers.

As parents we told them not to settle for something they felt was not right, and there is much about work that is not right.  Like them we should also feel outraged when after a long working life we are faced with the fear that our savings will not be enough. Like them we should assume that this is something we should do differently.  As managers we should not even have the time to be complaining about Gen Y.  The time should be spent developing a workforce model that better serves the organisation in the new world, and provides better prospects for financial security in retirement.

#encompassproject – crafting the organisation

Structure follows strategy.

So said Harvard Business School’s Alfred Chandler in his 1977 book, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Once a strategy has been decided, the organisational structure should be designed to optimise the way resources are arranged, supported by the policies and systems that specify how the organisation should operate, and managed in line with the strategic intent.  In this way, Chandler argues, organisations are well-placed to serve their target market, differentiate their offerings and respond to market forces.

Few organisation are structured other than as a top-down, pyramid-shaped hierarchy with which we are so familiar.  This was the organisational design that effectively capitalised on the principles of scientific management which advocated the standardisation of production, mechanising labour through jobs designed to match stages of the production process, and separating ‘thinkers’ from ‘doers’.  The economic boom of early 1900s that followed the widespread adoption of this design all but guaranteed that organisations would use this structure regardless of specific strategy as the drive for profit outstripped other considerations

There were several reasons why this organisational structure so successfully achieved unprecedented levels of growth and productivity.  Mostly it had to do with mass production and the growing mass market.  When profits are driven by supply in volume, the simplest approach is to design an organisation that prioritises standardisation.  The de-skilling of the workforce in favour of jobs not only meant the ability to increase output many times over but it also enabled paying as little as possible to the people whose work was defined by tasks rather than ability.  The corporation thrived.

This top-down hierarchical structure suits perfectly the corporates that are there to serve their shareholders.  Shareholders are willing to handsomely reward a CEO they consider to be well-enough skilled to steadily grow the business and profits, able to fend off any threats to the business, and make hard decisions to protect their investment.  The enormous pay and bonus schemes are less about market rates and more about ensuring the CEO is accountable to the shareholders and their demand for returns.  With the organisation’s power and control concentrated at the CEO level, the CEO is able and authorised to use any and all justifiable means (unfortunately ‘justifiable’ doesn’t always mean ethical, responsible or in some cases even legal) to meet profit forecasts.  Reducing services, off-shore outsourcing, cost-cutting and redundancies are as much the requisite tools of trade for CEOs as spanners and wrenches are for plumbers.

But for organisations like Encompass Community Services, one that serves a purpose before a profit and where returns are not counted in dividends, a top-down hierarchy can be a liability.  Of course, if funding compliance was the measure of success, standardised process and bottom-up reporting are ideal – simply replace ‘shareholders’ with ‘funding bodies’ and ‘profits’ with ‘funding’.  As the previous post outlined, however, such an approach conflicts with Encompass’ commitment to do more for its clients than counting the hours they dealt these funded programs to those funded clients.  In reality, Encompass has been managing dual organisational systems: the formal one that complies with how funding dollars are spent; and the spiritual one that makes decisions based on the organisation’s Vision.  The dual structure has not only become too costly, but whenever parallel systems exist, there are always plenty of cracks where things can disappear.

The organisation structure was the topic of a meeting with the Encompass Board in late 2013.  Encompass needed to choose which structure it was going to support as it could no longer juggle both.  One Board member put it most succinctly, “We cannot afford not to.”    A top-down, hierarchical chain-of-command is a basic template for delivering more funding but its design is predicated on clients as a mass market and people as standardised labour.  Although many of Encompass’ counterparts – against whom Encompass competes for funding – may well be organised to maximise funding, for Encompass this option was not feasible.  Firstly, because it would have to be over CEO Elaine Robb’s dead body and secondly because it simply could not co-exist with Encompass’ Vision and Values without significant fallout in the culture of the organisation and the trust it has built with its clients.

Priorities Matrix

The Priorities Matrix used with the Board

The alternative the Encompass Board wanted has two objectives.

  1. Build a financially-sound, purpose-driven organisation;
  2. Place the organisation’s resources at the fingertips of anyone who wants to be an Encompass client or part of the community that supports them.

It would shift the Encompass model from ’employ as few as possible’ used by shareholder-driven organisations, to ’employ as many as we can afford’.  The ‘maximum profit’ paradigm would be replaced by one of ‘maximised potential’.

