Value Add: Meritocracy vs Mentorship

But casting a wider net in the search for merit — or even expanding the definition of it — is a different thing than discarding it altogether.

Andrew Coyne makes some fair points about best person for the job, etc. He also wisely points out the unconscious biases that, far more than actual "merit", determine hires.  

I've responded to the uproar about a commitment to more women in Cabinet elsewhere; it's this concept of merit that will be my focus here. 

What is merit? Is merit the proven ability to do a job?  By and large, that seems to be the definition being used in the modern labour market. The expectation is that employers will hire the person with the best demonstrated ability to do the job in question. How have they demonstrated this ability? Through having done it before, naturally.  

It's a message I have heard time and time again - find the one thing you're great at, then just keep doing it. The emphasis in this frame is the ability to sell to land the job or get the contract, then do it again, then do it again.  

You eat what you kill, the saying goes. People hire based on your number of kills.  This, too, I've seen again and again - experts who move from contract to contract, essentially repeating what's worked elsewhere, like a Sparky Polastri (or a Lynton Crosby).

Imagine school worked that way - to get in, you have to prove you can pass all the tests on day one. Or how about sports? Imagine talent scouts went from game to game, rejecting out of hand young talent because they weren't able to compete with the pros right out of the starting gate.  

How exactly does one become an expert without experience?

The counter-argument is that the gaining of expertise isn't the employer's problem - that's all on the prospect. They can get schooling, volunteer, whatever it takes to build their portfolio and ‎demonstrate their merit.  

After all, ‎that's WHY we have school - for kids to learn before entering the workforce. Right?

Employers spend their own money - it's entirely reasonable for them to want to reduce risk and only invest in sure things. Especially with the economy as uncertain as it is and all kinds of system shifts to worry about.  

Therein lies the problem with "merit"-based hiring. You, as an employer, can rely on your own experience to determine what will and won't work for your company - but if things are changing, how well do you know what skills the future will require?  If you're in competition - is more of the same in your best interest, or might you need to up your game with a bit of innovation?   If you hire people who are done learning and selling established expertise, do you run the risk of falling behind?

We've gotten used to thinking that survival and success are based on strength - the toughest guy gets the best deal, etc. On a transactional basis, this has merit‎; thing is, transactions are one-offs, tactics over strategy.   Harper was a tactician, look where that landed him. 

In evolutionary terms - the long game - it isn't strength that determines fitness, but adaptability.   Individuals don't evolve, which is why organisms adapt by adding diversity to their mix - through different genes (sex), or new technologies and systems (civilization) to new talent (Orgs like Google, for instance).  

New talent isn't a proven commodity - but it might provide the right adaptations for success in a changing world.  

All that before you get to value-add and loyalty.  When you hire a know commodity for what everyone already knows they can do, you're decreasing your odds of extra value being generated.  You get what you pay for.

When you hire emerging talent, you can nurture loyalty and create opportunities for unexpected gains, fresh approaches, new ideas - value-add.

You can stick with the abilities you think you know you want - or, you can take a chance and nurture some new talent.  It's impossible to know what all you might get, but you don't always know what you need, either.

At the very least, nurturing talent is an idea with merit.

Hey Bosses, Employees Aren't Your Problem

"Ontario's health system does not have the resources to act as industry's Truant Officer."

There are presently massive changes happening in leadership practices.  It's early days yet, but the long-term prognosis is good.  As was the case with the Labour Revolution, smart employees are realizing they need to rethink their approach to Human Resources, just as HR folk are revisiting the whole purpose of their industry.

Where We've Been:

By and large, the prevalent stigma around employees is that they aren't focused on company success and are either not clever enough to see the big picture, too selfish to care or too lazy to add value without their own.  The assumption of bosses the world over is that employees are a problem that needs constant management, like weeds in a garden, if the work is to get done.

Salary and punishments are sticks and carrots to keep workers in line; all the frills they ask for are simply excuses to detract from productivity.

So, if an employee calls in sick, it's likely that they're looking for an excuse not to come in.  If they say directions weren't clear, they're stalling for time.  If they produce work that doesn't meet the expectations a boss had in mind, it's obvious the employee wasn't paying attention.

Enter micromanagement - the boss will either watch their employees like a hawk or push harder on middle managers to fill that role for them.  Sure enough, micromanagers will find employees less engaged, less productive and more likely to take every sick day available to them.  It reinforces the belief that the employees themselves are the problem.

Management, in this perspective, is about stopping truancy.

