[Opinion] Doing More Work with Fewer People

There are now computer programs and algorithms that can render daily, rote, assembly line decisions faster at scale than human beings can.

There are experiments beginning with artificial intelligence programming, that promises to make decisions faster, cheaper, and more rationally and accurately than human beings, without getting clogged up with all that mushy “emotional” content humans bring to such decisions.

There are discussions about the disintermediation of low wage, low motivated, human workers with automation and robotics in places where such technology has never been seen.

There are even more discussions about paying people a pittance for a lifetime to do less of rote work, so that they can do the creative work resulting in outcomes and products that currently many of those same people want for free—or low cost—via a connection to the Internet.

Talk of all of these advances—algorithms, A.I., automation, robotics, basic income—are often made in certain media outlets, with breathless enthusiasm; while quietly, where many people live, we still go to restaurants, coffee shops, bars, and other establishments where human beings are laboring for a wage that is minimum, trying genuinely hard to do meaningless work that is truly the last vestiges of a system showing signs of collapsing all around us.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, in certain media outlets the much talked about “winners” in society are still lauded via social media, television, and viral videos. Much of the news cycle focuses on the comings and goings of the mythical “1%”, while many of the people that act as a buffer between those “1%” and “the 99%” (you know…the middle class…) are working in jobs which appear to offer less and less financial reward, for doing more and more unrewarded work. Places where the corporate mandate to “do more with less” is not really about doing more work to produce outcomes that matter with fewer people; it’s really about doing more busywork that doesn’t matter, with fewer engaged people, while watching salaries remain stagnant.

The technological advances that are gradually seeping into our society are going to reshape the work landscape. The distortions of reward versus effort will be rebalanced in favor of effort. But neither of these events are going to happen in the way that they did in the past: There are no more third party advocates for workers (unions) at scale; and there is little empathy for those organizations and individuals expending effort to actually do work that means something (emotional labor) for little pay.

This is a conflict, no matter how many ways you slice it.

Policies and regulatory changes by governments would help to ameliorate much of this tension. Heart changes in the “1%” and “the 99%” would do a lot to reduce the social friction such changes are creating.

It appears that neither of those changes are on the horizon.

But there is a way out: It requires individual efforts, and individual leadership, in order to work though. And there’s no immediate, tangible, reward or recognition for being successful at it, which is why many individuals refuse to take it on.

Do more work that matters with fewer people.

The myth of scale that we were all sold in the Industrial Revolution was clear that, in order to “get rich” an organization (or individual) had to grow past just doing work by themselves. The myth of scale also reinforced the ego-driven, industrialist idea that, if a small group of dedicated people are doing hard, emotional labor and leading a small tribe of equally dedicated people, with no immediate, tangible benefits, then that work can’t possibly make a dent in the universe.

Well, like most myths, that one is no longer true. And while navigating the communications revolution of the Internet seems daunting to many people, and organizations, there are other revolutions coming, in the Internet-of-Things, and in the development of block chain programming.

The greatest revolution however, has yet to happen. And that is the one in the human mind, and the human heart, that unites with other humans to lead them into doing the only work that can’t be done by a robot, an algorithm, a computer program, or even intelligence—no matter how artificial.

And that’s the work of connecting, collaborating, and relieving the hearts of human beings embroiled in loneliness, disconnection, and conflict. And in doing that work, human beings will come to realize that the tools aren’t what makes the profit; it’s the people connecting with other people in a meaningful way, that makes the stock price tick up a tenth of a point every quarter.

Imagine if the global financial, spiritual, and emotional economy was based on fulfilling those principles…

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: jsorrells@hsconsultingandtraining.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

[Advice] Getting Everyone On Board

When the internal marketing organizational change efforts doesn’t match either the lived organizational culture, or the culture that happens to be stated in quotes on the wall (or the masthead) you’ve got a problem.