‘Maximised potential’ is an overused term that rarely has any real meaning.  The Encompass Board determined that it would back any necessary measure to make ‘maximised potential’ a reality.  The #encompassproject which was launched as a result of this meeting is now working to de-standardise jobs so that employees can respond to potential from:

  1. Their individual and collective abilities, ideas and willingness;
  2. Working closely with the individual and collaborative abilities, ideas and willingness of clients; and
  3. That looks for common interests and engages with the local community.

An example of how this might work in practice is a program to teach cooking skills to help clients with disabilities work towards independent living.  Typically Encompass would deliver a program to teach cooking designing it against nationally accredited criteria and balancing the contact hours that would be funded against minimum numbers of participants needed to make the program viable.  However basic, practical and healthy cooking is not just a skill needed by the disabled.  Many young people today grew up with two working parents and unlike previous generations have not learned to cook from their mothers.  Divorce rates are forcing newly single people to take on cooking responsibilities previously looked after by their spouse.  A spate of redundancies in the manufacturing sector in the local area may change the structure of the family where the previously home-staying spouse may be able to find work leaving the partner no longer employed to now look after domestic duties.  This program then could be more than using funding dollars to run a client service; it could maximise potential by tapping into changing social and demographic factors.  Perhaps private participants would be willing to pay a small fee for such a course, or a local business may subsidise costs, given the wider target market, by sponsoring the program.  The program leader may not come from the Encompass training division at all but – supported by the training team – may be the gardener, cleaner, accountant, that is, someone with the ability, ideas and willingness to contribute to Encompass in ways beyond the job.

Potential can only be realised if it has an outlet.  With an outlet, potential has the unique property of being capable of constantly regenerating – that is, of being maximised.

*Author’s note: the views expressed in this blog are those of the author reflecting her opinions and experiences and are not the views of Encompass, its Board, management or employees.

#encompassproject – what is it?

Ten years ago when Meta Management was newly hatched, I was fortuitously introduced to the CEO of a disability services organisation who was looking to expand its management capability from Board level down to developing supervisors.  As is the norm for the not-for-profit services sector, operating lean is embedded in the organisational psyche.  However, I was to learn Encompass Community Services was not your typical not-for-profit organisation, mainly because the CEO was not your typical community services CEO.  Elaine Robb is unconventional, feisty, and plain-speaking.  Through her single-minded efforts the small, on-the-brink-of-failing organisation she took over has grown into a 100+ employee, multi-service provider supporting around 2000 clients each year.

Encompass’ major difference is that it does not believe that its work is providing services to people with disabilities; instead it believes people with disabilities are best served when they have equal access to opportunities.  With this mindset, Encompass operates service divisions and social enterprises, which include a farm, a ceramics studio, a catering service and a retail store at a local university; it invests in its employees’ continuous learning; it funds travel to learn and connect with international best practice; it operates a service called ReadyStart that provides pre-loved work clothing to help its clients join the workforce; and it makes none of its decisions on the funding it receives, but uses its funding to make the best decisions possible.  Almost one third of Encompass’ employees have a disability.

When Encompass became committed to person-centred excellence, an approach based on the principles that a person with a disability should be the key decision-maker in his or her own life (against the traditional mindset that those with disabilities are not the best judge of what is good for them, or the one that believes it is better to be realistic than be disappointed), Elaine and the Board of Directors knew it was time to replace the organisation’s vision.  The one that had served the organisation for many years stated:

The vision of Encompass is founded in the shared values of the Board of Directors and staff.  We value:

  • Empowerment of clients and staff;
  • Ethical conduct in all of our activities;
  • Inclusiveness in our membership, leadership, staff and client bases;
  • Enterprise and innovation in our service, its development and delivery; and
  • Accountability for the resources and services entrusted upon us.

While this vision reflected the values and goals of Encompass, it failed to capture its spirit.  So in 2011, working with the Board over a number of hours, we discovered Encompass’ true vision.

Your Vision is Our Vision – whatever it takes!

The new Vision would commit Encompass and its people to always be working towards the life that their clients want.