Where We're Heading

The age of the all-knowing boss is coming to an end.  Smart leaders are recognizing that being top dog doesn't make them omniscient, nor does it mean that their say-so is all that matters.  Instead, they're turning to science, behavioural economics and are willing to pilot innovative strategies to find, retain and motivate the best employees to the best results.

Google is a great example of this.  Instead of penalizing employees for being human beings that need recuperative breaks, socialization and food, they're optimizing engagement to ensure their team has their base needs met and that the process of meeting those needs feeds into the companies mandate of catalyzing innovations that will change the world (while making a profit).

Seeing how their stock price has topped $800, they must be doing something right.

There are other employers out there taking step in the same direction; great Canadian firms like Optimus SBR and Environics have started seeing their employees as the solution, not the problem, and are developing and implementing strategies that puts their team in the co-pilot's seat.

Surprisingly, there's even a movement growing within bureaucracies like the Ontario Public Service to change their working culture, though such initiatives are getting stuck in the clay layer of entrenched, comfortable middle-management.  Political Parties still lag far behind, but then, they're an industry focused on competition and wins, not achievement.  

Leadership, in this perspective, is about empowering individuals to be active participants in company success.

Nothing in this cognitive labour support movement is airy-fairy or pandering; it's evidence-based and it's effective.  The bosses that think otherwise can continue to lean hard on their employees and look to cut when they see their revenue drop, but this is the path to extinction.

The Conscious Revolution is here to stay - and the leaders that will build success in the knowledge economy are recognizing that their human resources are human first, and need to be treated as such.

Are You a Brandlord or a Leader?

The feudal system was simple - lords were masters over plots of land that they would defend through the employments of soldiers.   The people who lived on that land did so at the whim of the lord, but the right to space and the relative security from brigands the lords' knights came at a price.

The peasants privileged enough to live on the lord's land had to give something in return - a portion of crops grown for instance, or a certain number of hours working directly on the lord's work.  Peasants rarely had to do things they would not have done regardless for their own survival - they simply had to produce more.  

So long as the lord provided space an relative security, his job was done.  Soldiers served not only as guardians of the realm, but also enforcers of production.

That was the arrangement - space and security for labour, which was supervised by a middle class of managers.  There was no cause for the peasants to collaborate on anything except the lord's work, and then under tight supervision.  It was not in the lord's interest to let his peasants fraternize, lest they get ideas (which happened anyway).

Feudal societies tend not to be very innovative ones, as you can imagine.  That's not to say innovation never happened, it simply wasn't nurtured.

This basic laissez-faire model - lord (or boss), enforcers (or middle management) and at the bottom, the labourers has been repeated across time and geography.  The rules are the same - stay in line, or you'll be punished.  Produce more, you'll be rewarded.  Do things differently, well, there's not much place for that.  It's the model that sustained the Industrial Age, Tokugawa Japan and arguably, many an organized religion.  It's become the de-facto model of the Knowledge Economy as well.

How many employers today believe that, by providing their employees with a desk, computer and phone, plus the right to slap the company name on their card, they have lived up to the fullness of their responsibility   How many of these brandlords believe it's up to their employees to self-motivate, create content, satiate clients and do the ever-demanding job of sales?  How many mangers feel their role is about driving activity, not coordinating success?

We have entered a new world of neo-feudalism where the it's the job of the bottom to sustain the top rather than the top to empower and propel forward the whole.  Adding value, at least in  Canada, isn't of interest - simply more of the same is.

Which is why, in a pandemic of youth unemployment, the message being conveyed is that kids these days have unrealistic expectations when they think that higher education in promoted programs will translate into higher starting salaries.  It's a privilege to be able to hold a job and earn any kind of salary - to expect more from those with capital is unrealistic.

It's not that the bar is being set higher so much as it is the floor has been raised.  Is it any wonder that the middle class is shrinking?  In a society that promotes management over motivation, how many middlemen do you really need?

While nations the world over are evolving their economies, Canada remains frozen.  We don't care, though - instead of nurturing collaboration and new ideas, we're pushing competition over natural resources.

There's a big difference between harvesting the fruit of someone else's labour and nurturing innovation and value-add.  You don't grow a garden by expecting vegetables to audition for the right to be planted in your soil; similarly, you can't expect your employees to add value unless you're providing direction, support and coordination.

Are you an employer?  If so, are you a leader or a brandlord?  

If it's the latter and you've got a simple model that just requires unchanging mass production, carry on.  

If, however, you're in a business that relies on creating new solutions, products or services for your clients, you might want to try a different approach.

Unpaid internships: the most precarious work of all (Marci Chown Oved)

 

By: Marco Chown Oved Staff Reporter, Published on Tue Mar 05 2013

 

Anya Oberdorf has a university degree, a college certificate and experience with two employers in the publishing industry, but still can’t find a paying job. She spent more than a year working two unpaid internships, neither of which led to gainful employment.

 

After working part-time in a gourmet food store to pay the bills, she left to focus on finding work in her field. Though she’s been able to secure a few freelance editing jobs, the elusive salaried position still eludes her.

 

“My experience has been really frustrating,” said the Toronto native. “I can’t afford a third internship, but I don’t want to sit around at home, either.”

Oberdorf’s story is far from unique. Young people are stringing together multiple unpaid internships, and it’s not always helping them find a job — breaking an implicit promise that has drawn a generation of workers into offering their work for free.

Featured Video Close

 

Unpaid internships that last months or even years make up the most unstable part of an increasingly precarious workforce, which accounts for almost half of employment in the GTA and Hamilton, according to a recent report.

 

Very few facts are known about unpaid internships. The Ministry of Labour doesn’t regulate or keep statistics on them. Yet, for young people, they seem to be everywhere.

 

According to Statistics Canada, unemployment in Ontario for those younger than 24 is 16.5 per cent.

 

That’s more than double the rate of 6.3 per cent for those above 24.

 

“You won’t find the word ‘intern’ in our employment laws at all. It’s an industry term,” said David Doorey, professor of employment law at York University. “There seems to be a widely held belief that an employer avoids our basic employment law rules simply by labelling someone an intern. That’s wrong.”

 

In many sectors of the economy, internships seem to have replaced entry-level positions, forcing young people to work without pay for years till they gain enough experience to get hired for mid-level jobs, says Toronto lawyer and internship critic Andrew Langille.

 

“Exploitation of unpaid interns has reached epidemic levels,” Langille said.

 

Langille estimates tens of thousands of people are misclassified as interns by their employers. “As a result of this mischaracterization these young people forgo wages, can’t collect EI, and aren’t credited with contributions to CPP,” said Langille, who monitors internship job postings on his blog and often intervenes in an attempt to see that minimum wage is paid.

 

Much of the confusion stems from a Ministry of Labour fact sheet posted in 2011.

 

“There are no regulations pertaining to unpaid internships,” the fact sheet explains, before going on to outline the exceptions to labour law where less than minimum wage can be paid.

 

Six conditions must be met, including one that stipulates internships cannot lead to paid work — a promise often used to attract young people to unpaid internships in the first place.

 

An unpaid intern can’t do work that would otherwise be done by a paid employee, nor can the employer benefit from their work, the fact sheet says.

 

While it may seem clear, there is lots of wiggle room for employers in current labour law. Exemptions to labour law can be made for many reasons, said the Ministry of Labour’s Gisele Rivet.

People in training, volunteers, co-ops, apprenticeships and a variety of other categories of workers aren’t classified as employees under Ontario labour law, she said.

 

Yet even the labour ministry can’t clearly explain what a legal or illegal internship would look like. “I can’t say whether it’s a lawful situation. We have to look at the facts of the situation. We’d have to have somebody investigate . . . to determine whether the general rules apply or an exemption or special rule applies,” Rivet said.

 

With unpaid internships so widespread, critics say it’s time to address them in law instead of treating them as an exception.

 

“It may be time for governments to consider introducing a permit system,” said York University’s Doorey. “This would allow the government to verify that internships are not being used as a method to obtain free labour.”

 

Nav Bhandal, a Mississauga labour and employment lawyer, says people fear filing complaints because they want a job and don’t want to anger prospective employers.

 

There have been very few cases of interns suing for wages — he knows of only one — which makes it hard to interpret exactly what the law means.

 

“We need people who are going to take a stand,” he said.

The Vicious Cycle of Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Our economy is in crisis and people are looking for someone to blame. A large segment of society blames the government and many now express the view that everything would be fine again if the government would just stop interfering in the markets and allow laissez-faire capitalism to work its magic.

In Laissez-Faire capitalism, people pursue their own interests with a profit motive.  If they're not getting paid, what's the point? When they do have resources, those resources are there to use as folk see fit.

Including Human Resources.  Employers can hire or fire as they choose; employees can take or not take jobs as they choose.  It's through negotiating selfish interest that balance and stability gets built in to our non-system of a Randian non-society on a contract-by-contract basis.  Equal pay for work of equal value, etc.

Of course, this structure implies that the employer values individual labour and will pay appropriately for it.  A smart employer won't want to perpetually hire and fire - they'll want the best talent from the get-go and will work to keep it. 

 

But what if that isn't the case? What if employers see employees as disposable widgets and figure really anybody can do the job, so why pay big bucks for it?  After all, that's why North America lost its manufacturing industry - too many benefits for employees, too many regulations, not enough profit.   

What if employers view employees as tools, not resources?  If you smack something with a hammer hard enough, you'll break it; you can use the back of a screwdriver the same way.  It's less the tool that accomplishes the work than it is the pressure applied by the user.  That's exactly what micromanagement is.

Yes, some employers treat their employees like human beings; the laissez-faire capitalists, however, will hire and fire as they please without worrying about support, training, etc.  Why should they?  Labour doesn't make products, the employers do.   They built that.

Cheaper labour, less expensive regulation in places like Bangladesh - no need to waste money by operating in countries like Canada.  It's the international equivalent of child labour (including actual child labour).

If the quality of the labour doesn't matter, then the employees have lost their key self-interest bargaining chip.   Work becomes less about getting stuff done and more about sucking up the boss, (creating that personal value) or undermining your fellows so that if the axe falls, it'll land on them, not you.  The product suffers - but it still gets made.  Maybe it's a cheaper product, but so what - you can just push your people to up productivity and sell more for less.

Rational consumers in a laissez-faire model want lowest dollar for value - more for less.   They can compete between sellers for the best quality of product, but again - do they really need the fanciest tool to accomplish what they want? Doesn't it make sense to get the cheapest product so they have more cash to get more stuff? I can buy one dish at The Kitchen Store, three at Wal-Mart and ten at the Dollar Store.  The lowest cost wins - just as it has with the manufacturing industry.

Buying more for less, hiring more for less and ultimately, working less for whatever you get.  If the boss wants you to do more, they've gotta pay for it.  If you know you're going to be stigmatized from finding work regardless, the incentive to go through the standard job-hunt process isn't there.  Money, not legacy, not accomplishment nor even pride becomes the prime motivator.  Paying for training when nothing is guaranteed makes no laissez-faire sense; it's a waste of resources.

So what if you have a populace that isn't going to invest time in training or all the legwork it takes to get to a position where they might get hired?  What if you have people who won't even think about issues unless someone is paying them to do so?  What if every action is expected to turn around rapid results and everything is to be gotten for as little investment as possible?

It's not hard to imagine - we are surrounded by examples both domestic and international.  The best ROI comes from crime - little effort or brief effort pays handsomely; all you need to do is invest in some security and not care about what happens to people not you, laissez-faire style.  Drug lords do this.  Warlords do this.  Abusers of interns are doing the same thing.  Not hiring to save on cash is hardly a crime, but it's hardly to the benefit of society, either.  But that's what you get from focusing solely on your bottom line.

Here's the picture we have right now - employers with money want to spend as little of it on labour as possible and are skirting the rules by moving overseas or turning to contract work and intern work as methods to keep their costs down.  The marginalized demographics in our society know that the system is stacked against them; there's little motivation to invest in the time, energy and training to compete for the chance to maybe possibly get an interview for a dead-end position against a host of higher qualified or under-employed candidates.  It just makes no sense.

 

We can do as Jason Kenney has done - turn to foreign labour to fill the gap, cheaply.  The problem with this approach is that it doesn't solve the structural problem and feeds into the bias that already stigmatizes New Canadians with low or non-transferable skills.  You can't force the work that nobody wants to do without leaning towards indentured servitude 'with those desperate for work getting trapped in cycles of internships/Joad-style style Labour Migrations at best and Concentration Camps at worst.  You can try to create more stable work through government, but again, that means greater taxation which people aren't in favour of - it's that more for less thing again.

 

The analogies here are deliberate, but they aren't the only ones available.  In a social system where the few with the greatest wealth benefit and growing majorities are seen as tools in an economy rather than as human beings, something's got to give; instability festers.  Indifference leads to frustration of the kind that can kindle into crime waves, war or revolution.  In any of these scenarios, it's the people with the most who have the most to lose.

 

“We need people who are going to take a stand,” he said.

 

Which is why it makes sense for the haves to be the ones giving back.  There is precedent - every pulse in the history of labour has led to greater investment in human resources, and each has resulted in greater prosperity.  There is also precedent for what happens when employers head in the other direction - that, too, is the history of labour.

 

At the end of the day, a democratic government can't force it's people to do right by each other, to invest in society - when it starts trying to do that, it ceases to be democratic.  It is always ultimately up to the people to commit to living together.  This, too, we will continue to do - reactively, in response to a World War II or a Great Depression if not a Syria or an Egypt - until we stop turning a blind eye to the woes of others and seek to blame them for our own problems.

 

There's more to this "forward together" business than just an inclusive slogan - society is a Commons that can only be sustained on common ground. 

 

And of course, despite what the laissez-faire capitalists will tell you, altruism is really just selfishness that plans ahead.

Presenteeism: Working 9 to 5 Isn't Getting Us Ahead

Tumble outta bed
And stumble to the kitchen
Pour myself a cup of ambition
Yawnin, stretchin, try to come to life
Jump in the shower
And the blood starts pumpin
Out on the streets
The traffic starts jumpin
And folks like me on the job from 9 to 5

The Industrious Age

 

The Industrial Revolution was a period of unparallelled productivity.  For that reason, it's been suggested that it would be more appropriately called "the industrious revolution." 

 

We didn't get to the peak of manufacturing capacity without some hiccoughs, however; the rise of the economic might of the manufactured economy was not a simple matter of a few Horatio Algers building the means of production and offering decent wages for decent work.  A whole host of other factors had to come into play to result in the ultimate widget-building system.

 

You can't have an industrial revolution in a sparsely populated, agrarian society.  No one can spend their day travelling from the farmstead to town to punch a clock nine-to-five, play the role of HR cog in a production line and then get home, milk the cows and till the yard.  Industry requires density, specialization and a complex economic system that makes people more reliant on each other.

 

Let's look at this from another angle.  If dad is out working the fields and mum is sewing clothes, doing dishes or tending to five children and every family follows more or less the same model, you have neither the ability to have an industrial economy nor the need to have an industrial economy.  There's little need for education, either; everything you need to learn to get ahead in life can be learned at home by folk who've been doing the exact same thing their whole lives, as have their parents.

 

A functioning industrial economy required a fundamental change the way we view not only work, but the way we define family.

 

Work in Agrarian Society:  That thing that you do to directly support the life and livelihood of your family.  When the work is done, or temporally done (can't harvest what's just been planted), you rest, spend time with family - relax.

 

Work in an Industrial Society:  That thing you do to earn money to buy the goods and services (food, made clothes, kitchen tools, furniture, lodging) you need to support your family.  When the work is done, you unwind - or, because there are manufactured goods and new services, you goods and services to supplement your life and add value to your day.

 

Family in an Agrarian Society: Larger, more complex, multi-generational.  Family is the thing that comes first and work is done to support it.

 

Family in an Industrial Society: 2.5 kids, so that the stay-at-home parent isn't overwhelmed.  The go-to-work parent is the "bread-winner" earning the coin needed to buy the goods and services needed for life.  There may be grandparents in the mix, but that changes the hierarchical structure (the workin' man deserves to be in charge, after all, not the enculturating stay-at-home grandparent).  Besides, isn't success defined by independent property ownership and copious consumption?  Grandma doing the knitting just messes that all up.

 

Well, to a degree.  More people working on the line means more people buying stuff; when this happens, costs starts to go up (because the end goal is profit, so if you have more people you can sell to, why not jack the prices?  The people will compete to have ownership of stuff and therefore portray themselves as better off than the Joneses) and the need for increased income rises.  There are only so many middle-management positions available so eventually, parent #2 needs to go to work, too.  Schools, not homes, become the depository for kids during the day - and an opportunity to learn more skills leading to a demand for more out of work than just the assembly line.  What's the point of spending all that time in school if you aren't going to get a job better than your unschooled parents had?

 

Then, there's the actual work itself.  For the most part, working on an assembly line sucks.  Simple, mind-numbing repetitive tasks aren't fun for most people and the end product isn't even something you're likely to enjoy yourself (doubt that, go live with the average factory worker in Brazil or Bangladesh for a couple of weeks).  What's the motivation to go through such an uncomfortable day when you could be on the farm, enjoying the fruits of your own labour?

 

The myth of Horatio Alger is good enough for some, at least for a while.  Over time, though, it will quickly become clear to many that the myth is just that; it's simply not true that anyone can be President or CEO.  Instead of striving to be the best, we satisfy ourselves with being better than someone else.  That, plus we need something to sweeten our mad existence.  There's a reason why sugar played such an important role in the industrial revolution - it made for an excellent carrot to motivate employees and played a hugely important role in shaping the evolution of the global economy.  Of course, it doesn't hurt that sugar makes an excellent sweetener for energy-nurturing beverages like tea and coffee, which surprise surprise, also play a big role in the development of a manufacturing-based industrial economy.  Keep your workers caffeinated so they work and through in some sugar at the end of the day; that, plus the threat of being replaced if you don't work fast enough are pretty good motivators for producing more widgets per hour.

 

That's not enough, though.  When you have workers coughing up lungs, losing fingers or generally being upset at the fact that they're busting their buns for meagre pickings while their bosses where fine suits and live in mansions, something has to give.  The 1% can and will tend to deny this fact for as long as possible, trying increasingly conflated confabulations to justify their fungal lifestyle but eventually, the aurora of entitlement wears off.

 

Whether by choice or by force, the playing field has to even out a bit.  Employers invest a bit more in their workers - training, benefits, vacation time, etc. - and lo and behold, productivity goes up.  Healthy, marginally happy workers with something to look forward to (even if it is just the TGIF roundup on the telly) are more productive than Concentration-Camp workers.

 

That's what it took for the perfection of the manufacturing economy - the empowering and properly motivating and stimulating of labour, the 9-to-5 workday, the breaks for tea and the odd week off to get away from the job.  Provide those things and you'll get the most bang for your buck.

 

The Manufactured Bleed

 

The rise of Western Society (best exemplified by the US) was build on the industrial revolution - whole populations grew, flourished and became more urban (and therefore more socially integrated and systematically dependent) and productive as a result.  It's taken a while and a few revolutions of the bloodier variety, plus some failed flirtations with communism for non-Western societies to fully embrace the industrial model.  And to be honest, in most cases, they haven't fully gotten there - poor infrastructure, low wages, little or no training or support have proven to be less of an impediment than it was to Western Countries because of much larger and more desperate population bases.

 

Products made in sweat shops in China, Brazil or Bangladesh might be cheaper made, but they're cheaper to buy, too. 

 

We Western folk, programmed by our own industrial revolution to want more of everything as recompense for our own labours tend not to pay so much attention to what happens behind the productive curtain - until, that is, we are exposed in thrilling fashion to horrors like the collapse of a factory in Bangladesh for which we, as consumers of the products made on that floor, are ultimately responsible.

 

This also brings us to the biggest flaw in the laissez-faire free market model favoured by the likes of Stephen Harper or Mitt Romney.  It's all well and good to suggest that, eventually, systems become balanced, wealth gets invested in labour and all the other top-down approach thoughts to economic growth, but this is a variant of the mentality that fuelled robber barons and czars.  The boss can be impatient and push for more production; they can even use labour employed as security and paid/resourced better than the masses to reinforce the point.  At the end of the day, though, there are always more ants than grasshoppers and the grassroots can always topple their leaders, if they become impatient enough for their own opportunity.

 

Yes, Western economies are suffering from the bleed of manufacturing jobs to countries like China, Bangladesh and Brazil, countries that have raced through industrialization.  At the same time, those countries are going to find themselves racing through the labour revolutionary process, putting them back where we were until the 90s.  Trying to scale back our economic evolution to the production equivalent of horses and bayonets won't only not get us ahead, it also won't fly - not with a populace that has been trained to expect more.

 

The Knowledge Economy

 

When you step back and line up the evolution of the manufacturing-based industrial revolution and the information/social-media tech-fueled Knowledge Economy revolution, all kinds of fun parallels line up.  The traditional definition of family doesn't mesh well with the labour requirements of the age - stay-at-home parenting is almost impossible for any family that wants to live comfortably.  More goods from Wal-Mart isn't making people happier.  The carrots, sticks and sugar model of labour motivation that worked so well for widget-making isn't keeping countries like Canada at the head of the innovation pack; heck, we can't even compete in pure knowledge productivity.  The 9 to - 5 workday, lived in one setting doing one task, no longer applies - we now need to have our heads all over the place and be multi-tasking, even innovating the work we're paid to do, yet the expectation is that will happen between 9 and 5 while sitting at one desk.

 

It's a bit ironic - while employers call for deregulation and an opportunity to keep more of their funds to themselves, somehow assuming that's all it takes for modern-day success, they don't see the value in freeing up their labour in the same way.  Especially in Canada, we are doing a terrible job of training and motivating our staff to produce the work/services/products we're demanding of them.  Across the board we're seeing average folk Occupying themselves with this imbalance; as the gap between their quality of life and that of their employers rises despite their clear importance to the production chain, the worker is Idle No More.

 

What has happened before shall happen again, etc.

 

Andrew Coyne's Reading List

 

If we want more entrepreneurs, how about we teach them to be, you know, entrepreneurial: self-reliant, innovative, customer-focused, not a bunch of browners trotting off to Ottawa for a pat on the head?

 

Andrew Coyne's a pretty smart fella - so when he talks with measured confidence about entrepreneurialism, labour health/productivity and innovation, I'm sure he's done his homework and therefore knows of what he types.

 

Some of the material he may have perused in his research:

 

Public Investment in Skills: Are Canadian Governments doing enough? (C.D. Howe Institute)

 

The 21st Century Office (YourCT.com)

 

The Role and Future of HR: The CEO's Perspective (HRPA/Knightsbridge)

 

44 Master Moves of Remarkable Entrepreneurs (Robin Sharma)

 

A Mentally Healthy Workforce - It's Good For Business (Partnership for Workplace Mental Health)

 

Age, Education and Illness Behaviour (Singapore Medical Journal)

 

Applying What We Know: Student Learning Styles (Dennis W. Mills PhD)

 

Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Connected to Cognitive Ability? (Institute for the Study of Labor)

 

Building Mentally Healthy Workplaces: Perspective of Canadian Workers and Front-Line Managers (Conference Board of Canada)

Connecting the Dots: Linking Training Investment to Business Outcomes and the Economy (Canadian Council on Learning)

 

Does Job Satisfaction Improve the Health of Workers? (Institute for the Study of Labor)

 

Guarding Minds at Work: A Workplace Guide to Occupational Health and Safety (Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction)

 

Workplace Mental Health and Competitive Advantage (MPP Kevin Flynn)

 

The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity (Editor, Mark Turner)

 

The Consequences of Micromanaging (Kenneth E. Fracaro)

 

The Relationship Between Labour Productivity and Real Wage Growth in Canada and OECD Countries (Centre for the Study of Living Standards)

 

The Unheralded Business Crisis in Canada (Global Business and Economic Roundtable on Addiction and Mental Health)

 

Mental illness adversely affecting Canada’s economic potential (Alexandra Lopez-Pacheco)

 

Normal Behaviour, Or Mental Illness? (Anne Kingston)

 

The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas (Jennifer S. Mueller)

 

Creativity and the Science of Innovation (Carter Bowles)

 

7 Things That Set Real Entrepreneurs Apart (Steve Tobak)

 

School of Hard Knocks (Annie Murphy Paul Reviewing Paul Tough 'How Children Succeed')

 

The Hypomanic Edge (John D. Gartner)

 

The RX For Innovation (Baba Shiv)

 

 

There are 25 articles here; many are lengthy and pretty much all of them will strain your brain. 

 

I could offer some recommendations on priority reading - I could even organize them into sub-groups and colour coordinate them.  But again, Coyne's a smart guy, an independent thinker and pretty entrepreneurial himself. 

 

Folk like that don't need guidance, do they?  They always rise to the top and end up calling the shots, which is why we're where we are today.

Mental Health, the Knowledge Economy and the Cognitive Labour Movement

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest."

  - Benjamin Franklin

Last night, I had the privilege of attending a Why Should I Care discussion around the theme of Mental Health – its Challenges and Solutions.  There was a lot of focus spent on the fact that mental health and addictions are the underfunded cousin in our national health care strategies.  One of the speakers, Dr. Paul Garfinkel, said that while there is presently an upswing in public sector engagement and funding, he’s seen this same boom-and-bust cycle of interest come and go in the past to no lasting effect.  Priorities shift, he suggested; new generations of political and business leaders, police chiefs, etc. lose the thread, then it’s back to square one.

Another key theme discussed was the fact that, as I’ve posted elsewhere, natural resources might be a get-rich-quick scheme that will work in the short term, but that isn’t going to sustain us over the long-term as we continue our social progression from a manufacturing/industrial based economy to the Knowledge Economy.

These two points are linked.  What what we’re experiencing now is something similar to the first rumblings of the labour movement of the last century, or other labour-related movements that came before it.  Whereas it was physical harm that led to protest and eventually led to a more humanely-designed, more productive manufacturing/industrial work environment, we’re now repeating the cycle from the angle of mental stress and mental illness.

New Relationships in the Workplace

Creativity, innovation, out-of-the-box thinking and the ability to process and synthesize are the skills the market is demanding now.  An Internet check on the most frequently asked interview questions provides an insight into the "real world" out there with questions such as: What do you look for in a job? Why should we hire you? Define success at work? How do you feel that your education has prepared you for this job? to Why is a manhole cover round?

The focus of labour is therefore shifting from individual success (dog-eat-dog competition) to collaborative achievement.  This is fundamental for nurturing innovation.  Ideas don’t form in a vacuum; they require inspiration, exposure to diversity, critical thinking.  Like building a nation, collaboration simply cannot occur without a collective meaning that people can rally behind and a social framework to encourage sustainable growth. 

As an example, look at the boom-and-bust of Political Parties; they get into power on the backs of employees and volunteers that have drunk the Kool-Aid, really believe that together, they can build a better province/nation/community.  As power progresses through elections, the bright-eyed staffers become jaded or disengaged and new bodies that come in are weaned on a culture of “us-vs-them”, with very little in the way of idealism surviving the cut.  If you want an example of this, just look at Canada’s Federal Liberal Party.

Collaborative achievement, out-of-the-box thinking and candle-problem solutions require a different skill set then those typically seen as desirable today.  Before, employers wanted “hungry”, confident people who could take charge, force results through, maybe break a few eggs in the process.  There’s a fine line between confidence and arrogance; arrogant people aren’t prone to listening to and contemplating the ideas of others.  When competition is the focus, our reactive brain take charge, our blinders go up and we miss lateral possibilities that are only visible when we consider the notion that maybe our way isn’t the best way - maybe someone else has valuable insight.

How many leaders achieved success by being tough, competitive and aggressive?  How many of them are good at fostering innovation and collaboration between their employees?  How much emphasis do they put on life-long learning?  The carrot-and-stick approach of bonuses/raises or demotions/firing might speed up work, but it doesn’t provide the kind of motivation needed for innovation or critical thinking.

What’s happening now is that these A-type personalities are downloading responsibility for value-add to their employees.  “I want you to think up new markets and innovative opportunities – and your bonus will be tied to your success.”  It’s an approach that won’t work, because at a neurochemical level, it can’t.  The naturally creative people will still produce, but in a less focused way.  For everyone else - pressuring them to be innovative is like throwing a kid in the deep end of the pool and telling them to jump.  This approach is going to further frustrate already frustrated employees, exacerbating already-high levels of workplace stress.

The response will be a public backlash, not unlike the rising tension that nurtured the physical labour movement.  We already see the social tension rising with Occupy, street violence, work-to-rule and strikes.  As little bits and pieces of policy up the friction, people will respond with increasingly reactive, limbic-based behaviour.  When the consequences become dire enough, decision makers will start to realize that a John Woo standoff isn't their way out and will move to appease the masses with some proactive cognitive-labour legislation and programming.  Given the connection between mental illness and social service uptake (many conditions being treated as, say, cardiac illness have a strong mental illness component), politicians and the bureaucracy will begin to see solutions to our fiscal woes in proactive mental fitness strategies, essentially taking the lead out of the water instead of trying to cure lead poisoning.

Employers will also come around to what the stats are already telling us – that properly designed workplaces and more humanely-designed work foster better, more innovative performance, help employee retention and reduce sick days.  Police are already starting to see the benefit in mental health awareness training for the satisfaction, safety and success of their front-line officers; as this trend continues, they’re going to start looking to the rest of society to do more, keeping people with mental illness from ending up in police confrontations in the first place.

You can add to this the growth of mental health curriculum in Ontario’s school boards and the rise of Social Emotional Learning as a component of education, particularly at younger ages.

What Comes Next

Mental health isn’t just about sickness any more than overall physical health is.  You can train your muscles to do more and do it with greater ease – the same holds true for our grey matter.  As we aren’t paying attention to how our brains work and how our social environment and lifestyles impact our cognitive development, we’re creating unnecessary harmful strains that make us less effective collectively.  That’s a trend that can’t last if we’re to be competitive in the Knowledge Economy.  The outlier leaders in our society are going to see the potential of proactive mental-health strategies and new tools to help empower people to use their grey-matter better and things are going to change.

Look for:

- Open-sourced training opportunities and work-time dedicated to exploring other interests tht can enhance your job performance and contributions.

- Cognitive workplaces that are designed a bit more like libraries, with a comfort feel, individual and collective workstations.  Work culture will become a bit freer; employees will have margins and timelines but greater freedom on how they spend their time

- Corporate collaboration - increased specialization that works in tandem with other parties.  This will lead to a reduction in duplicaiton, gaps and overlaps.

- More focus on team-building; work will consume more of people's time, but they'll get more meaning from it, too.

I see it as only a matter of time before such things become more common-place.  The only question, really, is how hard we’re going to resist the tough medicine that will ultimately make us all better.