The issue isn’t that executives and middle management don’t see eye-to-eye. That will happen in any organization where goals are not transparently shared. The issue isn’t that entry level/front line employees are asked to do more with less. That will happen in tough economic times, particularly if your organization is a nonprofit, or it has been a bad quarter. The issue isn’t that middle managers feel as though they are placed in positions of authority where they can always say “no” but where they can rarely say “yes.” This has been happening ever since the time of Hammurabi.

The issue is your organizational culture, your internal marketing structure (or lack thererof), and the fact that your executives are not operating inside a metric of trust and openness, but instead are measuring success one quarter at a time.

There are just as many ways out of this as there are into this bind, but here are three from a conflict engagement/management perspective that could be helpful:

Your organizational culture needs to change intentionally—I don’t hold to the idea that culture is fine and that products, services, or processes just need to be overhauled. The culture of the organization is either fragile (but believes that it is robust), is robust (but has elements of fragility in it), or is antifragile (with no elements of fragility or desire to go toward robustness). The fact of the matter is, when the culture that’s lived deviates too much from the culture on the masthead, or in the external marketing, the gap between lived reality and fantasy gets filled with competition, low morale, low motivation, high conflict, and constant storming. All of which lead to an eroding culture, as surely as rain washes away the sand.

Your internal marketing structure needs to change intentionally—How you market change efforts to the people being impacted most directly by those efforts (i.e. the employees) matters more than the efforts themselves. Without buy-in, the outside trainer, or consultant, comes in, makes recommendations for changes, and works closely with the people and hears “We don’t have the power to implement that change here.” Or, “The people who should be hearing this information and getting these recommendations are not in the room—and we can’t talk to them.” Internally marketing organizational change to the people being impacted by that change, has to go beyond a Friday afternoon/Monday morning notification email, followed up by a supervisory conversation whose tone and direction is that of a mandate.

Your executives need to “buy-in.”—Optics matters more than employees, managers, supervisors, and even executives think that it does. Role modeling may be the foundational aspect of all leadership, but if the people with positional authority aren’t actually engaging in role modeling the discrete and obvious, changes they desire to see in the people tasked with responding and reacting to their authority, then all the change talk is merely that. Talk. People follow who they see leading.

When middle managers are driven to tears, frustration, thoughts of quitting, and even more, because they feel powerless to implement the changes they can observe are desperately needed, organizations need to change their cultures, not by changing who is in positions, but by challenging the organizational process that got them to that point in the first place.

Accomplishing this takes open communication with courage, curiosity, and compassion. And those traits are what fill the gap between what’s on the masthead and what’s lived in reality.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] “Why” is the New Black

“Why” is the new black.

I keep saying this, in trainings mostly, and what it means is that–what lies at the core of most problems, disputes, disagreements, frustrations, and “differences of opinion” in the workplace—is the inability of adults to ask other adults the question “Why?”

The reasons for not engaging in this way are numerous, but the largest on is that supervisors, managers, and even fellow employees, have been trained subtly through the power of social proofing and liking—along with groupthink— to believe that asking “why” as a way to explore motivations (either intrinsic or extrinsic) is the province better-trained, more highly compensated “others” higher up the hierarchical ladder.

Supervisors, managers, and employees also want the reassurance that if they ask exploratory questions in a Socratic manner, that such questioning will lead to resolution in their favor and against the other party. This is, of course, an unknowable outcome, and so it’s just easier to avoid the whole thing and adopt a “Do as I say because I told you to” position. One that leans on authority and extrinsic motivators.

Unfortunately, (or if you are a person of courage, fortunately) the Industrial Revolution is over. The era of supervisors, managers, and leaders merely leaning on authority to get widgets made faster and cheaper has passed as well. And the era of calling everyone’s bluff is now upon us.

Increasingly, people are returning to the idea (that was rampant in the world before the Industrial Revolution brought prosperity to the masses) that labor has to matter. Jobs, work, and labor are all discretely different and we have spent 150 years muddling the boundaries. But, in a 21^st century where more and more people who would have been tagged as merely “employees” are asking “Why?” to get to the meaning and mattering behind widget based tasks, the boundaries are only going to become sharper.

For supervisors, managers, and employees struggling within the transition from the brave, old, familiar world to the brave, new, unfamiliar world, getting rid of the desire for reassurance, developing patience, and exploring motivation Socratically by asking “Why?” is the only way forward.

Otherwise, a lot of middle management in a lot of organizations will be hollowed out and replaced, because performing emotional labor will become secondary in value to the immediate revenues that lower paid, more compliant people, algorithms, or robotics can provide.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] My 6 Biggest Mistakes…pt.2

I had turned back to the computer and was working again, when the ramifications of the first three of my six biggest mistakes came down upon me like a whirlwind.

Or, at least that’s what it felt like.

They came in a group (my Grandmother and my martial arts instructor years ago used to warn me that was how they always come at you) and they were angry. They started yelling at me across the lobby of the big building, and fortunately, since it was late at night, I didn’t attempt to meet them halfway, to exit the safety of the desk area, or to engage them in any way. I watched them walk over quickly, not quite understanding what I was about to experience.

That was my fourth mistake.

I stood up and took a power stance. I spread my legs (they could only see me from the waist up) and crossed my arms as they approached. Then I heard the yelling:

“Why did you come inside and talk to us that way!?”

“What were you talking about in there!?”

“There were other people in that room making noise hours ago and you didn’t come in then!!!”

I started to respond—not thinking at all—as they approached, yelling. Then, both they and I realized something at the same time: We (the two men and the two women and I) both shared the same skin color. I was dressed in the assigned outfit from the company though. And they were dressed—well—however…

“I can only address what I’m actually told about,” I said as they approached. “I was told a few minutes ago that there was a disturbance going on in the room, and the person wanted me to address it. The person also indicated that you were in the general area and had been making noise all night.”

By this time, the inside of my head felt like it was on fire. I was watching their body language, trying to determine if they were going to really be a REAL problem (i.e. an “I gotta call the cops” problem”) or if they were gonna be a SOLVEABLE problem (i.e. an “’I gotta call my manager in the middle of the night’” problem.) Well, with that statement they already made a determination about me, and they proceeded to escalate.

The two men immediately yelled out “Oh! This Uncle Tom is gonna do what the white people say! C’mon (and he used the word you’re thinking of here) get with the program!!!”

Now, a person like me, who does what I do, and who grew up the way that I grew up, has heard this term before. But, my internal response was to flash like a fire. And once the inferno began raging inside me, the adrenaline started, my pupils dilated and I was ready to fight. And the two men and both the women, sensed it. One of the men immediately started jumping up and down with his hands in the pockets of his hoodie, staring me dead in the face, egging me on.

This was my fifth mistake.

And we hadn’t even approached addressing the topic at hand.

Everything began to slow down, from my point of view. And everything became sharply clear.

I visualized my options, and in turn, the outcomes of exercising those options:

Fight and lose my job, possibly my freedom, and probably my life, because I had no idea if the men (or the women) were armed.

Or, call the cops or my manager and “firefight” until they showed up.

Or, get them out of the building as quickly as possible and not worry about pride, or personal offence.

I had those three clear thoughts, and even as I laid out the options for myself in my head, I chose the last one. At the time I was working at that place, the third option was our way of “de-escalating” a customer. But you weren’t supposed to tell the customer you were doing that. I threw that policy out the window when I turned to them, raised my voice, and said “I guess I’ll have to get you a refund on your tickets and your food then. And I’ll get you passes for the next time you come back.”

My heart is pounding, the inside of my head feels like jelly, and as I made my sixth mistake, I looked at their faces, reading their nonverbal expressions—a mixture of surprise, disappointment, elation, disgust, pride, victory—and I didn’t have a clear thought other than “Turn to the computer and start the process.

As I did, these words—still two octaves too high in the open lobby, began to ring out from the group:

“Oh yeah, YOU go and get us our refund!”

“You ain’t nothing! Who do YOU work for around here!”

“Damn right we’ll get our money back. This entire place is RACIST!”

“You gotta CALL somebody to get me my money!?”

And on.

In reality the entire refund process took about three minutes. Find the file on the computer, print the documents, walk to the printer, put the documents on the counter in front of the desk, have them sign, collect the passes, give them the passes, watch them walk out of the building.

It felt like it took ten years.

As they walked out, triumphantly waving their free passes and their refunds above their heads, they cried out “We’re NEVER coming back here! We’re going to Regal!!!”

I didn’t care. I sat back down in the chair in my office, and as the adrenaline left my body, and the incident passed, I trembled and shook. I was relieved t have them out of the building, with no police, or managerial, involvement.

Thinking back on the incident, there were many things at play in the confrontation: perceptions, emotions, ideas, thoughts, motivations, goals, history, biological responses, and even cultural issues. All of which, if handled differently would have put me (and them) in a different place.

As it is, our lives are only entwined in the story that I tell. A story they have probably long forgotten. And a story, now here for you all to read.

The Bible tells us that knowing the right thing to do –in thought, in word, and in deed—and then refusing to do it (or choosing to do something different) is sin. The secular world tells us that sin is just a poor environment, the result of bad parenting, or just a set of bad decisions.

But at every step in making my six biggest mistakes, I was triggered in a conflict cycle toward another reaction, by other people who were in relationship with me, and also triggered in that moment, by my responses and reactions. The conflict cycle is not sinful. The conflict cycle is not just a product of environments. The conflict cycle—just like our lives—is a complex, gossamer – like, combination of ourselves, our world, and our choices.

And breaking all of that apart, and learning from it, so we don’t repeat the mistakes in our lives, is a critical process for us to grow and change.

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: jsorrells@hsconsultingandtraining.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

[Strategy] My 6 Biggest Mistakes…pt. 1

The first mistake I made was not verifying the claim.

The second mistake I made was walking in the room.

The third mistake I made was confronting inappropriately.

When the customer came and got me, I was busy doing another task and I was switching back and forth. With the small gaps in between the thoughts and the switching. The customer who came and got me said “There’s been disruptions all evening from these people and you and your staff haven’t done anything about it.”

And then, the customer stared at me.

Nonverbal communication drove a lot of this, and with one look, I was prodded into action. But, instead of verifying the claim of disruption (my first mistake) I instead reacted and sprang into action. I hustled down the long hall, into the dark room, where the light from the images flickered across the faces of the people staring in rapt attention. I walked down a poorly lit aisle (my second mistake) and knelt down in front of the people in the general area where I had been informed that the disturbance was occurring.

I said something to the effect of “I’ve gotten a report about a disturbance in this area. I’d like you to quiet down so that other people can enjoy the show.”

The third mistake was confronting inappropriately.

Then, I turned around and walked out of the dark room, into the light of the hallway. I proceeded to head back to the office, feeling a vague sense of self-satisfaction. I tasked switched back to the work I had been doing before the customer initially approached me, and continued to believe that all was well.

I often tell groups that, even though I am a trainer and conflict engagement professional, and even though I can tell you what the right response is, and even though I can tell you how you should respond and manage other people antiseptically, I’m often confronted with the results of my own poor choices in my own life.

At the time that I made these three mistakes in a row, I had the same education and knowledge level that I do now. At the time that I made these three mistakes in a row, I knew much of the literature on response, reaction, and how to navigate both.

At the time that I made these three mistakes, I knew the path, but I was far away from getting committed to implementing walking the path, 1% better every day.

And then, to compound my problems, I went ahead and made three more mistakes.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] The Candy Coated World 2

Advice based on principles is the chocolate candy missing underneath much of the candy coated knowledge and information on the Internet these days.

Principles aren’t really that compelling though, and talking about them leaves no room for entertainment, spectacle, or fame.

Positions are much more compelling, because they can shift with mores, styles, and trends. Talking about positions is entertaining, but not really relevant.

I keep pressing this point in various ways: Wisdom cannot be distilled into just one blog post, one podcast interview, one live streaming video feed, one impermanent interaction at a time. Wisdom comes from developing relationships, but it seems that our human tendency on the Internet to favor our dessert over our vegetables has begun to creep into our real-time, real-world interactions.

Advice based in principles, relationships, lived experiences, as well as theories and ideas, leads to innovation, progress, and development. But it can all seem like gossamer when your relationships with other people don’t work out like they seem to via your social media platform of choice.

There are ways to accumulate this advice: solitude, mindfulness, focus, respect, deep thinking, writing, and listening without arguing in your head with the person speaking are the tools (in the Frederick Winslow Taylor mode, they are the 22lb shovel) you can use to acquire wisdom.

Style over substance used to be a negative, but that era is long since passed. And in our rush to get to the next innovative hill, we forget the time tested tools, insights, and advice that come from hard-won wisdom.

And we risk being increasingly unfulfilled by a candy-coated shell.

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: jsorrells@hsconsultingandtraining.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

[Advice] On Doing What You’ve Always Done

Intentionality is the watch word in conflict.

If you know how you will respond (rather than react) and you have an understanding of your conflict style (controlling/competing, accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, or compromising) then you can be intentional in how you deal with other people in conflict.

And since conflict is a process of change—even though it feels like a process we’d rather avoid (or define as a disagreement, a fight, or a “difference of opinion”)—we can change out responses and behavior by being intentional.

Supervisors, mangers, and others in positional authority in organizations must do the hard work of deep diving into themselves—and gaining awareness of themselves—before sending employees to training to get awareness.

This is a time consuming proposition that reads like therapy, but in reality is about gaining effectiveness, strengthening ability, and ensuring future success and supervisory outcomes.

But, you do have an alternative choice.

You can always keep intentionally doing what you’ve always done and hope that changes will result.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] The Future of the MBA

Most MBA program curriculums educate students in the parts of managing, analyzing, and operating an organization that organizations have deemed important: accounting, finance, managerial economics, operations, strategy, and information technology.

All of these are great areas of focus, as well as areas of specialization, but with 4,000 programs at 454 institutions, graduating 157,000 students per year, you would think that all of the MBA programs (or at least a majority) would feature some sort of conflict resolution/conflict management concentration as part of their curriculums.

You’d be wrong.

The average cost of and MBA program is $7,400 per year. The job titles many MBA graduates end up with, vary from Senior Financial Analyst to Vice President of Operations to Marketing Director. But no matter if the average salary upon graduation is $89,000 per year or $150,000 per year, each job title is really focused on dealing with people, to get job tasks accomplished, and move organizational goals forward.

But the vast majority of MBA programs don’t feature negotiation, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute resolution, peace studies, or any other type of alternative dispute resolution training for dealing with people in organizations. Even more striking, of the top 50 business schools in the United States, only around 5 to 10 of those institutions feature MS or MA programs in negotiation, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute resolution, or peace studies in other areas, such as the social sciences or the law.

Which means that if you are an enterprising and energetic MBA student, and you are counseled appropriately that emotional labor and “soft” skills will matter more in that senior VP position you are seeking after graduation, than the spreadsheets you will be tasked with developing, you might head over to the social sciences department of your institution and sign on to another master’s program.

But, that’s doubtful.

The future MBA in America should begin featuring courses, specializations, and concentrations, for students in the areas of negotiation, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute resolution, or peace studies.

The reasons for this assertion are endless, but the top three are:

The prestige of the MBA degree (in spite of its growing ubiquity among business students) has held up, unlike a law degree. Over time that prestige may fade (and that may already be starting), and the way to ensure that it doesn’t is to get the graduates of those programs focused on doing the only work that matters for the long-term sustainability of organizations of all sizes—emotional labor.

The Fortune 1,000 companies (from Google to Ingram Micro) that are fiefdoms and kingdoms the size of small countries, will need more competent and skilled negotiators, conflict professionals, and more alternatives to litigation if they are to survive, grow, and thrive for the remainder of this century. I know that the shareholders, VP’s, Presidents, CEOs, and CFOs, of those organizations don’t believe it now (or quarterly), but the coterie of lawyers they regularly employ to lobby governments and to write regulations, will fade in importance over the next 100 years. MBA graduates in high positions who understand and value a future of business, profit, and peace will guide them to success more often than the 40 to 100 corporate lawyers on retainer.

The MBA graduates are the ones who can save the business world. Arguments for engaging with conflict in healthy ways can be made from outside the walls of institutions (I make them all the time on this blog), influencers can go to fancy conferences and do TED talks that “go viral,” about the power of treating employees like adults rather than children, and books and articles can be penned about how to negotiate and communicate better (or about how to manipulate employees in savvier ways). But at the end of the day, the MBA graduate with a focus in engaging with conflict effectively, hired into a Senior VP position, will do more to advance the cause of peace and prosperity than all of those resources combined. And that leader will do it ethically, on a daily basis, while moving the organization forward and saving the world at the same time.

The unenviable task of academic peacebuilders in the 8,400 professional programs in this country that focus on negotiation, conflict management, conflict resolution, dispute resolution, or peace studies, is to do the hard work of convincing their academic colleagues in the business schools to unite with them to create sustainable, economic futures for their graduates.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] Work + Job = Labor

68.5% of employees in American workplaces are either actively disengaged or not engaged with the work that they are doing at all.

This is due to many issues and factors, including the absence of support from other people in doing the labor that matters most. Managers, supervisors, and business leaders, don’t often think that emotional labor has much value because it’s not easily measureable, quantifiable, or knowable.

The other factor that causes employees to either actively disengage or just not engage, is a lack of understanding about the difference between work, a job, and labor. For far too long we have confused those three terms. So let’s get some clarity:

Work is passion. It’s the thing that lights up an engaged employee in the morning. Some employees are engaged by tracking numbers on spread sheets, and some employees are engaged by dealing with difficult people. The vast majority of employees are disengaged with work that they didn’t start being passionate about in the morning, and will forget the second they get home.

A job is series of tasks for which employees get paid. But then again, maybe not. Employee’s jobs are often confused with the term work. However, tasks rarely get employees engaged in the workplace due to gaming of the internal organizational reward and promotion system, strong at the workplace social sanctioning, and continual conflicts between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations for accomplishing tasks.

Labor is the combination of work (passion) plus a series of tasks (job) that spool out across the overall life of an employee. The term “labor” is often only used in the economic sense to describe a series of discreet outputs. But, for the not engaged or actively disengaged employee, labor is a continual drudgery, full of disappointment, stress, conflict, and confusion. Labor is something to be abandoned as soon as the workday ends, and dreaded as soon as the weekend closes, to be put down with relief at retirement.

Managers, supervisors, and business leaders, as well as organizations on the whole, have a social responsibility that goes beyond sharing profits, engaging in wage transparency, or working collaboratively within a local, national, or international context. They have the responsibility to their current and future employees, to create opportunities for engaging in work that will dovetail with individual passions, in the pursuit of a lifetime of long-term emotional labor.

Otherwise, social conflict, organizational collapses, and fewer and fewer outsized rewards accruing to an ever shrinking pool of employees, is one of many possible, conflict-filled futures.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] Different Mediums

The medium is not the message.

Or so it is said.

And if the most important thing is sending a message, what do you do when no one is using the same medium that you are, in order to hear the message, you want to send in the first place?

This is the trouble that leads to polarization in modern communication scenarios, as well as increases rates of conflicts, and escalations in the course of conflicts. It’s not about everybody speaking the same language (which we often think is the solution, either through training or codifying language in general); it’s about everybody communicating using different mediums.

And when my medium of choice for delivering (or receiving) a message of choice, is not your medium of choice for receiving (or delivering) a message you think that I need to hear, then conflicts, confusion, and escalation are bound to increase, not decrease.

-Peace Be With You All-