Unfortunately the system that supports and funds disability services does not share Encompass’ Vision and funding is subject to government policy and budgets and distributed on the basis and clever tender-writing.  Like a hormonal teenager, Encompass has never been satisfied to play as the sort of organisation that bureaucracy and norms dictate.  Encompass’ old mission statement expressed what Encompass did but not what it drove it to constantly fight for better services and resources for its clients.  Therefore shortly after the new Vision was launched, this mission statement:

The purpose of Encompass is to promote the interests of people with disabilities and others who are disadvantaged via:

  • Specialist employment services;
  • The provision of training, both accredited and non-accredited;
  • Lifestyle programs;
  • Small business ventures; and
  • The development of new services and expansion of existing services.

too was replaced with Encompass’ true Values:


Impatience to achieve our goals and create positive change

Stubbornness to not give up on things we believe

Frustration to not be complacent with things that should change

Conflict that comes from wanting things to improve

Pushiness when there is much to be gained

Inexperience because we keep trying new things and pushing boundaries

Outspokenness to not accept the unacceptable

Oppositionality to agitate for change

Fast-forward to 2013 and Encompass was suffering from a perfect storm of difficult events including reduced funding, increased costs, falling donations, and more clients needing its services.  Contrary to the way funding systems would have you believe, clients do not suffer issues or seek solutions in categories, so when a client’s particular circumstances do not fit in a neat ‘problem’ box or the ideal solutions cannot be classified into a single program like ’employment services’, Encompass never takes the option of declining to help but rather finds a way to do what it can.  The accumulation of these ‘out-of-funding’ cases was also have a significant impact on the cash flow of the organisation.

Elaine and I had been meeting regularly to discuss the tactics that would help Encompass meet its strategic goals.  Cutting services and finding new funding sources were two of the obvious options discussed.  The first was such an anathema to the culture of the organisation, that it was always rejected.  I believed the second would only add to an underlying issue that was contributing to, if not the major cause of, the difficulties Encompass was facing.

Organisations need a structure – it’s the basis of being organised.  The structure used must support the way the organisation achieves its goals because the structure determines how the processes people must follow are designed. Organisations that are publicly-funded are required by the funding bodies to comply with a raft of criteria.  Encompass had effectively organised itself to best carry out its work under the compliance regime imposed and rarely experienced difficulties with the regular audits to which it was submitted.  Many processes followed in the daily operation are of a highly bureaucratic nature as the funding criteria require them to be.  Like the vast majority of organisations, Encompass operates with a top-down hierarchical structure. Encompass’ successes have always been achieved despite not because of its structure.  The financial situation however meant the  structure-to-purpose mismatch was adding enormous pressure to every facet of the operations and management.

As for any field, organisations will not perform for today’s needs with yesterday’s methods.  Most people think that the first modern automobile was developed at the turn of the 20th century.  In fact they were available to the market in Great Britain since the mid-1800s.  The lack of infrastructure to support the increasing appearance of large, speedy vehicles however prompted a backlash from various sections of the community and the Locomotive Act was enacted in 1865 to control their use.  This law decreed that no self-propelled vehicle could use a public road in the United Kingdom unless it was proceeded on foot by a man waving a red flag and blowing a horn.   This law, not repealed until 1896, effectively killed further development of the automobile for the rest of the century.  Encompass’ organisation structure was having a similar effect on its work.  It was finding it increasingly difficult to achieve the outcomes of a knowledge workforce it desired such as collaborative self-management and local-level initiative and solution generation with an traditional management structure.

Encompass, aiming to be client-responsive AND benefit from an empowered workforce as the key to achieving its vision, has been reviewing the impact of its structure and processes on its effectiveness.  The organisation currently suffers from what I call a chrysalis crisis.   A chrysalis is the stage in the development of a moth or butterfly when a hard shell forms to protect the pupa as it grows.  Like the chrysalis, organisations develop protective shells in the form of policies, procedures, compliance regimes and management structures, however the crisis forms when the protective mechanisms stifle the growth and abilities of the very thing it aims to protect.  For Encompass, operating under financial pressure, it was being crushed under the weight of its own administration and management overheads.

The organisation estimates its compliance regime alone is costing the organisation in the vicinity of a quarter of a million dollars per year.  This is only taking actual costs into consideration and not the cost of lost opportunities.  While it is difficult to quantify the value of this type of loss, during one Board meeting, the Board members were prompted to list all the assets currently available to the organisation that it was not effectively utilising.  The Board members compiled an extensive list including the ideas of its staff, the potential of its clients, their knowledge about things that were not working and skills that were not being utilised.  Typically organisations only utilise 50 per cent of their available intangible assets so the benefits for Encompass undertaking changes to its organisational structure and management is not just the reduction of costs but increasing the utilisation of its workforce knowledge (where the majority of Encompass’ intangible assets reside including skills, ideas, relationships, teamwork, and so on) by a significant degree.

