Some time ago I tried to get a paying hobby going, including doing a
cheapie website myself. This blog has largely taken over the writing there, but I'd like to transfer what I posted there to this log for my personal convenience
(and the small possibility that others might be interested :) ).
*****
Thursday 9th
February, 2017 - The Erosion of Workers Rights, and Other Stuff
This is a cross-post from here (sorry, I lost the link somewhere at the
original site):
When I started work four decades ago,
workplace conditions had evolved as a result of union activity [
link],
and there was a clear knowledge of rights and expectations. Now, as a result of
neoliberalism, work is basically insecure, with much having degraded to a
bestial “dog eat dog” competitiveness – not just between companies, but between
individuals for access to jobs that effectively mean survival in the modern
world.
Now, there can be an advantage in greater
flexibility, and that was one of the problems of the old award system, but we
have – as with privatisation – thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and
created a situation where the cure is worse than the (perceived?) disease.
Nowadays, job insecurity - and lower
employment - gives employers enormous power to do almost (there are still some checks and balances
here in Australia) anything they want, but workers are cutting down on
their spending as a result, and the markets that employers want to capitalise
on with what they view as “flexibility” are disappearing – as a direct
result of their actions.
I’ve been thinking of writing an article on
this, along the lines of a working title of “Competition: a case of too much
testosterone?”, arguing that our predominantly patriarchal society has
biased us into a fallacious view that competition is “the only” way to ensure
efficient delivery of goods and services, whereas a more matriarchal approach,
allowing for some cooperation and flexibility, would actually be better for society
– not only in terms of efficiency, but also in terms of the nature of society,
the effects life had on personalities, and the richness of non-work life (which
is much, much, much more than solely families).
As an example of that, the effort required
to win bids for work in the water industry is truly extraordinary – every
privatised water authority has their own sets of forms, companies refer to have
well established relationships with key people in water authorities (which,
to some extent, is possibly because decision makers are not making decisions on
the basis of the forms they have create, but on personal knowledge of
individuals), and there can be frequent contact to clarify questions during
the tendering process (which I consider an indictment on the quality of
specifications/briefs being prepared by water Authorities these days, possibly
as a result of less real life [aka “practical” experience [the day I get out of
engineering, I’ll start writing some articles on these sort of issues for
LinkedIn … ]). These costs become part of the overhead which is passed on
to consumers in the next successful bid.
I had hoped that the use of panels might be
a way of getting out of the extreme competition trap, but it doesn’t seem to
be, and I’ve now realised that the failure is because work still gets
concentrated into a few companies who sell their capabilities better than
others – not that they necessarily actually HAVE better capabilities,
but they certainly sell what they have better.
That leaves us with the excess of
competition, and no consideration whatsoever of a more cooperative /
collaborative approach aimed at the betterment of society. (As an example of
one – unworkable, sadly – idea: maybe have all the technical experts in a pool,
which is then allocated to the successful companies, who retain their admin and
project management teams. That way, we get the best technical solution combined
with the best management solution. The point is that there are a lot more
talented people around on this issue than me: if they were to put some time and
energy into better options than endless and extreme competition, I’m sure we
could come up with something that combined the best of competition and
collaboration – maybe not initially e.g., panels], but down the track … ).
I doubt I’ll have the time and energy to
write that article properly, so the preceding few paragraphs is it :)
One of the other outcomes of this addiction
to excessive competition is the slow erosion of workplace rights and conditions
– not as a result of some malicious, one-off act, but because of – basically –
people’s fears around survival, in the modern sense.
The reason people (a) have smartphones for
work, and (b) leave their phones on after hours, is – in a nutshell – because
they FEAR
not being more responsive to managers’ / clients’ demands / expectations /
whims. In other words, they are competing with an image that someone else may
be more addicted to work, which could cost them their job / a client’s project
…
An excess of competition, starting with an
imbued bias …
This erosion crops up in many other areas
as well. One example is companies taking and keeping photos of workers homes
when the workers want permission to work at home. Now, the Privacy Act is quite
specific on this sort of thing: companies can only
(in Australia) access
your information if they have a valid need for it, and to the extent that is
necessary. Thus, for instance, companies can
ONLY access your ID
documents if they have a valid need for that, and they can
ONLY scan
that when sighting the documents will not suffice [
link].
(This is one of my major objections to signing up to facebook: it has NO
right to some of the personal details it asks for.) In the case of
companies wanting to be sure that a workers home situation is a safe and
appropriate place to work, photos could be sighted, but there is NO need for
those photos to be kept on file – and there are considerable
risks
in allowing such photos to be stored
(I’m thinking of situations where real
estate agents have put photos showing furniture of tenants up on websites [illegal,
in Queensland – quite rightly], which has led to some women being tracked
down by abusive partners and seriously assaulted), not to mention the
inherent gross invasion of privacy - particularly of others who live in the
house.
What is the solution? Well, perhaps the
pendulum needs to swing back a bit, towards respect for workers’ inherent
dignity as human beings – i.e., for workers’ rights … and maybe towards
managers who are more competent at human interactions and issues.
Also, I have a few links which may be of
interest:
Sunday 22nd
January, 2017 - Motivating and De-Motivating Workers
I recently came across a situation where a
manager (actually, a management team, but
it is easier to refer to the singular) had set an “ambitious” goal for his
division's financial performance, and, upon it becoming clear that the division
would not reach that “ambitious” goal, gave a speech nobly calling for his
workers to make extra efforts and sacrifices to achieve his “ambitious” target,
almost as if this was a wartime situation and the workers were sacrificing for
the sake of defending freedom - rather than being about his KPIs and
performance bonus.
To be clear: the division was already
profitable, so this was NOT a situation where the workers' jobs were on the
line.
Was the manager being a motivator?
No.
- the manager failed to recognise that the goal had been set by him, was
predicated on issues that mattered to him, and that workers would recognise
that - just as they can recognise when managers are genuine [https://theconversation.com/note-to-bosses-workers-perform-better-if-you-give-to-charity-35873];
- setting unrealistic goals violates the principles that go with good goal
setting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SMART_criteria&oldid=757188056];
- what motivates workers are issues such as respect [https://theconversation.com/happy-people-work-harder-especially-if-they-get-chocolate-24646,
https://theconversation.com/why-take-a-stick-to-public-service-productivity-when-a-carrot-works-18546],
being including being involved in goal setting [http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-goal-setting-1881.html, https://theconversation.com/to-solve-britains-productivity-puzzle-try-asking-the-workers-43028],
and matters that they find challenging (e.g.,
new or better uses of work skills) - not being expected to work more unpaid
overtime;
- workers are more than just part of company: they have a life outside work, and
increasing unpaid overtime interferes with that - whereas there is at least
some evidence (perhaps all the way back
to the campaign for the eight hour working day) that time away from work
can be refreshing and actually increase productivity [https://theconversation.com/how-swedish-literature-reflects-the-benefits-of-a-shorter-working-day-68114,
https://theconversation.com/grappling-with-the-time-bomb-of-australias-work-rest-and-play-5330].
How different that situation would have
been if, for instance:
- the
original goal setting had included workers -some of whom were more experienced
with changes in economic cycles than the manager;
- the
manager had engaged with workers and shown a genuine interest in their lives -
which is, perhaps, a subtle way of reminding people why they work, and of the
benefits that come from increased profitability that is shared with workers.
Friday 25th
November, 2016 - Qualifications and Hiring, and the New Life Cycle
We seem to be heading towards a situation
where, soon, everyone will need a tertiary degree before they are allowed to
sneeze, and I consider it has become excessive – particularly with regard to
employment.
Now, when I have been in a position to hire
people, it has been in relatively minor roles, but I have always felt
comfortable backing myself – I read the applications that come in, talk to few,
and then hire the one I consider is best on the basis of my opinion, and that
isn’t necessarily the person who is most qualified or has the most spectacular
experience.
The problem with using application agencies
is that they focus on who has the best, in a sense, “numbers”, and they miss
the issue of what could perhaps be termed “soul”.
You may well find that hiring a PhD with
years of experience works well for a while, but then the PhD decides your
company is no longer good enough, or that there is a better offer elsewhere,
and leaves – whereas the slightly less qualified person who has perhaps been
battling for a while is likely to appreciate the opportunity and not only stick
around for longer, but try harder.
So … how has this problem come about?
Well, in a word: fear – fear of being
responsible for hiring someone who doesn’t turn out to be a “good fit”, fear of
repeating the mistake of a bad hire, fear of not getting the boss what
she/he/ze really wanted (which, if it happens, is the boss’ fault for
communicating poorly).
It needs to acknowledged here, too, that
accountability –and thus fear – goes all the way up the chain: the boss may
also have the same sort of fears.
What is the solution?
Well, whoever is at the top needs to make
it clear that they would prefer to see some courage, decency and avoidance of
the shackles of fear.
I have known – worked for - such bosses,
incidentally.
I’d like to finish with a couple of
thoughts.
First, the new “life cycle” with regard to
work.
It has been known for at least 15 years –
to those who have been paying attention – that people may have to go through a
series of jobs, rather than a single career. Finally, however, someone has come
out with some useful comments about this.
The “
Foundation
for Young Australians” has
released
a new report,
“A
New Mindset”, about thinking in terms of clusters of jobs, based on
skill sets, rather than picking a job and going through life in that one job. This
report found that learning the skills for one job would typically give you the
skills for about 13 other jobs
(on average).
Now, all we need is for them to release the
jobs in each cluster, and the 13 or so jobs that are related to each job … (I’ve
sent them an email)
Final point: starting your own business.
I’ve heard quite a few people arguing for this, but:
(1) most businesses go broke in the first few
years;
(2) you probably won’t have an income for the
first two years at least – which makes it an utterly useless option if you have
financial dependents;
(3) it is a lot of hard work, and you probably
won’t be able to take holidays for a long time.
In short: be wary of going down that path
by diving in – do it as a paying hobby first, and only dive in when you have
some track record under you.
Don't forget to have a look at my new
skills on the main page.
Saturday 23rd
July, 2016 - Emotional Intelligence
Any good thing can be twisted or misused.
In the context of this blog, examples I wish to consider are:
(a) (mis)use of group bonding, and
(b) incorrect views around emotional
intelligence.
This is based on some recent reading, but I
have decided to NOT post the original links as I want to consider these issues
free of the hoopla which has developed around them.
Now, on group bonding, there is a
reasonable case to be made that having a sense of belonging or connection can
increase people’s contribution to a group. However, that has been taken to a
contradictory and destructive extreme by some companies who shut people out for
not dressing in a similar fashion to everyone else there – which was part of
two articles I read recently on line. In the case I am considering here, this
misuse of group bonding effectively constituted discrimination against women and
minorities – which is something that can be explained by the good people at the
Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission, if you wish to know more.
(I acknowledge that asking that question is limited by my not having
provided the links, but you can at least get some information and start
thinking.)
What I am particularly concerned about
there is, in addition to the discrimination and loss of access to resources,
the high potential for such actions to be locking in “group think”. This is
particularly so if the group has a history of, perhaps, being founded by a
group of friends, or recruiting from a limited social class/ethnicity/religion (as an example of that, consider that here
in Australia, there was massive prejudice against Irish Catholics on the part
of the British soldiers and aristocracy in the late 1700s and early 1800s),
which may lead to self reinforcing behaviour, leading eventually to a loss of
relevance. On the other hand, if a group truly has flexibility and freedom to
think creatively and thoroughly and clearly, such misuses of good ideas would
possibly be raised and challenged.
There are a number of fairly obvious (or, at least, reasonably well known)
measures to take to address the problem of group think (increasing diversity, for instance, at all levels of a group, up to
and including leadership); another idea I have worked
on (for a non-engineering group, and to the extent of creating a Position
Description) is having someone be (with
that person’s prior acceptance of an informed invitation) the group’s
“conscience”. Now, most people tend to automatically feel guilty when they hear
the word conscience, which does tend to put the Group Conscience in a difficult
situation, but that also means the Group Conscience is not going to be expected
to conform and go along with proposals automatically – they’re far more likely
to challenge group think because they have no stake in belonging.
That, of course, makes delegating an employee
or member to be the Group Conscience difficult, so perhaps this needs to be
someone who is not an employee or member. In fact, we already have quite a few
such people in fields such as finance and QAQC: we call them auditors.
What I am proposing, however, goes further than that: someone taking part in
the workplace culture and decision making on a daily basis – which suggests the
person needs to be an employee or member. If so, they will need to be a
remarkable person to manage their situation – which involves, when all is said
and done, enormous potential to “do good”.
Another situation which verges on this is a
recent situation, described on-line, where a group of young interns were
apparently sacked for creating a petition for a relaxation of dress standards.
One of the articles I read about this argued that the interns were there to
learn, but:
(a) there was an exception being made and not
being explained (there were privacy
constraints on how much should be said about that exception, but there was no
constraint on saying “there are reasons for that exception which are subject to
privacy constraints”), which is poor communication and poor emotional
intelligence on the part of the employer;
(b) petitions are normal behaviour amongst
some people,
(c) the young interns are representative
of the future clientele of that organisation, and
(d) by any objective measure, there were
legitimate reasons for asking questions about a potential workplace grievance.
Now, on that last point, there may well be
reasons relating to client expectations for the dress code, as was generally
suggested in the articles I read and the comments / responses, but it needs to
be kept in mind that circumstances and fashions change with time – for
instance, men mostly do not wear Elizabethan ruffles now, it is acceptable in
all good workplaces for women to wear slacks, corsets are not in
widespread use (which has health
benefits), the health benefits of flat (“sensible”)
shoes for women in some professions (e.g., nursing) is accepted enough for high
heels to have gone to the same place as the abhorrent practice of foot
binding, triple breasted suits including the placement of cod pieces around the
neck (i.e. ties) is being questioned
by many and, in most situations, the triple-breasted suit has gone the way of
the dodo (and that outcome has health benefits in warmer climates)
– which I suspect may also be the case for the company that sacked its interns
when its future clients are from that age group.
What was particularly concerning for me was
the way one of the articles portrayed the young people concerned as lacking in
emotional intelligence – which brings us to the second point I wish to cover.
Now, emotional intelligence is MORE than
just being able to identify emotions, but identification of emotions is a good
first step. Unfortunately, the article concerned did not discuss emotions at
all, only behaviours, and in a way which suggested the author was hierarchical
and possibly discriminatory (towards young people) in their thinking. Yes, some
young people can be aggravating and self entitled (I’ve told some off in the workplace for such behaviour) – but so
can people of all ages (I’ve had to
threaten some older people with legal action, for instance, over discrimination
and ethical concerns), and young people can also be talented, and are
our future (and I am very pleased to have
known and contributed to the development of some such young people – in fact, I
will be looking at a verification of experience for one such engineer next).
There clearly was a need for the young people to learn why the rules were
there, but, in terms of emotional intelligence, why had management not foreseen
that this exception could lead to resentment? Did they lack an understanding of
how people from outside their group would react?
In fact, in terms of emotional
intelligence, the situation shows flawed communication in the harsh response -
why was there no immediate response on the part of management that this was a
misunderstanding, based on identification of an unexplained exception to a
stringently enforced and actively advertised policy? Was it based on a belief
that young people should be seen and not heard?
Obviously the emotional needs of the person
who had the exception are important (as I
said, there was a valid reason for the exception – and the young people may
have struggled with the fact that they couldn’t know the details, but so would
many people I know in other age groups), but the response and the articles
show NO awareness of the valid needs of those younger people – and, based on my
life experience, I suspect the management group may well be likely to be
discriminatory in other areas as well.
Finally, I want to emphasise that both
articles fail, in my opinion, to note that there were legitimate workplace
grievances – beginning with the existence of unpaid internships,
and also low wages making survival a major challenge. I’m glad that we don’t
have internships here.
Both of these situations might also have
been helped had there been a Group Conscience …
Excessive Rationality
A few years ago Japan had a major
earthquake, which, combined with a resultant tsunami, killed tens of thousands
of people. That was a terrible tragedy, and it was compounded by damage to part
of a nuclear (fission) power plant. In essence, my understanding is that the
power station was designed on the basis of a less powerful earthquake.
That decision, and the problems which
resulted from it, shows the problem of having decision makers too focused on
what they consider rational, rather than being aware of matters such as the
risks of adverse events affecting public attitudes.
On that, I’ve added a saying to a
quotations page on one of my blogs to the effect that “the USSR is what happens
when engineers run a nation”
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Box_(television_documentary_series)#Part_1._.27The_Engineers.27_Plot.27
) – although technically, I should qualify that as “bottom-up” focused
engineers, meaning those who think everything can be predicted by looking at
the smallest details and working their way up, without doing some “top-down”
checks – i.e., checking the predictions against reality along the way. Now, we
have some great results from modelling, including in the area covered by my day
job (wastewater treatment) and climate change, but those models have been
checked as they have been developed
(where
they haven't, for instance, with lagoon base wastewater treatment plants, the
results are not good).
The reaction and fear to the problems at
Fukushima, and in some of the campaigns against potable reuse of treated
wastewater effluent, show that, for most people, emotional reactions trump
hard, rational thinking - that is not a fault, flaw or problem, it is simply a
part of reality which needs to be accepted as much as the Theory of Evolution
or the existence of gravity: in fact, hard, rational thinkers who complain
about this are actually being as irrational as those they make such accusations
of, because they are denying the reality that most human beings have emotions -
which, incidentally, is a great thing in many circumstances, as it what gives
us joy and love, and even the smug superiority / satisfaction that rational
people feel at being rational is an emotion.
The rational way to consider such
situations is to take the potential emotional reactions of people, particularly
already well-known fears such as nuclear radiation, into account when assessing
and balancing risks.
If that had been done when Fukushima was
being designed, perhaps the nuclear industry would be crowing about a glowing
success, rather than worrying about being shut down.
It would also have left those advocating
laser-initiated nuclear fusion, which is not fission, in a better situation
with regard to public acceptance.
Other situations where emotions have a
noticeable adverse influence include:
- terrorism,
where people's fears have led to an acceptance of what is termed “security
theatre” (which is highly problematic for many reasons - for instance, in the
USA it contributed to a reduction in the use of air travel sufficient to lead
to an increase in deaths from increased car travel equivalent to several jet
crashes; the thinking of those planning and implementing said security theatre,
incidentally, shows a lack of emotional intelligence and denial of emotions I
am writing about here);
- flying,
where people - in effect - would rather die at their own hand by , say,
driving, than die at the hand of someone who is more skilled than them: in a sense
applicable to that context “better”, which has significant emotional
implications.
There are ways of approaching this - for
instance, some years when I did a conceptual design for a pilot plant for a
potable reuse project, I recommended approaching the study from the point of
what was require to give people comfort about the project, rather than
approaching this from a strictly rational, statistical approach. If you say
this has a 1-in-X chance of something going wrong, many people immediately
place themselves in the position of that 1 person (which, when we were evolving, had survival value); let them look
at the actual water produced, and maybe compare total carbon in that with what
comes out the pipes, and they may well reach the conclusion you want themselves
- in a way that is satisfying and credible to THEM, which is what matters. (The project didn't proceed it didn't stack
up on cost-benefit, incidentally.)
More recently, I'm approaching a possible
implementation of a new process from the point of view of “what would give
decision makers comfort”, rather than trying to simply prove performance.
As a final comment on this topic, if you
find yourself in the unenviable position of sacking someone, don't say it isn't
personal: it is. Saying that is a
little formula derived to make the person experiencing the LEAST emotion in the
situation - the person doing the sacking - some comfort; it actually
EXACERBATES what the person being sacked is going through. I also suggest not
trying to empathise unless you have been through that situation yourself
personally.
Reading
Now, some interesting links:
Tuesday 5th
July, 2016
You'll have to forgive my initial burst of
enthusiasm for this - in the long term, I will probably blog monthly, or
thereabouts.
CVs / Resumes
I'm very fortunate to
have received some excellent help with writing CVs (or resumes, if you prefer). The key advice for me was to avoid
making the CV a list of projects I'd worked on: I added sections about what I
have achieved at each company, as well as a little about my ambitions, etc, and
it was a much more attractive read. The person helping me with that was able to
get me to do this by encouraging me to talk about myself, not my work, for just
a few minutes, and then having the advantage of an objective view of what I had
written. (I also write a much more
interesting paragraph about each project, now.)
There was more advice, as well - the usual
advice, for instance, about editing the length down . . . which is not
easy when you've been working busily for over 30 years. I suspect that the
challenge of editing down is something that is underestimated by the much
younger people who normally hand out that sort of advice. It certainly can take
quite a few hours, and be very exhausting.
After you've done that, have a
mini-celebration: you'll probably have earned it :)
Letters
I first had the idea of helping people
write letters when I was living in a blue collar suburb known - unofficially -
as “The Pines” (and officially, as
Frankston North). I met quite a few people who had valid ideas and opinions
(or views that merited being listened to),
but had not finished high school, and felt intimidated at the thought of
writing something to, perhaps, their local Council. My desire, arising from
that experience, is to help their voices be heard.
(In
many ways, I actually miss living in The Pines - although I didn't miss the
sweatbox house and some of the less pleasant aspects of life there. I'd also
known the suburb when it was more prosperous, closer to when it had Navy
houses, and am glad it is undergoing renewal. Incidentally, one of my partners
and both adoptive and birth mother didn't finish high school - although my
birth mother did later in life, and went on to complete a University degree.)
Interesting Links
I'm on LinkedIn, and, through that site,
have come across a few interesting links recently that I thought I would share:
- the value in not
being too vocal or pushy when trying to motivate someone;
- consideration of radical
vs. incremental innovation - both have a valuable role to play, and it
is more a question of when each is more appropriate;
- a questioning
of the value - or lack thereof - of coaching someone without considering
their non-work life;
- a - somewhat common sense, I thought -
declaration of interdependence;
- “managing
to outcomes” (which actually
came through another source); and
- mapping emotions.
On that last link, in my career and
volunteer roles I have come across a few people who felt uncomfortable with
emotions - or emotions in the workplace. In many cases, that came about because
of assumptions they were making about how to manage / lead / work with people:
help them to let go of those assumptions, and emotions can become a far less
scary matter.
Friday 1st
July, 2016
This page is where I will be adding a few
thoughts from time to time. I'm going to begin this with:
- the
importance of entering actual time; and
- incorporating
the goals you want when incorporating.
Timesheets
There is a lot of pressure in many offices
to “tweak” time entry. In engineering, those from my (older) generation have a habit of working for longer than they
admit to on their timesheet. This can be done because they
(a) feel pride at what they view as their work
ethic (not necessarily viewed as such by
others),
(b) they fear being seen as inefficient, or
(c) they fear their projects being seen as
unprofitable.
Now, the latter two can certainly happen in
some places, but it is important that, no matter what the cause, people feel
safe and be encouraged to enter actual time worked, and that this be accepted
by those approving the entry - the time may not make it to an invoice, but that
is a different matter.
This is important because, above all else,
accurate information is needed to enable good decision making to be possible. I
could write a great deal about such time entry enabling future projects to be
estimated using past work as a basis (I've
seen colleagues enter a low estimate of time in one project, and then have
others use that to try to drive “greater efficiency”), or for identifying a
need for extra resources / training, or identifying whether or not one is truly
making a profit (if one's profit margin
equals or is less than the cost of unpaid overtime, I question whether a profit has TRULY been made - which may
be a deliberate, informed decision [e.g., to enable competition and thus
keeping the company going]), but, in all cases, it boils down to:
accurate information is essential to enable informed decision making
Incorporating the goals you want when incorporating
The incorporation procedure has been
established by smarter people than I; it tends to have a strong focus on
financial aspects, as that the sort of focus our legal system has often had in
its centuries of development. As a result, there are factors included which may
seem strange - for instance, joining fees, which are paid when one applies, in
addition to an annual membership. These were explained to me as basically “buying
into the assets of the organisation”. Thus, for instance, if a club had a big
club-house, the joining fee could be equated to buying shares in that asset.
This has a fairly obvious weakness, in that
one doesn't get a refund when one leaves and thereby surrenders one's interest
in the asset, but . . . that's the best explanation I've come across.
Now, the point of this example is that you
do not necessarily have to have joining fees: I haven't checked the latest
version of the Model Rules, but I suspect that the requirement to address this
issue is still included. You have to have a clause which says something along
the lines of “the joining fee is . . .” - but you can, if you wish,
say “Nil”.
I have done that in some organisations
where we had no physical assets, and it was accepted.
This sort of principle applies throughout
the details of becoming incorporated: you have to include certain clauses and
address certain issues, but how you do so is, to quite an extent, your
choice.
This also applies to how you define your
organisation's aims, but there are enough good examples out there for me not to
have to worry about adding anything here.