Through this process of evaluating the organisation and how to prepare for Encompass’ desired future, we conceived the need for sweeping changes based on four broad goals:

  1. Incorporate clients into the organisational structure
  1. Remove position and department barriers to fulfilling potential
  1. Move to a 120-day strategic cycle to maximise results (i.e. leveraging, learning, correcting) from efforts in progress rather than planning for hypothetical futures and fixing not-yet-occurring problems
  1. Shift to a social enterprise model that:
  • Engages across local, disability and corporate communities
  • Incorporates revenue within the service delivery
  • Leverages the service delivery experience for further revenue sources
  • Will enable funding bodies to be partners not the current carrots and sticks

These goals are now to become the #encompassproject.  Over the next weeks and months I’ll be sharing our progress in this blog.  The number of people with disabilities needing support will increase in the years to come.  The aging population, the rise of mental illness, lifestyle factors such as binge-drinking and financial stress contribute to the estimation that one in four people will suffer a disability in their lifetime so we need service providers like Encompass to succeed.  In the end, it’s not even about disabilities; it’s about the ability to live the life you wish to live, and one in which your participation in your society, community or family is valued by those in it.

Author’s note: the views expressed in this blog are those of the author reflecting her opinions and experiences and are not the views of Encompass, its Board, management or employees.

The unravelling

This article was first written at the height of the GFC – we have not advanced much since then.

This blog is about the state of work – often a sorry state of work. When times are tough, as they presently are, we are more protective of work: as employees of the jobs we have; as employers, the jobs we make available. Perhaps in adverse times we become more aligned, united in our efforts. Otherwise employment is an undeniably a relationship of conflict: about money, about rights, about being a worker with human needs and issues. And if employment is relationships between the interests of different parties, then the employment system is aimed at mediating between power and rights between workers and employers, thus, we have not resolved the employment conflict, we have made it mainstream. Many will disagree. We have heard all the objections before. We know many protesters will be from the human resources fraternity. After all, their programs and processes are designed to create harmonious, productive workplaces: finding “right” people, ensuring feedback is provided, careers are available, development is promised, people are “retained”. We don’t mean to sound cynical but the happily aligned workforces are those often relentlessly policied, programmed and filtered to the point that they are sanitised of individuality.

I am not anti-employer, nor anti-human resources (HR).  I also see employees who cause all manner of headaches to their employers and colleagues: bringing to work a sense of entitlement, an expectation that they are there as a right, contributing angst, uncertainty, and complying with workplace expectations if not with grudging, feet-dragging unwillingness, then selectively. What I am saying is that the current method of employment is inadequate and unsustainable. Unsustainable because the willingness of workers to be subjected to autonomic organisations’ decision-making agenda and abilities, and the potential for uncertainty, lack of fulfilment and demands that cross reasonable work/life boundaries, is waning. Inadequate because the resource/productivity mentality of the industrial age does not cater for the many ways that people can work. We are used to putting values on, say, a salesperson with a 300-customer database, but what about a person with no sales experience but with a following of 3000 (interested, potential customers?) on Twitter?

The cracks in employment have been showing for a very long time. Unemployment and underemployment, skills and labour shortages are problems in the labour force that have yet to be resolved. In the workplace rates of burnout and stress are on the rise from the ever-growing number of causes: overwork and under staffing, or being over-managed by the under-skilled, or the lack of variety and stimulation, or the need for on-demand availability from access to mobile phone and technology, or the erosion of confidence and esteem from people or systems that intimidate, bully, harass, or systems that cannot cope with the demands on them. The thing is people do want to work as much as they have to work. They just want to work in a way that suits them as humans, not in the way that organisations subject them to work. The irony is that for all that organisations and people are basically similar in their desire to achieve, to succeed, to engage and to meet challenges, the current system of employment is more likely to accede differences than build on similarities. People get it that organisations need to be, to one extent or another, commercial or entrepreneurial. What they want is an open dialogue about the environment in which this occurs and they contribute. When HR becomes involved, the opportunity for this dialogue diminishes. HR, an advocate for management, weights the flow of dialogue top-down rather than two-way. Further, commerce and business are not the common language of HR, so its ability to facilitate shared concern for the success of the enterprise is often limited to generalities without the specifics of data and metrics, strategy and analysis. This is less a reflection on the intelligent, professional, dedicated people who work in HR, it is just the nature of the profession and the way HR is educated.

Some of the problems with employment can be explained by its history. The late 1800s to early 1900s was the golden age of industry. Wealth shifted from the land-backed class to those who controlled resources – the mines, forests, factories, and populations shifted to towns to take up the demand for mass employment. Employment law is at its roots part of family law originating in the old English feudal relationships of master-servant, where the master had the right to control the servant for the benefit of the master.

As great wealth became available following the advent of machinery, great conflict ensued with strikes each year involving millions of workers throughout the industrialised nations around the world often turning violent even deadly. Workers fought against work conditions which were often inhumane, the use of child labour and working six and seven days a week and days up to 16 hours long. Demands for an eight-hour day, increased daily wages, sanitary working conditions and safer conditions usually resulted in compromise until the world-wide spread of the “human movement”.

Thus the interest of this blog is to share what we do, the lessons we learn and the successes we achieve in our work. We begin by rejecting “human resources” as having found the solution for today’s workforce. Its practices may have once been appropriate, when people were a cog in the production wheel; today it is an oxymoron. “Resources” are assets by definition, “the property of a person or corporation, a thing of benefit to its possessor”. Notwithstanding that an organisation might appease some by calling people their “greatest” asset, employment is a process that causes people to be treated like a resource for the corporation’s purposes, capable of being bought, sold, hired, used and disposed of in line with its plans to achieve wealth or revenue. The human is not the resource, it is their skills, ideas, networks, time, experience and so on. No wonder people so often feel used – they have been. As the late, great management thinker, Peter Drucker, wrote in the Harvard Business Review February 2002, “They’re not employees, they’re people”.

This all makes sense, again looking at history, because the success of the early firm depended on productivity, that is the most efficient and effective way to produce as much as possible as cheaply as possible. From F.W. Taylor (scientific management to increase industrial efficiency c. 1900s) to W. Edwards Deming (post-World War II inventor of Total Quality Management) organisations have sought ways to increase productivity. As competition intensified and demand plateaued, corporations have sought to differentiate themselves, through service, unique features, niche offerings, or other value-add. “Looking after employees” became a priority. Not only was the employee trained in the organisation’s way of doing things, they were often part of the customer service. The loss of their knowledge and relationships was a disadvantage to the firm, and worryingly could be used by a competitor. More specialised skills and knowledge vested into positions also meant a greater cost of replacement. Unfortunately for productivity, employees are unwilling to commit to firms who are not prepared to give loyalty, but think it can be bought (“retaining employees”, they call it). So organisations continue to base employment on productivity-based models and buy loyalty.

To spell this out further, a productivity-based model is one that develops specifications for production output at a certain cost. In human resource terms we might call them job descriptions and KPIs (key performance indicators). We refer to the production-based organisation as “linear”, that is, sequential (i.e. process x follows process y;) and standard HR processes are designed in the same way (ergo I feedback, you perform). For this “greatest asset” we offer incentives and rewards: promotions, bonuses, feedback, training. However, this is becoming unstuck if not because people – enter Generation Y who have no memory of being grateful for having a job – are demanding more “human” treatment but certainly because knowledge is the new “resource”, and knowledge cannot be conveniently measured.

Where the industrial revolution rewarded those who controlled the resources, controlling people as a resource only benefits the production part of an organisation’s offering. It might get the coffee made, but what about the smile, remembering the order of a regular, the conversation with customers? When we count wage costs, we know what we pay for labour but do not measure what the “people factor” costs. This part of “labour cost” – and it does cost – is where traditional employment fails most. The cost is frequently not monetary but we are so tuned in to the concept of “resources” we overlook the non-production costs. So what does this cost? Well the key “cost” is that employer must drop control. By “control” we do not mean having proper, diligent management, we mean the type of control, that as just one example, favours the few (those who are not a non-English-as-a-first-language speaker, a casual, a temp, too old, etc, etc.) in the name of “performance”.

“Dropping control” is a worrying concept for many employers. They constantly asks, “How do we stop them leaving? How do we protect our information? How do people know what to do without job descriptions?” And much more. But these controls are only illusions. People leave if they want, they take information with them, that they cannot “unknow” something when they leave, and who takes instructions from their job description anyway? An organisational infrastructure is the new people resource because it allows people to supply their efforts in the same way as, say, electricity powers a building. An organisation without a well-developed organisational infrastructure (OI) is inefficient because it allows the “leakage” of non-”productivity” efforts; we see trust, motivation, good will and other people qualities as no less valuable to a firm than a person’s labour for all their intangibility.

Employees should not be the source of instability and stress that it is for so many. It is enterprise that should be the common language of employees and workers with common goals and values and that in doing so both employers and workers alike take responsibility for and benefit from their ability and willingness to contribute.

%d bloggers like this: