Passing the Buck: Corporate Restructuring and the Casualisation of Employment is the latest volume in the excellent Work Organisation Labour and Globalisation series*. It is reviewed here by Richy Leitch.

Setting the scene for the book, Ursula Huws points out that our received views on casual labour – as an anachronism swept away by industrialisation, the growth of a formal economy and state regulation – are incorrect. Formed against the backdrop of the regulated post-war economy of the West and its model of employment (with permanent jobs, collective bargaining on pay and conditions, and a supporting welfare state) we have mistaken this temporary arrangement for a universal process; and are now rudely confronted with a dramatic reversal in new political and economic circumstances. An unprecedented trend of casualised employment is being unleashed by those capitalist forces of modernity we once assumed would sweep it away.

The book examines the boom in casual employment over the last quarter of a century, as globalisation, corporate restructuring and the dynamics of ‘financialisation’ have undermined established employment patterns and national accords between capital, labour and the state around the world.

Today’s transnationals (TNCs) increasingly rely on armies of “reserve labour” around the globe, attracting migrant labour or offshoring work to staff its value chains, for both primary and secondary functions. The old secure ‘core’ is now itself under pressure through outsourcing, bringing casualisation into the heart of the modern formal economy. All this has had massive effects on labour, which now faces a far more diverse and fragmented working experience across the globe, bringing new challenges for workers and the organisation and power of labour movements.

Let’s begin with the role of the TNC as mainspring of the new casualised employment patterns, as traced by Claude Serfati. He argues that the roots of this lie in the dual nature of its modern form, both industrial conglomerate and financial group. These giants are driven to expand value along both axes by short-term, market-led strategies, in a world where deregulated financial markets, new product innovations and the offshore economy allow  great scope for the asset management of their ‘vast, but evanescent networks of portfolio companies’. The much-noted turbulent restructuring of global value chains, changes in corporate ownership, fragmentation of production processes and switch to cheaper, precarious workforces all flow from this central tendency.

TNCs are able to develop their own integrated global spaces to coordinate these productive and financial activities, relying on extensive outsourcing, offshoring and the creation of intermediaries to house various forms of financial engineering – intra-company trading, transfer pricing, tax avoidance, trade in intangible services, even FDI flows. The two strands are increasingly intermingled, with as much focus on rent appropriation through the exercise of financial and intellectual property rights, as value-producing manufacturing. In sum, the logic of ‘financialisation’ has clearly taken hold of TNC activities, with drastic consequences for workers everywhere, as the case studies that follow show.

These studies, drawn from all corners of the global economy, illuminate some of the great variety in the contemporary forms of casual / informal / precarious employment. At one extreme are the Brazilian cosmetic resellers, an 800,000 strong workforce for a company that provides no contracts of employment, has no shops or distribution outlets, and prescribes no defined form or place of work. Ludmila Costhek Abilio suggests it is this very amorphous and dispersed quality that holds the key to their effective exploitation. Their direct selling can be inserted into a variety of social relations and spheres (home, work, family, neighbourhood, friends), combined with other existing social roles (paid work, domestic labour), and is open to all-comers – a feature that underpins its recent expansion.

From the point of view of capital accumulation, it is the resellers who bear all the risks and costs: they must deal with the ordering, delivery, storage and control of the stock, organise presentations and sales, manage the intense competiton between themselves, and provide marketing and feedback functions for the company. Most remarkable in all this is that the workforce undertakes all these tasks willingly, with no sign of any resistance to the extra exploitation it brings.

In the South African garment industry, Marlea Clarke and Shane Godfrey discover a dramatic shift from formal to infomal employment in recent years, as the sector struggled to deal with new competitive pressures unleashed by trade liberalisation and the rise of low cost importers like China. Unable to easily respond, its producers looked to outsource their work to local ‘cut, make and trim’  (CMT) operations that used informal labour. The powerful domestic retail sector added further constraints, forcing extra price and timescale concessions on manufacturers through their control of industry supply chains. A full-scale shift to informal employment across the sector duly followed, with manufacturers giving way to CMT operations coordinated by a new set of labour intermediaries and ‘design houses’ in a bid for survival. Overall the authors find that employment levels have stayed the same across the industry – but garment workers themselves now face far worse pay and conditions in unregistered firms or working at home, beyond the national standards and rights upheld in the formal sector.

Meanwhile, in the booming Indian economy, the processes of development are playing our across the state of Karnataka (and its IT hub of Bangalore)  in new hybrid forms, with formal and informal labour acting as coexisting partners. Thomas Barnes draws on Indian Economic Census data to map these changes, showing that from 1990 – 2005 there has been a marked rise in waged labour, rather than the non-waged labour of household commodity production. However, this ‘proletarianisation’ has been primarily within small-scale enterprises which rely on informal labour, and has not resulted in masses of labour brought together in large factories (the assumption of classical Marxism). Barnes argues the census data actually underestimates the scale of this informal labour, since it does not capture its use within large enterprises of the fomal economy, by employers who rely on ‘atypical’ workers for their extra ‘flexibility’, costing less to hire and fire, and lacking any of the protections / rights linked to formal employment. The ‘old’ is clearly inside the ‘new’ here.

‘Passing the Buck’ also contains a set of more general, theoretical reflections on the role of casualisation in the global economy. Looking at the picture across the whole Brazilian economy, where over half the workforce now has an informal status, Ricardo Antunes describes this restructuring in terms of ‘freeze-dried flexibility’. Labour is losing its old stable forms. Flexible labour practices, subcontracting, outsourcing and homeworking, variable pay and the loss of permanent contracts, all leave it moving uneasily between work and under or unemployment. This tendency is found in manufacturing and the service sector, where a growing ‘infoproletariat’ performs its virtual labour. For Antunes, the increasingly knowledge-based nature of modern production is expanding the forms of labour degradation, cognitive labour being employed and its powers appropriated into the productive machinery, as the spur to further exploitation, through the ‘continuous improvement’ techniques of lean production. What results from all this is a familiar paradox: the age of scientific progress and digital accumulation is also an age of labour informalisation, insecurity and its fracturing into a massive variety of forms, social regress in place of social progress.

Giovanni Alves takes a closer look at what this generalised ‘precariousness’ means for workers caught up in it. Flexible employment practices covering working time, pay and contracts are creating ‘a new structure of everyday life for the working class’, affecting their working time, their subjectivities and overall quality of life. Relationships between work and non-work times and spaces are being redrawn to suit the needs of capital accumulation; the linking of pay and performance to targets generates pressure in work, as well as undermining collective wage negotiation; whilst the lack of any permanent contracts leaves workers uncertain, fearful and fragments their working experiences. Looked at in its broadest terms what we have here is not simply the dismantling of established labour relations but a wholesale assault on workers lives, their subjectivities and labour collectives.

Within the modern corporation itself, Claudia Figari cites evidence from Argentina to show how labour force recomposition and precarious employment fits into overall corporate strategies of ‘modernisation’. Although ‘Taylorism’ and ‘continuous improvement’ systems lie at the heart of corporate restructuring, their actual implementation depends on a lower level ‘set of mediations’ to reorganise working practices, labour forces and their cultures. She finds a two-pronged approach of standardisation and differentiation at work here. Company managers are systematically excluding experienced older workers – through voluntary retirement schemes and outsourcing of various functions – to clear the way for the introduction of new forms of standardised managerial control over a younger workforce, based on individual targets and remuneration, behavioural monitoring et al. Workers themselves are then divided between those retained as direct employees and those facing a more precarious existence in outsourced firms. This restructuring can throw up problems – especially a loss of technical know-how in the workplace – however none of the examples Figari cites show any significant organised worker opposition, even where trade unions have an active presence in the company. Labour is undoubtedly worse off as a result – worked and monitored more intensively, with less security of employment.

Overall then, as Ursula Huws points out, ‘precariousness is the normal condition of labour under capitalism’. After the historical interlude of post-war labour stability in the West, trade unions everywhere now face massive challenges in responding to labour precariousness, needing to move beyond protecting the interests of formal labour market insiders to include the masses of disposable casualised labour.

On the evidence of ‘Passing the Buck’ there is a long way to go. None of the unions discussed here – in India, South Africa or Argentina – have had any great success in resisting casualisation or ‘organising the unorganised’. In one case, the South African garment workers union found its efforts to achieve national collective bargaining undermined by the sector’s shift to informalisation, leaving many workers outside the scope of agreements reached.

This fundamental organisational challenge for trade unions today is one you can follow elsewhere on the New Unionism website.

* Passing the Buck: Corporate Restructuring and the Casualisation of Employment is the fifth volume in the series Work Organisation Labour and Globalisation, edited by Ursula Huws (Merlin Press Ltd, Octover 2011). The book can be ordered here.

According to the Boston Globe, “The signal language of the Occupy movement traces back to the Direct Action Network, which most famously organized disruptive street protests in Seattle during the World Trade Organization conference in 1999. Though the Direct Action Network is credited with codifying the set of signals used to create consensus, some of the gestures were borrowed from other, earlier uses. The twinkle sign, for example, had been previously used in the deaf community to signal approval or applause.” (more…)

As a group, you are free to develop these signs.  The ones used by the first Occupy group at Zuccotti Park can be accessed here. Different “dialects” have been emerging around the world, including a system called the “progressive stack”, which tries to ensure minority voices are heard by promoting them in the speaking order (details).

This is all very different to the usual “Robert’s Rules of Order” (see http://www.robertsrules.org/rulesintro.htm), which are consciously hierarchical and tend to reward participants with insider knowledge. Some have argued that they also encourage factionalism and voting blocs.

If you do decide to try something like this at a unionmembers’ meeting, we would be very glad to hear how it went. Contact communications@newunionism.net.

If Standing(2) is correct, then we can expect movements like Occupy to evolve and grow. Unfortunately, we can also expect a continuing revival among the extreme right. Hence the word “dangerous” in the title of the book.

At the heart of Standing’s book is the contention that a new class is developing. Just as the rise of the “proletariat” (or industrial working class) changed the face of the 20th century, so is the rise of the “precariat”(3) affecting us today. The implications of this shift are no less radical. Unionists who ignore this change, or cling to hopes of a revival of the 20th century model, are already following in the footsteps of the Guilds.

Here’s a very brief summary of Standing’s argument, for those who can’t afford to buy a copy (at £UK20/$US30), or who just don’t read scholarly stuff. (If money is the only obstacle, you can also look at individual chapters here: http://goo.gl/Q8GcO).

The push for “labour market flexibility” began in earnest in the 1970s. It was a move designed to transfer an increasing share of business risk onto the backs of employees. Since then we have seen the rise and rise of the temp worker, the agency worker, the part-timer, the short-term contractor, the casual employee, the freelancer, the working retiree, the ‘trial period’ employee, the intern…

They have joined the ranks of migrant workers, domestic workers, volunteers and unpaid care workers. Together, these workers are “denizens” (or semi-citizens) in production and services. Their rights are limited by legislation, and their situation is manipulated to weaken and divide the labour movement. Taken together, this group of groups is growing as quickly as the influence of neo-liberals will allow.

This is no conspiracy theory. In his many years working for the ILO and subsequent research at the University of Bath(2), Standing has encountered enough evidence (government statistics, academic studies, first hand observations) to convince anybody who approaches the subject honestly. Perhaps more importantly, he presents these facts to the reader without any sense of righteousness or relish. Standing is not some ideologue trying to assert his beliefs. Rather, his views appear to have developed naturally out of the evidence. At least, that is how it seems. His arguments are all the more convincing because of this.

As we have seen elsewhere(4), precarious work has become “the new normal” since the financial crisis of 2008. It is a process of churn that looks set to continue for many years to come. Meanwhile, those with “permanent jobs” are finding their employment conditions eroded at every opportunity. People who change jobs are also being presented with ever-harsher terms of employment. Not only is “the traditional” job being superseded, it is being hollowed out from within.

There has been no comprehensive study measuring the levels of precarity in the global workforce, but it looks as if we are talking about 25% of the population, in rich countries at least. (My estimate, not Standing’s. See http://goo.gl/x6xtT). Whatever unions do or don’t do as a result, they should NOT regard this as some kind of seasonal anomaly. This is not some awkward stage that capitalism is going through. Most of the world’s population already lives and works without employment security. Most people in rich countries did as well, prior to the 20th century. As Standing shows, it is the secure employment model (known as “labourism”) that should be regarded as the anomaly.

By extension, it would be a strategic blunder for unions to continue building the foundations of unionism on the labourist model. They MUST start finding new ways of organizing to bring the precariat into their ranks.

This will not be easy, because the precariat does not yet see itself as a class. Nor did the early proletariat. In the industrial revolution, many different strands had to come together before the “class-in-the-making” became a “class-for-itself”. The equivalent revolution, this time round, is globalisation. (“The shift to temporary labour is part of global capitalism”. p33). Some are entering the precariat unconsciously, having never known anything else. Others have been forced to join through straitened circumstances. Still others have arrived without moving, simply because because their job or industry has changed around them.

Security, peace of mind and working conditions have not been the only casualties of this shift. Along the way, those who have joined the precariat have also lost their sense of social solidarity. One of the earliest casualties has been  union membership. To many, unionisation is not even a choice that merits consideration. As Richard Trumka noted in 2010, the younger ones see unions as  “a remnant of their parents’ economy” (5).

Not surprisingly, Standing thinks things will get worse. In the penultimate chapter, The Politics of Inferno, he shows us just how deeply these changes have been affecting society. In particular, marginalisation, demonisation, fear and anxiety are producing an explosive condition among a class of people who already have no particular allegiances. Since the book was published we have seen the rise of the Occupy movement. At the time of writing, neo-fascist groups like the British National Party, Japan’s Net Far Right and the U.S. Tea Party were more obvious examples.

Thankfully, Standing does not leave us there. The final chapter calls for a return to “a politics of paradise”. Like George Lakov, he argues that progressives should be arguing for a new vision, rather than simply responding to the agenda that has been imposed. “It is time to revisit the great trinity – freedom, fraternity and equality…”. This is a chapter you should read for yourself. You may agree; you may not. Put that aside. This is not a schedule of recommended demands, it is a prescription for a class-in-the-making to become a class-for-itself. The real work is up to them. What I find intriguing is that Standing’s prescription already reads like some prescient historical text.

Notes

Congratulations to Bloomsbury Academic for making the text free to all. The final chapter is available here: http://goo.gl/1wo28. Here’s a more recent article: http://goo.gl/QL2Pn.

(1) The Precariat: The Dangerous New Class, by Guy Standing. Bloomsbury Academic 2011.

(2) Dr Guy Standing is Professor of Economic Security at the University of Bath in the UK. He has served time as a senior official at the International Labour Organisation, where he worked from 1975 to 2006. During that time he was director of labour market policies, co-ordinator of labour market research, and director of the Central and Eastern European departments, following the collapse of the Berlin wall. He also directed the Socio-Economic Security Programme. In 1998-99, he was in the “transition team” set up by the ILO’s new Director-General to help restructure the organisation. He has a PhD in economics from the University of Cambridge and MA in labour economics and industrial relations from the University of Illinois. more bio.

(3) The definition of “precariat” is complicated by its nascent quality. As we discuss above, many different strands are involved. Some have been born into precarity, others arrive there because their job or industry has changed around them. Still others have entered the precariat voluntarily. It is often discussed as if it were a subset of the working class, one which suffers from an extreme lack of employment security. However, as Standing argues: “It is not right to equate the precariat with the working poor or with just insecure employment, although these dimensions are correlated with it. The precariousness also implies a lack of secure work-based identity, whereas workers in some low-income jobs may be building a career.”  p9. See also pp10-11.

(4) See Precariat Meet’n'Greet, Peter Hall-Jones 2010, http://newunionism.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/precariat/

(5) Standing cites Trumka, p 78.

 
Participative Design

Since the industrial revolution — around 1790 — organizations have been designed on the basis of two dimensions only: the economic and the technical (or technological). This organizational template encourages (if not engenders) competition and thus self interest. We have been creating and maintaining such structures and systems of management ever since.

These structures are unable to provide for the learning and personal development of members, particularly for the large numbers at the base of the pyramid. Worse, some workers are downgraded and de-skilled by their work experiences (e.g., assembly line and call centre workers). The bureaucratic conception of management’s task inhibits learning and growth. Bureaucratic structures have also been implicated in the current epidemic of mental illness (deGuerre et al, 2008).

As people become increasingly dissatisfied with their organization’s failures to meet their needs, they behave exactly as McGregor saw in 1970 – with indolence, passivity, resistance to change, lack of responsibility, willingness to follow the demagogue and unreasonable demands for economic benefits. Years of increasingly desperate managerial fads and fashions have failed to overcome these problems. Some of them have actually made things worse (deGuerre & Emery, 2008). Representative remedies such as joint councils and workers’ directors have also failed.

Reasons for the Participative Design Workshop (PDW)

The strategy and underlying assumptions described here depart radically from those previously employed in the UK and Norway. The reasons for these basic changes are simple.

The experimental phase for changing organizational structures from Design Principle 1 (DP1 — see part one) to DP2 finished with the success of the Norwegian Industrial Democracy project (Emery and Thorsrud, 1976). All that remained was diffusion, the process for quickly getting the ideas and most effective methods out to interested organizations.

Diffusion is an educational process. The most effective learning comes when people can experience ideas in action. During the work in Norway, the researchers found that the people who work in a particular section of the organization have by far the most detailed knowledge of it and require only the concepts and tools of organizational design in order to redesign it.

The early work on democratization used a process called STS. In STS, the social scientists, the experts, measured all the relevant factors in a workplace, designed the best solution and then asked the workforce to vote on whether they were happy to try it. It was, therefore, a top down practice. It was also extremely time consuming and expensive. It was not an appropriate process for speeding up diffusion. The researchers learnt that the top down approach creates an unhealthy reliance on outside experts and hinders the emergence of a self-sustaining learning process in the groups.

So the future method had to be quick, cheap and simple. It had to give ownership of the new design to the people who had to use it and in the process, it had to arm the employees with the conscious conceptual knowledge of the design principles and their effects. With this knowledge they can deliberately evolve their design towards greater group responsibility and effectiveness. Without it, the design will regress towards DP1. Simply setting up groups and calling them self-managing without their appreciation of what is entailed in responsibility for co-ordination and control, and without an opportunity to agree as a group on the ‘how’, can induce frustration and short-lived cohesion.

If groups of people are to be expected to take responsibility for self-management, it is important that they have designed their own section of the organization. The assumption underlying the method described here is that the most adequate and effective designs come from those who know the work. It is only from people pooling their various and usually fragmented, but always detailed, knowledge that a comprehensive and workable design can come. Moreover, it is only when the people involved work out their own designs that the necessary motivation, responsibility and commitment to effective implementation is present. The people must ‘own’ their section of the organization.

In the design of the participative design workshop (PDW) below, the role played by social scientists today is to transfer knowledge and ensure that employees have the very best environment in which to learn how to design, and come up with the best possible design for their organization or section of it. It is much more congruent with the philosophy and ideals of democracy itself.

Within the process of participative design there are problems and questions common to all technologies. Only the most common and fundamental of these are included here. As will become obvious from the following discussions, the philosophy of participation has been translated into practical methods that are appropriate not only to industrial and white collar/clerical work sites, but also to communities and educational institutions (Williams, 1975; 1982). All organizations, temporary or permanent, explicitly or implicitly contain one of the design principles.

We have now learnt a lot about how to most effectively design the settings within which people can learn to redesign their own organizations. The lessons learnt over many years are described below.

Design of the workshop

Analysis:

• Briefing 1.   6 criteria, DP1 and its consequences
• Groups fill in matrices for 6 criteria and skills held

Change:

• Briefing 2.   DP2 and its consequences
• Groups draw up the workflow and formal legal structure and redesign the structure

Practicalities:

• Briefing 3:   Additional design tasks
• Groups do the additional tasks

The day begins with general introductions and a run through of the plan, explaining the purpose and process of each part. This is essential even though the teams have had briefings in advance. Everybody gets the same message at the same time and, because it stays up on the wall, everyone can see how the work is progressing relative to time constraints.

The first briefing deals with explanations of Design Principle 1 and its effects. It explains how it is almost impossible for people to get their psychological needs met in a DP1 structure and how DP1 also causes problems with things such as communication. These psychological needs or requirements are called the 6 criteria for short. It concludes with detailed instructions for creating and completing the two matrices which the groups then do.

Presentation of this content appears to be most effective when it is simple, brief and visual. It is infrequent that clarification of basic concepts is requested. They seem to be readily grasped, regardless of the educational level of the participants.

The second briefing deals with Design Principle 2 and its effects in terms of the 6 criteria, skills and communication. This briefing also deals with the multi-skilled and alternative models and possible overall organizational designs. It discusses some of the practical matters involved such as group size and ends with instructions for drawing up the workflow and structure and for redesigning the latter.

The groups then redesign their section of the structure and when a group arrives at a design that the workshop managers can sign off as workable, the third briefing is presented and the practicalities addressed.

Preparation and planning

Like any other venture, democratization will be only as successful as the quality of its planning. PDWs are preceded by comprehensive preparation. Obviously, nobody is going to embark on PDWs for a serious effort at democratization until they are sure that it is what it claims to be. Similarly, no serious social scientist or practitioner would want an organization to rush ahead without being totally informed of what is involved and what the changes will mean. Once a practitioner receives an invitation to discuss democratization, the normal preparation and planning has the following steps:

• The practitioner must take every step to ensure that the senior management of the enterprise and its associated unions are well informed of the concepts, the processes involved and the outcomes. They must understand that changing the design principle is a systemic decision which will ultimately require a change in pay and classification systems amongst other possible changes. How this education is achieved will depend on the organization and its circumstances.
• After a decision to proceed is made and if the enterprise is unionized, there must be at least a draft agreement in place specifying the terms of the change. This agreement needs to have as its core a clause relocating responsibility for co-ordination and control at the level where work is being done, i.e. DP2. The agreement should also include clauses for quite predictable matters such as how the additional productivity is to be shared. Another is dealing with guarantees that:
• There is no going backwards in terms of pay and conditions, and
• There will be no direct involuntary redundancies as a result of the process. These guarantees mean that management must accept that there will be increased costs for a temporary period and that people whose positions have been designed out must be productively accommodated.
• While the agreement is being negotiated, the rest of the organization must be educated. This usually takes the form of about 2 hour meetings in which the practitioner does a briefing followed by extensive Q & A. The briefing concerns the concepts, the change of design principle and its effects, about the design of the PDWs and what it entails. It is helpful if a representative from both management and unions is present during these meetings.
• Once the education is finished, the practitioner must be ready with a plan for how the workshops are to be rolled out if the organization is too large for the design task to be accomplished in one workshop, which is usually the case. Then the workshops swing into action.

The legally binding agreement for a change in design principle is critical for the sustainability of the new structure. Without it, the changes are not legally binding and their sustainability is subject to the whim of management. The history of democratization is littered with examples of brilliantly working and productive organizations that were turned backwards and destroyed because of mergers, acquisitions or a mere change of CEO or Managing Director.

Generally, the most important criterion to be observed is the size and composition of the group doing the design. Given a small, discrete or well-defined section or unit, say 4-15 persons, it is best that everybody in that unit works together on the design.

In large sections or in continuous process operations, it is necessary to take at least one ‘deep slice’ through the section where every level and as many skills and functions are present as possible. This ‘deep slice’ was used as a strategic technique for the first time in Australia in 1971.

In general, the rule is that the slice should mimic the ratio of the numbers in the levels in the section. Once the unit understands the form of the deep slice, they choose the individuals according to the criteria of size and ratio. For SAMCOR[1], the Yearling Hall selected as its deep slice two labourers, two slaughterers, the rover and the floater (first line supervisors for slaughterers and labourers respectively), the broadwalker (superintendent of the Yearling Hall), and the fitter. Present also for part of the time were the Secretary of the Meat Workers Union, the General Manager of SAMCOR and the Worker Director of the Board. One each of the labourers and slaughterers were union delegates on the floor.

Shifts have to be designed as separate units, as obviously they have different people and usually different numbers and levels. It is not unusual for a ‘graveyard shift’ to self manage. It is obviously not a feasible alternative to have separate groups working on part solutions or aspects of a section design.

In large units or sections there are various ways of getting wide participation through workshops. Mixed teams from the same unit can work in parallel in the same workshop on an overall design which can be integrated, or different teams can do designs for the whole unit in different workshops which can be compared and integrated later on.

The basic rule of PDWs is that no design can be imposed. Even if circumstances dictate that only one vertical slice team can attend a workshop, they have a responsibility, and are instructed, to take home:

• Most importantly, the concepts and process so that everybody completes the matrices, and;
• Secondarily, their draft design in order to get a final design that the whole unit has participatively contributed to.

In large organizations with many levels of dominant hierarchy and diverse operations and products, it will be necessary to run PD workshops that have overlapping membership of the middle ranks. This increases the options for middle management as well as ensuring greater coherence of design and learning up and down the old hierarchy.

There is itself a design art in the ways in which PD workshops are put together — with parallel teams or with mirror groups, sorted with different organizational purposes in mind. These options have been elaborated in ‘Further Learnings about Participative Design’, (Emery M, 1993).

As we saw in Part one of this article (here), the reasons for the proven superiority of the “group solution” have emerged, rather painfully, over the past forty- five years of laboratory and field experiments. The basics of this solution must be conveyed to the workshop participants so they fully understand the ideas and implications of the change they are about to make. The next section covers the first briefing that participants receive at the beginning of the workshop.

Briefing 1: The six psychological requirements and DP1

Most of our organizations are designed on the basis of two dimensions only: the economic and the technical (or technological). Because the third, human, dimension is missing from the design of bureaucratic structures, it is necessary to redesign it back in. Investigations in Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, North America and India have enabled social scientists to identify a number of important determinants of the psychological requirements of productive activity, located both in the dynamics of person-task relations and in the social climate of the organization (Emery & Thorsrud, 1969).

The human dimension has a hard core of six such requirements, called ‘the 6 criteria’. They have been shown to work in every country and culture in which they have been used, and could be regarded as a species-wide characteristic.

In particular, the first three requirements, which refer to the content of the job, need to be optimal for any given individual and flexible to meet variations in individual need; e.g., from day to day, or morning to afternoon. For the second three which reside in the organizational culture, the more of them the better.

The Six Criteria

1. Adequate elbow room.
The sense that we are our own boss and that, except in exceptional circumstances, we do not have some boss breathing down our necks. However, not too much elbow room so that we don’t know what to do next.

2. Continuous Learning.
Such learning is possible only when people are able to (a) set goals that are reasonable challenges for them and (b) get accurate feedback in time for them to correct their behaviour. This learning drives innovation.

3. An optimal level of variety.
The ability to vary our work so as to avoid boredom and fatigue and so as to gain the best advantages from settling into a satisfying rhythm of work.

4. Mutual support and respect.
People need to be able to automatically get and give help from their work mates. There also needs to be respect for the contribution made regardless of matters such as IQ.

5. Meaningfulness.
We need a sense that our work contributes to social welfare in some way. That is, it should not be something that might just as well be done by a trained monkey. Nor should it be something that society would be better without. Meaningfulness includes both the worth of the work, and having knowledge of the whole product or service. Many jobs which are meaningful in the first sense have been downgraded because individuals see only such a small part of the final product that its meaning is denied them.

6. A desirable future.
Put simply, we do not want dead-end jobs; but ones with a career path that will continue to allow for personal growth and increasing skills.

Experience has shown that these psychological requirements cannot be met by simply tweaking individual job specifications; e.g., job enlargement, rest pauses, supervisory contacts. They are also almost impossible to achieve in a DP1 structure even when the organization has worked hard to provide good conditions of employment. The briefing then goes on to analyze DP1 in terms of the 6 criteria and flow on effects.

Referring back to the previous article in this series (accessible here), the basic module or building brick of a DP1 structure is a collection of people with a supervisor. This is the option that achieves flexibility by containing redundant parts where the parts are people. The critical feature of DP1 is that responsibility for coordination and control are located at least one level above where the work, learning or planning is being done. Therefore, the DP1 organization is autocratic or bureaucratic, involving the operationalization of the master-servant relation. In other words, in DP1, those above have the right and responsibility to tell those below what to do and how to do it. It is a structure of personal dominance, a dominant hierarchy. Controls might be sloppy or tight but the principle is the same.

The module can be indefinitely repeated upwards to the directly reporting functional managers and the managing director. It is the organizational form that put up the pyramids and China’s Great Wall. Understanding how the design principles work in practice shows why all the phenotypical or superficial changes advocated by the many fads and fashions in change management have no chance of changing things in the long term. Such manipulations leave DP1 in place — the power structure and communication pattern remain unchanged.

Control (vertical) and co-ordination (horizontal) are the two dimensions of organization and responsibility for both is vested in the supervisor. S/he controls subordinates by specifying what the individuals A, B, C, etc will do, vis-a-vis the jobs allotted to them, X, Y, Z, etc. S/he achieves coordination across the section by manipulating the work loads of individuals to take care of the interdependence between individual jobs.

When we analyse this structure, we see immediately that it produces competition. At the most trivial level, there is only one supervisory position and A, B and C are in competition for it. As soon as people are forced to compete, they have to look after their own interests and so self interest comes to dominate life in a DP1 structure. All the team building in the world cannot change this dynamic.

In DP1 structures, employees almost universally develop an informal system or shadow organization to turn the requirements of co-ordination to their advantage; e.g.;

1. `Dargs’ and other restrictive but informal production norms to reduce the productive potential with which the supervisor might do some shuffling;

2. Cliques, whereby subgroups in the section make life easier by collaring for themselves the productive potential in co-ordination.

Because the purposes of these cliques are personal, designed to improve such factors as mutual support and respect, they tend to organize themselves around bases for common trust; e.g., religion, ethnicity, old school. They are not there to help the organization so they do not organize themselves around the task.

It is inherently difficult to get good levels of the 6 criteria in a DP1 structure.

Elbow room. If the supervisor is doing their job properly, and particularly if there is a manual of standard operating procedures, there are virtually no decisions for workers to make.

Setting own goals and challenges. Goals are typically set by the supervisor, who will set them according to the needs of the task. Typically, supervisors underestimate the skills and knowledge of subordinates, thereby further reducing the chance of a challenge to enhance learning.

Feedback. It is notoriously difficult to get accurate and timely feedback in DP1 structures, even in organizations that have spent millions of dollars on the problem. This is because the structure militates against it. Because of the inherent competition, it is not in the interests of the others to tell them how to fix a mistake, because by allowing this to continue, they look relatively better.

Variety. One person-one job is by definition not variety increasing. It produces boredom.

Mutual support and respect. Competition seriously affects this criterion as well. If one worker has a drug, alcohol or mental health problem, s/he will typically be isolated through concerns about ‘guilt by association’. Whistle blowers, target busters or anybody who risks what is perceived to be the road to individual advancement is treated badly.

Social value. As the value placed on an activity is largely a matter of the broader societal or community value system, this criterion is less affected than others. That said, within the hierarchy of activities in a section or organization, there will be less respect or concern for those with the least valued jobs.

Seeing whole product/service. Obviously, where there are high inter-dependencies, a person on one spot on the process line has no chance of seeing the whole product as it emerges many, many jobs away. Similarly, in professional organizations such as consultancy firms, consultants are brought in to use a particular expertise, then leave again without ever knowing whether the problem was solved or the organization became more efficient.

Desirable future. No matter how many skills a person may bring to a position, the only learning and skills maintenance possible in a job is limited by the scope of that job. All other skills and knowledge are degraded over time. Additional skills and training are frequently wasted by lack of opportunities to practice. Attempts to practice by assuming parts of another person’s job can be severely resisted.

As the 6 criteria are the intrinsic motivators, we can see why over time, DP1 structures de-motivate. No amount of money can compensate for the loss of motivation and despite the beliefs of many HR managers, turnover and absenteeism has more to do with lack of intellectual satisfaction and motivation than lack of money (Emery, 2010).

Communication problems are typically blamed on employees having personality conflicts, but competitive structures distort both the quality and quantity of communication and accentuate personality differences. If A, confronted with new circumstances, believes that they need help from B, the communication is still up to the supervisor and, as s/he sees fit, down to the subordinates. The communication that is needed to reflect and cope with changing task requirements is channelled through a filter/amplifier system. It is labelled on one side `us’ and the other side `them’. The goals of the supervisor are those that concern the section’s overall performance, and are explicitly no business of the subordinates. Their goals concern the performance standards set for sub-tasks X, Y, Z, etc. This means that communications are going to be amplified and attenuated in the same task-related channel, by different criteria. The “us’s” will amplify what makes them look good vis-a-vis their own task performance or relative to their colleagues. They will hear as little of the downward communication as suits them and they can get away with. The supervisor will be anxious to hear and remember what will sound good to his or her supervisor, including excuses for poor performance.

Communication can be a major weapon at any level of the hierarchy, including the top. The easiest way to keep somebody powerless is to deny them accurate information or feed them misinformation. Group warfare can break out at any level and can be pursued both vertically and horizontally.

Group work on matrices for 6 criteria and skills held

After the first briefing, people go into their groups to fill in the matrices for 6 criteria and skills held. Because the first three criteria need to be optimal for each individual, these three are scored from -5 (too little) to +5 (too much), with 0 being optimal, just right. As the second three criteria are things you can never have too much of, they are scored from 0 (none) to 10 (lots). Each individual puts up their own scores but final group product will express the agreed relativities of scores across the section.

Table 1. Matrix for the 6 Criteria

The pattern in the matrix in Table 1 is fairly typical. Sections organized on Design Principle 1 typically show a majority of low scores on the first three criteria. Scores on the second three are more unpredictable.

The other advantages of this first analysis are,

• Firstly, that any misconceptions of the criteria are hammered out by the group and a common and well founded understanding is established; and
• Secondly, this first task is usually sufficient for members of the team to become acquainted with each other if they have not worked together closely on site.

This is necessary because of the fragmentation that has taken place, but a cohesive work group is formed fairly fast when people are discussing their own jobs.

The workshop managers report on these matrices so that participants can learn to use these as diagnostic tools. The results are taken into account in later phases.

The second task for the groups is to draw up and fill in a matrix of skills and knowledge currently held. Firstly, they must list the essential skills required in the section to make it work. Then, using a simple scale of 0 for none of a particular skill, and one tick for a sufficient level of skill to back up and two ticks for a high level of skill, the groups compile a collective picture. If a particular ticket or qualification is required, that must be on the list. The skills and knowledge listed must be those that can be objectively measured, competencies. The workshop manager will not allow items such as ‘decision making’ which is something everybody can do and does, or ‘listening’ which is a matter of motivation. Items such as ‘communication skills’ must be broken down into items such as ‘technical report writing’ or ‘presentation’ skills.

Table 2. Matrix for Skills and Knowledge Currently Held

The workshops manager will discuss the matrix with the group to ensure it is adequate as the coverage of skills and knowledge in the section will partly determine the date on which the change of design principle will occur. Table 2 shows that skill A is inadequate at the moment as there is no back up for Mary so some training will be required before the group can go into operation. DP2 demands greater cover of knowledge and skills than DP1.

Briefing 2: DP2 and its contrasting effects

The basic module of a DP2 structure is a self-managing group, that option which achieves flexibility by adding redundant functions to the parts, in other words, by adding more skills and knowledge to each person. The critical feature of DP2 is that responsibility for control and coordination is located with the people who are doing the work, learning or planning (see part one). As described below, there are several variations on self-managing groups.

Because they are taking responsibility for their own work and behaviour, a DP2 organization is called democratic. In DP2, there may still be a hierarchy, however it is a hierarchy of functions. In large DP2 structures, the functional levels may consist (for example) of three levels — strategic management of the organization as a whole, resourcing and operations. Each level consists of one or more self-managing groups, but there are no relations of dominance. Change can be initiated by any part of the organization and all change is negotiated by peers.

The democratic organizational module has markedly different potentials. The first and obvious feature is that there are no individual jobs or positions. Workers are now jointly responsible for all the tasks and all the inter-dependencies and interactions. They are also responsible for monitoring and controlling the contributions of members, organizing themselves to cope with individual and task variations and meeting their agreed group goals.

DP2 structures engender cooperation and affect the 6 criteria and communication in ways that are starkly different from DP1.

Elbow room. The group now has many decisions to make but if one worker does not like making decisions, s/he can leave them to those who do.

Setting own goals and challenges. Within the set of group goals, there are many sub-goals. In the process of working out who will do which task and when, individuals have plenty of room to build in challenges for their own learning.

Feedback. Because it is the group as a whole that is held responsible for meeting its goals, it is now in the in the interests of them all to ensure an errant worker fixes the mistake.

Variety. People who thrive on variety have it available, while people who prefer less can stick to one task for longer.

Mutual support and respect. There are examples in the literature and folk lore of people with intellectual disabilities who grew remarkably after becoming a member of a self managing group. DP2 structures provide the individual with a human scale of organization (a work ‘home’, ‘family’ or territory), whereby people feel they fit into the organization, no matter how large that may be. If one worker has a drug, alcohol or mental health problem, they will be the subject of group concern and care. The only danger here is that groups may persevere with this past the point where the person concerned should be referred to professional help.

Social value. People in DP2 structures actively work to promote the value of their activities and its outcomes.

Seeing whole product/service. One of the criteria of good DP2 design is that a group has a whole task to consider. A characteristic of DP2 organizations is a high level of knowledge of the organization, so that if the group’s end product is still simply a component, individuals still understand the meaning of their contribution.

Desirable future. The ambitious now have the full range of skills and knowledge available within the “group task” to learn. Work can be organized so that individuals maintain their skills through practice.

Communication and power within these groups take on markedly different characteristics to those we find in DP1 structures. There is no ‘them’ and ‘us’ in DP2, as ‘we’ are all in it together. (Emery & Emery, 1976). This is why communication and power cannot be taken as basic variables of organizational design. They are universally present attributes of organization, but they do not tell us much of relevance about what is communicated, what is commanded.

Changes in organizational design affect the nature of communication. However, the reverse does not hold. Provided we have a group and not just a collection of individuals or a mob, that is, the group has accepted responsibility for group goals, then it will seek to make its life easier (or more productive for their ends) by:
(a) communicating quickly, directly and openly the needs for co-ordination arising from task or individual variability;
(b) allocating tasks and other rewards and punishments to control what they consider to be a fair contribution by members.

Such groups can get a sense of their over-riding group responsibility only if they have at least four members (with three it is too often a matter of just interpersonal relations – shifting coalitions of two against one). While the minimum size is four, the upper limit depends on factors such as technology. Groups show good judgement in determining the right size group to meet task demands.

These groups are self-managing, not autonomous as they often were in cottage industry. They are working with materials and equipment for which the organization must get an adequate return. They are working in conditions where the organization, not they, is responsible for observing the mass of social legislation laid down for basic pay rates, safety, product quality, etc.

Differing organizational circumstances will determine the range of responsibilities for different operational groups but functions such as hiring and firing are not included as these functions are covered by groups in other levels of the functional hierarchy. Operational groups though are certainly involved in these decisions.

In self managing groups, the roles of spokespeople, leadership and training move around the group as circumstances and needs change. Multi-skilling does not mean that everybody must be able to do everything. It simply needs to be sufficient to allow flexible allocation of work within the group, and to encourage the cohesiveness of the group. How they allocate the work is their responsibility.

Alternatives to full multi-skilled self-managing groups

There are two major alternatives to a comprehensive, multi-skilled model. The first covers circumstances where, for whatever reason (specialist skill or knowledge level or legal demarcations), sharing work is not possible. The second applies to non-stable work, i.e. work that comes in as discrete projects, where each project is different.

In a research lab there may be highly skilled statisticians, biochemists and glass blowers. Each has a special contribution to make and while overall success depends on the effective co-ordination of their activities, each person cannot become expert in all of the required disciplines. We often have the same problem at the senior management level.

Variations in DP2 Systems

In the figure above, in diagram 2, we see the managing director with functional managers for production, finance, marketing, personnel and administration, R & D etc. They are typically chosen for their expertise and it is not expected that the production manager will be as good at financial matters as the finance manager. They, in turn, expect to be judged and rewarded for their expertise.

In the previous DP1 structure, each manager was held responsible only for control of their department. In DP2, it is necessary to locate responsibility for co-ordination clearly and firmly with those whose efforts require co-ordination if the common objectives are to be achieved. While control, the vertical dimension, cannot be shared, there is no reason why they cannot accept group coordination.

In other words, the functional manager is judged and rewarded, or punished, as much for his or her effective coordination as for the ability to propose and implement policies in their division of the organization. Collectively, the functional managers become the operating group at the strategic level and the MD rides the boundary between the environment and the group bringing in strategic intelligence from the environment.

If coordination fails, the MD must sort out whether it is because one or more of them is incapable or unwilling to find a suitable compromise or whether the framework of policy that s/he is responsible for creating is inadequate.

In the first case the MD must decide on re-education or redeployment; in the second, s/he must move from the normal operating mode into a strategic planning and policy making mode. The MD and managers need to remain in this mode only long enough to create an adequate framework for future operations.

This modified DP2 design makes it easier to identify a potential MD. In the competitive DP1 environment, it is difficult to assess competing claims. With a group, it is easy to see who has the best overall grasp of the organization’s potential to succeed.

Another variation of the DP2 structure is shown as alternative 3 in the figure above. It illustrates a small organization that consists of overlapping project teams. An example is the USA Forest Service, where each forest contains a range of specialists in silviculture, fire management, archaeology, zoology etc. The only stable work is clerical and this is handled by a small self-managing group. Projects come in (from Washington or the local community) and may take anywhere between a few hours to many years to complete. Staff may be working on a variety of projects at any time with different percentages of their effort allocated to different project types.

When a new project comes in, all those available to make the decision as to how to staff it, meet and allocate the work. In this small, very dynamic form of DP2, everybody knows who is doing what with which skills and knowledge. The whole is, therefore, the decision-making body, while project teams make the decisions about completing the project once it has begun.

In a large organization, all of these various types of DP2 can be mixed and matched without problem.

Redesigning the structure

After the second briefing, the groups first draw up the workflow(s) through the section which is essential information as people in fragmented jobs often have no sense of the whole section. Where does the work come from? What sort of decisions must be made about it? Where does it go from there? While the workflow is mainly for information, it may throw up obvious break points around which groups can naturally form.

Groups must have sufficient time for them to consider several options for redesign. An interim plenary can be useful as groups learn from each others’ efforts and compare notes on options. When a group has a final design that the workshop managers consider workable, the third briefing is given.

Briefing 3: Practicalities for effective working

The third briefing outlines the further series of tasks which will help the groups ensure that their designs will work. It includes instructions for spelling out:

• A comprehensive and measurable set of goals and targets for the section;
• Their requirements for essential training before start up of the new design;
• What else is required  such as layout changes, equipment, mechanisms for internal co-ordination and external relations;
• A career path based on payment for proven skills/knowledge held and broadbanded, and;
• An explanation of how their design will improve the scores on their matrix for the 6 criteria.

It is essential that goal setting is done with thought and care. It is this set of goals that controls the work of the groups and it must, therefore, be realistic as well as challenging. When the goals are only targets for quantity, the group can deteriorate into a ‘gang’ which ignores quality and the needs of its members in the rush to get the work out.

What is required is a comprehensive and measurable set of goals, including occupational health and safety, environmental and social responsibility and human needs. Every aspect of the work must have a goal attached.

To assess their training requirements, group return to their skills matrix and estimate who needs which training in what form, on the job or otherwise, time required and cost. The skills and knowledge matrix is also used as the basis of a new pay system based on skills and knowledge held. Drafts are later passed over to professional career path designers.

The ‘what else’ category involves groups examining their new design for all possible implications and designing solutions where necessary. Showing how their new design will improve scores on the 6 criteria is a check on the quality of the design. Completing these tasks in the workshop is not essential. It is important, however, that they get a feeling for the tasks which can be finalized later and then negotiated with management as it currently stands.

Final reports are given and relevant managers should be present to hear these, particularly if groups for example, give notice of significant changes or ideas about merging existing sections.

Participation of unions, other management and loners

The industrial conditions today are radically different from what they were when the original PD paper was written. However, there is still the same need for ownership and understanding of the design principles and their implications by both union representatives and all levels of the organization. Unions must be involved from the very beginning and continue to be involved until a new stable DP2 organization is achieved.

It is assumed that management has an up-to-date set of strategic goals. If this is not the case, there needs to be a Search Conference in which a strategic plan is developed. Any smart management will involve unions in this process.

Top management and unions should jointly announce the decision to democratize and state the purposes as they see them. They should stay in touch with the whole process as it develops. Management will better appreciate the organizational implications concerning, for example, training requirements and possible costs thereof if they are present at the end to hear the groups present their designs, goals and other practicalities. Remember that in large organizations they will be involved in their own PDW where they will redesign the DP2 management structure and integrate the designs from other levels, without changing them.

Loners can usually be accommodated by groups by designing around them. This does not present difficulties unless the ‘loner’ is in a position where, by opting out, s/he denies others the opportunity to learn new skills/knowledge, or to experience much better working conditions, e.g. the air conditioned office rather than the hot bottling floor. In these cases, the loner must be denied.

The workshop manager(s)

In these workshops it is not necessary that the outsiders are experts in the field of work that is being designed. Their job is to help the assembled workers and management pool their knowledge and use their expertise, wisdom and brains. This does entail enough familiarity with the work in question to follow the discussions and sense when bottle-necks are emerging, red herrings being pursued or when pseudo-obstacles or conflicts are being generated (it is remarkable to find in any workplace how many things are technically impossible — things that have been done in ‘the place next door’ for years). But this role is a long way from that of the expert who presents the best solutions. When mirror groups are built into the workshop, they perform the questioning role.

An outsider is required for PDWs as an insider will inevitably get caught up in organizational politics. PDW managers are process managers, external resources and are very much hands on the content. As an external resource they can help broaden the workshop’s range of experience and deepen their analysis. They are experts in organizational design and have a responsibility to ensure that all designs will work.

PDW for design

There is a modification of the PDW when an organization must be designed from scratch. This form is the appropriate one for Greenfield sites, research project teams that do not exists in an organizational context, and for the design of organizations and communities that have responsibility for implementing the action plans produced by a Search conference. This modified form is discussed in Searching (1999).

Summary

It should be restated that these are only a selection of the issues that arise in a change of design principle. This discussion is drawn from the experiences of those who have worked towards successful implementation, but the reader is reminded that ‘credulous imitation’ is rarely a formula for success. The most effective designs are more likely to be achieved by those involved in their own unique variant of people, circumstances and technology.

References

deGuerre, Don W., Emery Merrelyn, Aughton Peter & Trull Andrew. (2008). Mental health in the workplace: recent results from a joint Canadian and Australian study. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 21. 359-379.

deGuerre, Don W., & Emery Merrelyn. (2008). Modern forms of Laissez-faire organization. www.thelightonthehill.com.

Emery, F & Emery, M. (1976). Part III of A choice of futures: to enlighten or inform. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden.

Emery, F. E. & Thorsrud, E. (1969). Form and Content in Industrial Democracy. Tavistock, London.

Emery, F. E. & Thorsrud, E. (1976). Democracy at work. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden.

Emery, M. (1993). Participative design for participative democracy. Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University.

Emery, M. (1999). Searching: The theory and practice of making cultural change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing.

Emery, M. (2010). When the cure is the cause: the turnover and absenteeism problems. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal. 15(1), Article 6.

McGregor, D. (1970). The Human Side of Enterprise. In Vroom, V. & Deci, L. (eds) Management and Motivation, London, Penguin, p.314

Williams, T. A. (1975). Democracy in Learning Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University, Canberra.

Williams, T. A. (1982). Learning to Manage our Futures. John Wiley & Sons.

[1] South Australian Meat Corporation

About the author:

Merrelyn Emery is currently Adjunct Professor at the Department of Applied Human Sciences, Concordia University, Australia. She has a PhD in Marketing and has written and co-written extensively (particularly with Fred Emery) many books and journal articles in areas such as participative democracy, change processes, open systems theory, sustainable futures, organizational culture and education.

Among the hundreds of unions and federations that have endorsed the movement and offered support are:

• ITUC – the International Trade Union Confederation (the world’s leading international union body) (details);
• WFTU – World Federation of Trade Unions (the second largest international body) (details);
• EI – Education International – largest of the sector-based “global union federations” (details);
• UNI global union – another of the global union federations (details);
• ITF – the International Transport Workers’ Federation (details);
  (We are still trying to find out about the other global union federations)
• AFL-CIO – the largest union federation in the U.S.A. (details);
• SEIU – largest union in Change to Win – the second largest federation in the U.S.A. (details);
• AFT – the American Federation of Teachers – largest union in the U.S.A. but independent from both of the federations above (details);

(Other U.S. unions…)

The movement went global in October. More than 2,500 Occupy groups are currently listed on the global hub, Occupy Together. However, OccupyWallStreet – the group who catalysed the movement in the U.S.A. – has since been evicted. Similar actions have closed sites across many other cities. There have been 1200 arrests in New York alone. With 2012 approaching, we are about to find out if this is a movement or just a moment.

Despite the restrictions imposed by police and local administrations, Occupy events look likely to become more diverse, larger, more frequent and more resolved. A thriving network of working groups is giving organizers autonomy (see http://goo.gl/9NqH9) without compromising the larger commitment to participative democracy. Links between groups across countries are taking on a more resolved character (see here and here).

We’ll be using the space below to keep members updated. In the meantime…

Separating fact from ideology

Naturally enough, conservatives have been doing their best to discredit the Occupy movement. There is a conscious strategy behind some of this criticism (details). Most commonly, though, we have seen negative responses based on fear and/or misinformation. Where these are sincerely held views, they should be respected as such. Values (whatever they may be) can cloud our judgment. Let’s try to separate facts from ideology.

The Occupy movement is not dominated by anarchists, communists, “big labor”, hippies, the lunatic fringe, the Democrats, “rent-a-mob”, punk rockers or whatever other demons people choose to conjure. It is a broad-based movement with extremely wide popular support.

• A survey by TIME magazine suggests the majority of the U.S. population supports OccupyWallStreet. Among men, support is 57%. Among women it is 51%. Among young people (18 to 34) it is 60% and among the elderly it is 51%. More.
• An earlier survey, cited by CNN, suggested that most people hadn’t formed an opinion yet. However, among those who had, positive views were much higher than negative views. More.
• A survey by NBC-Wall Street Journal (2-5 November 2011) found that 76% of respondents agreed with this statement:
  “The current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country.  America needs to reduce the power of major banks and corporations and demand greater accountability and transparency.  The government should not provide financial aid to corporations and should not provide tax breaks to the rich.” (60% strongly agreed).
• Both US union federations (AFL-CIO and CtW), representing about 16 million working people between them, have formally endorsed the Occupy movement. That said, unions came along after they were invited; they were not instigators.
• In a survey of Occupy participants, 70% identified themselves as politically independent. More.
  

The Occupy movement has not been vague about its goals. Right from the start, the goal has been to end the political dominance of “the 1%”.  However, strategy, tactics and “demands” were not decided in advance. Rather, these are being left to participants to decide through “participative democracy”.

• You’ll find the original message that launched the movement here. It called for the primary goal (“a single demand”) to be arrived at through a process of deliberative democracy.
• Here’s an organizer’s post from September 12: “The people coming to Wall Street on September 17 come for a variety of reasons, but what unites them all is the opposition to the principle that has come to dominate not only our economic lives but our entire lives: profit over and above all else.” More.
• The origins of the consensus-based discussion process used by most Occupy groups is discussed here. More recent steps to go beyond this, without compromising the deliberative process, are discussed here.
• On September 29, after almost two weeks of discussion, the OccupyWallStreet group issued its first Declaration. You’ll find it here.
  

The Occupy movement is not calling for a violent revolution. In fact, non-violence has been a key principle agreed in advance by almost every Occupy group. They have stuck to this, with a few exceptions, despite well-documented police assaults, wrongful arrests and provocations. That said, there is an element within the movement that is calling for a more strident response to attacks. How peaceful this group remains will depend on the behavior of police and council authorities.

• The first Tactical Briefing (September 13) called for “a commitment to absolute nonviolence in the Gandhian tradition“. More.
• The OccupyWallStreet website says: “The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.” More.
  

Don’t take our word for any of this. If you want a real sense of what this movement is about, why not go down and speak to your local group? (details) If there isn’t one nearby, read their blogs, or watch some of the footage on Flickr and YouTube.

Here’s the kind of stuff you’ll come across:

* New Unionism Network voting results

90% of us voted to support Occupy Wall Street. 87% voted to support local Occupy events. A few additional votes received by email pushed support to 91% and 88% respectively. Approximately 7% of members are undecided. However, outright opposition is extremely low: less than 3% in both cases. Full results are accessible here.

In Israel, a social protest movement has been gaining momentum. Influenced by the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings, hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets to express their lack of faith in the Netanyahu-Lieberman government and two decades of neo-liberal economics.

The Workers’ Advice Center WAC-Maan (WAC) was established in the mid-1990s. It was set up outside the framework of Israel’s largest trade union federation — the Histadrut — and was openly opposed to neo-liberalism. WAC has sought to combine social struggle with the struggle for peace and against the occupation, together with the fight against discrimination on a national basis.

While capitalism in the ’90s was promising growth for all, WAC defended workers who were being pushed to the margins. Confronting insular Jewish and Arab nationalistic and religious trends, which developed after the second intifada (in 2000), WAC argued for a new model of partnership on a class basis between Jewish and Arab workers.

The workers in Al-Mahala al-Kubra in Egypt and the mines of Gafsa in southern Tunisia rose up in 2008, and were joined by the youth and the rest of their nations in December 2010 and January/February 2011. It was a clear illustration of WAC’s argument that workers in the Middle East are no different to workers elsewhere in the world. The revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia have put social justice and democracy back on the agenda. Instead of the nationalistic and religious slogans which have enjoyed complete control in recent years, demands for democracy and social justice are serving to unite the nations.

The protest movement that arose in Israel in the summer of 2011 is without doubt a reflection on the enormous influence of the Arab uprisings. Predatory capitalism, which had trampled over human dignity and basic rights in Egypt and Tunisia, is also deeply felt by many Israelis. The protests in Israel are still predominantly a middle-class phenomenon, rather than an open challenge to the regime, however they are laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive movement for social change.

The destruction of the social safety net

In Israel, the official trade union (the Histadrut) was once an incredibly powerful body. At times it served almost as a second state within the state. Until the mid-1980s, the Histadrut was also a leading player in the economy, employing hundreds of thousands in the firms it owned. It controlled the main health service, the General Sick Fund, and other organizations including pension funds, cultural bodies and sports organizations. Some 85% of the workforce was organized within the Histadrut framework.

However, with the severe economic crisis of the 1980s, which featured inflation of hundreds of percent, Israel adopted the Emergency Economic Stabilization Plan (1985). With this came a rapid march towards privatization and the dismantling of the welfare state. Since then, Israel has been dominated by the view that market forces are the solution to every problem. The state’s role is to deliver its citizens to the market. Israel now boasts the widest socioeconomic disparities and one of the highest rates of poverty in the western world.

There have been cuts to disability and old-age benefits, child allowances and unemployment benefits, along with a dramatic reduction in investment in social services like health, education and housing. The withdrawal of the state from housing, job creation and training have created a new economic situation. Workers are being pushed into poverty even where they work in full-time employment. Even middle-class workers with academic credentials are finding themselves ground under.

The Histadrut has retained a pragmatic position as production lines are being moved to poorer countries; state-owned (and Histadrut-owned) companies have been privatized; workers have been transferred to manpower agencies; and migrant labor has been imported without any social protection. Thatcherite neo-liberalism has continued to sweep Israel, while the number of workers organized by the federation has fallen to just 26% of the workforce. Taking all unions into account, less than one third of Israeli workers today are organized.

This is the background to the social protests in Israel. After two gratuitous and blood-soaked wars (in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-9), Netanyahu’s government launched a series of anti-Arab legislative changes, while continuing with privatizations and transfering more assets and influence into the hands of a small number of wealthy families.

However, in 2011 Israel revealed its Achilles’ heel. The protest movement is the explosion of an undercurrent that has been gathering pace for a decade. It has found its voice in the establishment of hundreds of organizations, NGOs and unions. These have begun to demand real social change. In the same way that WAC was established to assist Arab workers on the periphery, other organizations such as Kav Laoved, Hotline for Migrant Workers and Physicians for Human Rights have concentrated on marginalized groups, working to support those excluded from the established framework of the labour movement. It is not relevant whether they are migrant laborers, Palestinian workers or Israeli employees of manpower agencies.

A new union is launched

Initially, WAC was a workers’ advice center. The transition to a representative workers’ organization came with the struggle against unemployment among Arab Israeli workers in construction and agriculture. Since 2002, the organization has been involved in campaigning against the importation of migrant labor under semi-slavery conditions. At the same time, the union has established itself as an organization able to assist employers in recruiting workers in construction and agriculture in the Arab sector, on condition that their employment is within the framework of an industry-wide collective agreement.

This work has led to the employment of thousands from Arab towns in Israel. It has extended the social base and enabled the organization to build its public status vis-à-vis government ministries, employers and the courts. This new form of organizing was aimed at fighting unemployment and resisting discrimination against Arab workers. However, in addition to this, the work has enabled WAC to develop solid experience in the recruitment and organization of workers, along with the negotiation of collective agreements. In 2006-7, the leadership of WAC decided to become a representative organization — a recognized trade union.

WAC is open to Jews and Arabs alike. Branches in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem now attract workers from many fields, such as art teachers and truck drivers. A new branch has been opened in Haifa, aiming to organize truck drivers (see below). In addition, the organization has made changes to its own internal regulations to enable it to establish a democratic organizational structure and set up workers’ committees and handle labor disputes, as is required by law of representative trade unions in Israel.

To illustrate WAC’s work, here are three examples from different fields in which it is active. What characterizes these campaigns is the targeting of workers who lack of union representation, and building from the ground up.

1) Targeting truckers – Jews and Arabs in equal conditions of exploitation

At the end of 2009 WAC began a campaign to unionize truck drivers. The decision to target this group, which includes some 15,000 heavy-vehicle drivers, was taken after contact by drivers through whom WAC learned about conditions in the sector. This is a central economic sector (only 5% of goods for import and export or for the internal market are transported by rail) in which both Jews and Arabs are employed in equal conditions of exploitation. This sector, entirely privately-owned by large and small firms (an estimated 470 companies), is characterised by long working long hours (some 70 hours per week) and no effective protection.

To build up a presence and gain familiarity with the drivers, intensive activity was initiated at the entrance to Israel’s main ports of Haifa and Ashdod. A new WAC branch was opened in Haifa, in order to be more accessible for the drivers. Leaflets were produced in Hebrew, Arabic and Russian (many drivers of former USSR origin do not read Hebrew or Arabic), exposing the deceit behind the current system of payments. WAC’s legal department formulated a new wage scale and presented it as an alternative to the existing collective agreement.

A legal team helped drivers assert their rights after dismissal or leaving work. Each success was advertised and became a talking point among the drivers. At the same time research and articles were published, and various government and public bodies were informed of breaches of safety. This led to extensive media exposure.

One of the initiatives taken as a result of this work was the unionization of drivers in the haulage firm Hamenia – one of the leading companies in the sector. At the end of November 2010, a workers’ committee was elected. This met strong resistance from the company, which was supported by all the main companies in the sector, and a number of drivers were intimidated. However, in the end a court ruling established WAC in the haulage industry, giving the first official confirmation that the organization constitutes a workers’ union.

Special efforts were made to create unity between Jewish and Arab drivers during this campaign. Truck drivers in Israel are often considered to be conservative and nationalist. Arab drivers are portrayed as insular within their religion (they are mostly Moslem), while veteran Jewish drivers are considered mostly to be Likud voters. Russian immigrants are portrayed as (right wing Israel Beitenu Party led by the bigot A. Lieberman) Lieberman supporters. WAC experience in this sector shows that despite such stereotypes, there is clear common ground for unity.

2) The Salit quarry workers’ strike

Another case that illustrates WAC’s work is the organization of workers at Salit Quarries. The workers are Palestinian, mostly residents of areas under Palestinian Authority control and some from East Jerusalem (annexed by Israel). They are employed by Israelis in Israeli-occupied territory east of Jerusalem. This area is a kind of “no-man’s land”, in which there is no enforcement of workers’ rights or basic health and safety measures. The Palestinian union is prevented from representing them in Israeli courts or in negotiations with Israeli employers.

This is not an isolated case. In East Jerusalem some 50,000-70,000 Palestinian residents employed by Israeli companies find themselves in the same situation. The 30,000-50,000 Palestinian workers employed in industrial zones of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are also lacking union protection. To assist these workers, WAC have been operating an office in East Jerusalem for over a decade.

At Salit, WAC has worked for four years to improve conditions, implement safety protocols, raise wages, and ensure pension fund contributions from the employer. During efforts to unionize, they compelled the management to provide dining and washing facilities. Likewise, the workers have been issued with wage slips for the first time, and basic insurance contributions have been paid (national insurance and basic pension payments). Management has agreed to elections for a workers’ committee and has begun negotiations towards a collective agreement. In 2010, the workers declared a four-day strike to compel the management to start negotiations. Later, when a draft agreement had been reached and the management backed down from signing, another strike of nearly three months was declared. At the end of this the quarry declared bankruptcy. Despite the complex situation in which the workers find themselves due to the bankruptcy, they continue to view their struggle as a success, and believe victory will be achieved in the legal arena too.

WAC has established itself as a responsible and determined workers’ organization, ready to fight relentlessly for Palestinian workers’ rights.

3) Organizing teachers in private art colleges

Various private art schools have opened in Israel during the last 30 years, due to an increase in the number of artists and craftspeople working in fields such as painting, music, alternative therapy etc. These establishments, which demand high fees from students, employ thousands of teachers. Many of these are well-known artists – in conditions of poor wages via subcontracting agencies and without peripheral benefits or employment security.

This stratum of teachers (a great majority of whom are Israeli Jews) is not unionized. WAC’s links with artists via solidarity initiatives with Arab workers led to a number of opportunities to organize these teachers.

At Tel Aviv’s Minshar School of Art WAC reached an agreement with management in 2008, according to which teachers would be employed directly (instead of by the hour via agencies) with all peripheral benefits. In 2010, organizers began a process of unionization at the Musrara School of Photography (70 teachers), and a collective agreement was signed in October 2010. The teachers’ committee was a partner in the process, which included a general assembly outside the premises due to the management’s initial opposition. WAC won the management’s cooperation only after presenting a sufficient number of signatures and demonstrating that the teachers were determined to reach an agreement. An agreement was reached within four months.

At the Jerusalem School of Visual Theatre a similar process was begun in 2011, and negotiations began in June towards a collective agreement. Here, too, WAC encountered difficulties, but the teachers were determined to unionize, and rejected all attempts to deter or scare them. When it was said that WAC was a small, new organization with a radical character (“supports the Arabs”), the teachers said that was exactly why they chose WAC, whose leaders and activists believe in social justice.

A new type of union

WAC is becoming a significant player in the industrial relations arena in Israel. It gives a voice to young people, women and men, both Jews and Arabs, people who have lost their dignity as well as their rights in a state that worships capital and neglects labor. Furthermore, the organization’s position is gaining ground in central media channels.

WAC’s members have played an active part in the social protest movement that erupted in the the summer of 2011 in Israel; well aware of both its strength and limitations. The movement, irrespective of numbers and ethics, will not be able to change the situation in Israel if it does not translate its influence into political power. The tents currently erected in central squares in cities throughout Israel will not remain there forever. Their place as symbols of protest must be taken by organizations and unions who will unite the workers and political forces, and  give expression to the deep desire for change and an end to destructive, unbridled capitalism.

WAC works to give a voice to the forces currently not represented. It is convinced that the new protest movement in Israel opens opportunities for the working class and Arab workers to rise out of passivity and despair. Within the demonstrations and events and during countless debates, activists spoke of the need to place the issues of social justice and peace together. WAC’s call for bringing down the rightwing government is not just due to the government’s anti-social agenda, but also its extremely militant approach towards the Palestinians.

The deep lack of faith in the economic and political establishment which is being expressed through social protest enables WAC to promote the unionization of workers and encourage workers to defend themselves and act independently on the political level too. Changes throughout the region and in Israel have prepared the ground for the creation of new movements, unions and political parties, within Israel and throughout the whole region.

* About the author

Assaf Adiv is National Co-ordinator of the independent union WAC-Maan. He has been active in the movement against the oppression of Palestinians and the struggle for workers’ rights since the 1970s. During this time he worked as a journalist in the Arabic\Hebrew newspaper Tarik Al-Shararaa, spending 18 months in jail on political charges along with 3 other editors of the paper. He is a leading member of the left Marxist-oriented “Daam – Workers Party” and writes on social and political issues in the local Hebrew and Arabic press and in the e-magazines Etgar (Hebrew) Al-Sabar (Arabic) Challenge (English).

Five Practices of the Empowered Shift

The Place of TAO

Traditionally, we think of a Dojo as a training hall for the practice of martial arts. I want to expand this notion, beyond the sense of physical location. The meeting hall, an off-site retreat, a debriefing room — these may all be places of practice. Any social space can be a center for learning. In fact, the physical environment, whatever it is, can and should facilitate great practice.

Place is created by holding space. However, space is not just a physical environment; it is also a mindset. This includes the cognitive, affective, and expressive capacities. Holding space requires paying attention to the logical, the emotional, and the behavioral. For simplicity’s sake, let’s call these these the psychodynamic field. What kind of space are we holding? Does it allow for risk, experimentation, security and nurturing? How are we bringing voices into the room? How are we having people exit? What space are we allowing for divergent thinking and convergent commitments? These are some examples of how we can hold space.

Place also requires time. When and where cannot be separated. For instance, organizing can occur in any number of unplanned and informal interactions. One-on-one learning can happen in a car, in between house visits. It can happen outside, during a smoking break after training. And it can happen in the workplace, for better or worse, when staff organizers have little or no chance for involvement.

The three main dimensions of place, then, are physical environment, psychodynamic space and timing.

While most training and learning is done in a formal and controlled setting, I want to invoke the two design thinking principle. Sometimes design is planned change and sometimes it is adaptive change. We must know whether teaching is deliberative or emergent. Places of practice need to account for both formal training and also informal places of learning.

The Practice of TAO

As conversations connect, relationships start to emerge. Good dialogue often starts by asking good questions. These evoke personal and value-laden meaning. Effective dialogue means listening with curiosity, while listening more deeply for meaning. When responding back to what was just spoken, we should be bridging the speaker’s intention to the listener’s impact. In contrast, debate is a closed-off mindset, based on positioning and the win-lose mentality. Debate does not allow for deep, curious listening.

Practice goes beyond conversation. What is the ask? What commitments are we looking for? What action is being mobilized? If motivation is the drive towards movement, where is the campaign going? What is the role of this individual in reaching the campaign’s destination? This is the part of the practice where narrative, analogies, metaphors, symbols and images are very helpful. When done well, this part of practice reinforces and resonates with the message.

Experience is core to good practice. Actions should create an experience that demonstrates collective strength through struggle. Action is also about experimentation. Actions that result in failure can still be valuable if lessons are learned and insights are gleaned. Individual activity should always be a part of the collective intention.

Reflection is a crucial part of practice. What insights have occurred after the experience or action? What individual and personal meaning did it have? In listening to others, were there universal themes that arose from the personal sharing? What collective insights emerged? What worked well? What could have made what was good into something great? Reflection is typically the internal, contemplative, and deliberative part of practice. In a world where action is emphasized, reflection is often short-changed. This process should be given room to breathe, and to be processed and shared.

Practice as a cyclical and iterative process. There is usually a starting point, but this process is not necessarily linear and sequential. Sometimes there is backslide, and a step may need to be re-visited. It is often more of an upward spiral. If the steps of practice look familiar, it is because they are based on many similar learning processes. These steps are based on other familiar processes like experiential learning, action research, and the scientific method.

Practices of the Empowered Shift

“Transformation is a change in the nature of things, not simply an improvement.”
–Peter Block (Best-selling author, Consulting guru)

The “Empowered Shift” is the name I give to those moments in which workers experience a fundamental, transformational change in their world view. This is different from mere, incremental, developmental learning. World views are mental models that inform how we interact with the world. In a sense, they create worlds. World views are the narrative or the mindset of each individual.

In an empowered shift, individuals realize their strength, commitment, and ownership through the shared experience of struggle with others. “Empowered” comes from the Latin root of power, which means being able. Therefore, empowerment is not only a mindset, but also a readiness and a willingness to act.

One such empowered shift occurs when individuals move from “someone should …” to “I will…”. It is a shift from blame to ownership. Another is the shift from victim of oppression to healer of oppression.

In Part One of this series we looked at the five practices of the empowered shift, based on the psychodynamic states discussed in Marshall Ganz’s “Breaking the Belief Barriers”. This involved a transformation from AFISI to AHUYS… from Apathy to Anger; fromFear to Hope; fromInertia to Urgency; from Self-doubt to “Yes You Can” and from Isolation to Solidarity.

Each of these states operate in dynamic and interconnected tension with the other. For this reason, in following with the principle of Yin Yang, we discussed not only Push practices but also Pull practices.

The AFISI mindset inhibits empowerment and action. The Empowered Shift is all about transforming this to an AHUYS mindset. Let’s break this down…

ANGER replaces Apathy

Anger is energy. Like pain, it is a useful feedback mechanism. It lets us know that something is wrong. This dissatisfaction alerts us to a yearning for change. Anger, then, can be a call to purpose.

In saying this, we are NOT talking about rage or destructive anger. Constructive anger has sometimes been called Righteous Indignation. Anger at the status quo is what sparked Memphis sanitation workers to declare “I AM a Man!” Justified anger contains varying shades of outrage against injustice.

Why does Apathy exist? It often plays a constructive role for those that seek harmony. Some people are conflict averse. They seek to placate conflicting forces. These people tend to de-escalate situations and are often seen as steadfast.

However, a problem arises when apathy becomes paralyzing, and is linked to a sense of futility. When people start to become indifferent to their situation, apathy has turned an ugly corner. When workers lack empathy for each other they have been dehumanized. How can we spot apathy taking hold? What are the observable indicators?

Do employees talk about the need to Lull, Smoothe, Allay, Assuage, Settle, Placate or Pacify campaign activities? If so, this is Apathy rearing its head. These are the signs of apathy creeping into the workplace.

Is there passive resistance, which feels like Deadness, Detachment, Blankness, Disregard, or Indifference? Would you describe the employees’ behavior as Remote, Nonchalant, Uncurious, Listless, or Lethargic? These are the adjectives of Apathy.

How do we transform Apathy into Anger?

The apathy mindset is almost an acknowledgement of death. With little empathy for each other and lack of interest in situational issues, it is almost as if the victim had wandered off into the wilderness. The only way to pivot out of this mindset is to get people to engage again.

If people cannot connect to the workplace, we need to build engage them in something they do care about. Maybe it is the church, their family, or a civic group that they care about. If Apathy is about lack of interest and relevance, then Anger needs to focus interest, to highlight relevance, and to marshall energy. Energy must be sparked. When people pivot out of apathy, they have the emotional distance they need to see how they were stuck. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “a good indignation brings out all ones’ powers.”

HOPE replaces Fear

Nelson Mandela once said that “vision without action is merely a dream.” If that is so, then Hope is what bridges the first steps (F) of action with the constant re-orientation to the vision (V)—our North Star. Hope is where the energy resides within us for building capacity.

As a mindset, Hope has many complementary characteristics, such as assurance, boldness, confidence, courage and fortitude. Hope gives birth to the belief “Yes I Can!”. Out of this comes a sense of Urgency that speaks to the necessity for action, right here and right now!

Fear is prevalent because it can play a useful role. Fear encourages us to appreciate reasonable doubt; to keep us alert for danger. Fear of the unknown protects us from being foolhardy. This fear nudges us to accept the devil we know, rather than the devil we don’t.

Fear cannot be ignored or dismissed. Passive and covert resistance must be encouraged out into the open, in order for us to grapple with and transform them. Fear paralyzes. It’s cousins are Apathy and Inertia. Fear is not just an energy—it is also an orientation of Futility and Despair.

Fear whispers that every situation is impossible, implausible and unlikely. Don’t Even Try. These notions run counter to the workers’ ideal of Can-Doism. The only way to triumph over Fear is to confront and move through it. However, logical reasoning is not enough. Fear affects us emotionally and physically. Our central nervous system acts in much the same way whether it is a lion in front of us or a boss whom we suspect is about to sack us. FEAR is sometimes described as False Evidence Appearing Real. Once we confront it—and experience the falseness of our assumptions—we can triumph. Oftentimes, going through this process together as a group is the best way to take the first step towards Hope.

How do we transform Fear into Hope?

Hope that springs from Fear is much more powerful. Sometimes we change because we are “sick and tired of being sick and tired.” When we tap into individual ambitions, dreams, plans, wishes, we are cultivating Hope.

URGENCY replaces Inertia

Marshall Ganz describes campaign pacing in terms of an arrow of time. I prefer the metaphor of a vector. In physics, a vector contains both MAGNITUDE and DIRECTION. These are the two crucial elements that make up Urgency. Urge is the verb that gives birth to Action and Activity.

DIRECTION is like a moral compass pointed towards true—the Vision. Direction is informed by the compelling need that underlies motivation. Drive is the energy that fuels direction. So, understanding individual motivators is the key to driving a climate of Urgency.

Magnitude is composed of size, extent and momentum. Urgency generated within individuals can be traced to the atmosphere of the campaign. Nothing breeds confidence like seeing co-workers act together and in public unity. The more the climate of the campaign portrays solidarity, the more urgency will grow. Deliberative design to reaching this tipping point should be the aim of a good campaign.

Speed is the other part of Urgency. Try not to think of this in terms of “the faster the better”. An organizing process—like life—has stages and finish lines. Speed is more about pace and timing. The right fit of pacing to the situational context is what is required. Faster may not be the right fit. Sometimes we need to go slow in order to go fast later. For instance, most campaigns leading towards an election require the building of a crescendo.

What are the conditions in which Inertia exists? Inertia plays a role for those averse to change. Traditionalists like stability, familiarity, and predictability. Sometimes, those that are most comfortable with inertia will play it off as being contemplative and deliberative. But when Inertia becomes the prominent mindset, it inhibits action and movement.

Inertia is the cousin to Apathy. The common definition of Inertia is that a body at rest tends to stay at rest. Let us replace the notion of a body—as an object—with the notion of a field. The field is a totality of psychological forces, which together create a climate. It can be a climate of chill and fear that keeps a situation stagnant. Or it can be a passive energy field of futility. Why bother trying; you can’t beat city hall? Inertia may be described as the external manifestation of disempowerment.

How do we transform Inertia into Urgency?

The key to getting people to move from Inertia to Urgency is to link the shift to elements of certainty. The ability to act in concert with others, in order to ensure some level of stability, is key. Framing the current situation as undesirable will create a compelling need to act. Helping people to identify the consequences of Inertia will help them to choose. Inertia is a flatline. Urgency is the beating heart. I believe part of this mindset is the blame narrative versus the ownership narrative. The blame narrative puts the focus on the external world, thereby dodging any kind of internal motivation and responsibility. The ownership narrative puts the locus of control on the internal, giving individuals the choice, power, and freedom to act.

YES YOU CAN! replaces Self-Doubt

Yes You Can! is a spirit, an attitude, and a belief that can become a mindset. It is an individual orientation can be woven into a collective message, such as “Si Se Puede” (i.e. Yes We Can!). The individual’s can-do spirit is linked directly to the collective’s can-do spirit.

Yes You Can! is all about self-agency. It is linked to Urgency and together they can produce confidence, certainty, and undeniable hope. When this catches on, it is contagious.

So why does Self-Doubt hold so much power over us? How has it served us? This is a self-defense mechanism. These folks tend to be humble and non-adventurous. They may be risk and change averse. But sometimes this attitude can be so ingrained that it becomes their dominant narrative; something that they never question. At this point self-doubt no longer informs us; it defines us.

How do we transform Self-Doubt into Yes You Can!?

When we experience something together, we generate beliefs that break through our internalized Self-Doubt.  Self-Doubt can be so dominant that we do not wish to take the first step. It becomes an internal field that promotes a climate of despair, futility, and fear. Self-Doubt rules in Isolation. The only way to transform this is to join together and to experience Hope, Solidarity, and Community.

This is where your first steps (F) need to be designed wisely. Building a belief in our own agency requires early successes. Just as we cheer on a baby learning to walk, early successes need to be celebrated and encouraged. The more we let people step out and experiment, the better they will get. It is okay to fail, as long as people are willing to jump up and try again. Nothing breaks through the façade of Self-Doubt better than positive experience.

SOLIDARITY replaces Isolation

Solidarity is one of the cornerstones of unionism. Solidarity is made up of common direction and synergistic effect. It allows ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things. Unity is a distant cousin. Solidarity is the decision to throw your lot in with others. This is based around common aims, cohesion, esprit de corps and unification.

Solidarity is the commitment that we will contribute to the greater whole. It has ownership and accountability that if I join with you—I will play my part. The actions that formulate Solidarity are Connecting, Combing, Fusing, Joining, and Linking Up. It usually starts with a Calling to Shared Purpose, Convening, and Gathering.

Isolation can creep up on any one of us. It is hard to understand how isolation can serve us. Sometimes, people need to be alone in order to recharge. This can happen to the best of us, especially in hotly contested climates. Feeling safe, secluded and detached can be refreshing. However, what we need to guard against is the Isolation mindset that is ongoing and self-reinforcing.

As unionists, we are familiar with the divide and conquer strategy. This is the antithesis of Solidarity. In a multi-cultural society, it is very easy to sow the seeds of distrust, and to focus on differences. When Isolation happens, Inertia and Self-doubt are not far behind. When we disengage from our co-workers or community, it is harder to generate empathy.

How do we transform Isolation into Solidarity?

It is always good to prepare people for Isolation. Inoculate against divide and conquer tactics. Look for any action that divides, unlinks, disjoins, secludes, restrains, or restricts. These are some of the action verbs to look for. It is better to describe vividly what Isolation looks like, so that we can spot the early signs when they emerge.

Once Isolation happens, join people in their individuality and don’t be judgmental. Respect differences, knowing that you don’t have to agree. By joining with someone sliding into isolation, you are re-connecting with them and acknowledging their right to be where they are. Avoid judgment and persuasion. Remember, they may be in Isolation because the climate is thick with conflict and contestation.

Look for common ground. Search for values and needs that bind people together in likeness and shared purpose. Identify what some see as a wall and try to find a way of converting it into a bridge.

Conclusion

The empowered shift is about the transformation of the AFISI mindset into the AHUYS mindset. The aim of this exploration has been to capture the essence of these mindsets, in such a way that we can manage resistance and create resonating drives. We are moving closer to the Yin and Yang of organizing; to the practice of the Push and the Pull.

The main lesson of Dojo is that we need to create effective places of practice. Much like many of the martial arts, this is a practice that allows for flow in many different situations. There is no cookie-cutter recipe. However, you will find that many dynamics appear time and time again. This iterative flow of practice, reflection and principles will help us sharpen the craft of organizing.

* About the author

See www.rexlai.org

Rex Lai, MSOD, is an organization/community development consultant who previously had more than 15 years experience working with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). He currently works in management and training capacities in the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors, where his work focuses on helping organizations and communities discover their potential to make positive change. Rex is certified to administer and interpret the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI®), and has developed expertise in campaign advocacy, community organizing, and political consulting.  He earned his B.S. in Civil/Environmental engineering from the University of Illinois, and received his Master of Science degree in Organization Development from American University/NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences. His TAO system is registered as trademark pending.

We contacted Joe after reading this book, which looks primarily at the situation in the U.S.A., and asked him what lessons other countries might take from his research. In short, he believes that we need to build a new unionism — one which is based on global solidarity and is willing and able to contest management decisions and, if necessary, stop production.

New Unionism Network:    It’s conventional wisdom that the strike weapon is not what it was. In many countries, the number of days lost to industrial action has plummeted since the 1980s. Working people have very real fears that their jobs will be shipped offshore. What would your advice be to young unionists who are wrestling with this conundrum?  

Joe Burns: First and foremost, it is important to understand that modern labor laws are set up for labor to lose.  In the United States, employers have never accepted the right to strike. After seventy five years of anti-labor legislation and bad court decisions, U.S. labor law prevents successful strike activity.   Workers are forced to fight battles isolated and alone, confronting massive corporations. A similar process has occurred in other countries, including  England, Australia and Canada.

In these and other countries, from the 1930s through the 1970s, trade unionists built a strong labor movement. Their voice was backed by a powerful strike weapon.  At the heart of this was union solidarity, in the form of industry-wide strikes involving hundreds of thousands of workers striking at once. Unions employed tactics that allowed workers to join together across industries to confront employers as a class. At the level of ideas, trade unionists contested the very right of management to unilaterally make business decisions.

For a generation of new trade unionists, the key to resolving problems of capital mobility and the shifting of work is to reject the underlying pro-management orientation of modern labor law. This means reviving the effective strike, employing solidarity across international borders, and contesting the very right of management to ship jobs around the world.

New Unionism Network:    Reviving the effective strike; developing solidarity across borders; and contesting management decisions. What stikes me about this recipe is that it’s not too different for other countries. Even India and China, which have traditionally played host to “in-shoring”, are now starting to see jobs offshored. They’re going one step further, to Africa or into the closed registers of international labor agencies. Could it be that this recipe of yours is one for the international movement to consider?

I think so. We need to ask ourselves why, from the 1930s to the 1970s, strikes could bring entire industries to a halt. The answer doesn’t lie in national conditions, but in the nature of the strike. These earlier actions were intentionally geared towards stopping production. Tactics were based on the assumption that unless the employer felt economic pain, in the form of lost production and profit, then the strike would have little effect. The strike was not an end in itself. For this reason unions in many countries saw it as part of their organizing job to foster solidarity actions and boycotts, at times even spiraling into city-wide or national strikes.

In today’s modern economy, we need to consider how to achieve this at international level. We’re dealing with major multinational corporations who have no concern for national boundaries. Only we, as a global labor movement, can confront these corporations with a new unionism that is capable of shutting down production on a global scale.

Part of this must include a union philosophy that challenges the “right” of corporations to make unilateral business decisions. Underlying the current system of labor control in most countries is a pro-management ideology that assumes workers have no interest in the plants and corporations their labor has helped to create. We know this to be a false assumption. However, if management is allowed to ignore their employees, and prevent unionization and collective bargaining (by shifting work or through corporate restructuring), then working people cannot win. This is true no matter how determined and militant we are.

Joe Burns

New Unionism Network:    So if you had a single message for the international labour movement, expressed as directly and as simply as possible, what would it be?

In order to win against global corporations we need a new unionism — one which is based on global solidarity and is willing and able to contest management decisions and, if necessary,  stop production.

The editorial introduction of ‘Getting the Message’ maps out a range of approaches we can use to define and establish the boundaries of ‘knowledge work’, contrasting narrow views of it as the manipulation of symbols to create original products, with broader alternatives that bring into view the movement and transmission of information and the rapidly expanding sectors of ICT assembly and call centre operations.

The whole spectrum is one the editors cast in terms of a core division between ‘message makers’ and ‘message movers and takers’. What it does show is the sheer breadth and variety of knowledge work: from product creators and technical enablers through distributors and assemblers to advisors.

Such a spectrum also involves social divisions and hierarchies: compare the ‘creative class’ of film makers or ICT programmers to the low grade labour of ICT assembly and call centre advisors. Could there be any unity amongst all this? That is the question at the heart of this collection, which examines the prospects for collective organisation of different groups of knowledge workers around the globe.

Underpinning its geographical and sectoral variety are a set of recurring issues that confront these workers in their struggles for a collective voice and power: the range of state and corporate obstacles to collective action; the challenges of a global recession; their particular orientations to work and collective action; and types of trade unionism adopted.

The combinations of these internal and external factors may vary – but the editors believe there are common lessons to be learnt from each others’ struggles against the powerful social forces currently reshaping their (and our) lives.

Perhaps the best place to start is in the twin powerhouses of the information economy, India and China. Stevens and Mosco’s survey of the Indian ICT sector compares the attractiveness of different modes of knowledge worker mobilisation, professional association or trade unionism. They find a number of obstacles to unionisation here, favouring the option of ‘associationism’: employer encouragement of ‘professional’ identities; individualisation of pay and contracts; the banning of strike action by regional governments; union hostility to technological change; and cultural indifference to collective organisation amongst IT professionals. The earliest efforts in this sector did evolve along the lines of employee associations, but both the IT Professionals Forum and the Young Professionals Collective found their ability to achieve concrete gains limited.

In response to this, the more recent Union for IT Enabled Services Professionals (UNITES) has set out to achieve genuine collective bargaining rights and tackle the wide range of inequalities and injustices found across the whole sector, which has minimal government regulation. Organising and growth have proved challenging for UNITES. Multinational companies have refused recognition, and there are wide divisions amongst the IT sector workforce (from software designers to call centre operatives). The union has responded by following a ‘one big IT union’ strategy, covering all workers, and using a living wage approach to address the diversity of pay and conditions. In terms of member mobilisation, UNITES has turned to issue-based activism and building international solidarity across Asian borders, acting as a leading light in the new Indian labour movement.

China is now the world’s manufacturing IT centre, producing over a half of all PCs and mobile phones. Armies of rural labour have migrated to the ICT regions to assemble and coordinate these huge operations; a mass bolstered by a set of new online labour activities (messaging services, online gaming) undertaken by a ‘non-elite knowledge’ workforce (NEKW). Conditions in this new ‘workshop of the world’ are difficult, culminating in a wave of labour protests in 2010 and the mass suicides at Foxconn. Global recession is adding further pressures, with mass redundancies, labour subcontracting and flexible production regimes.

Responding to all this has not been easy for labour activists. Foremost of all the obstacles they face is the rigid state control exercised through the official ACFTU trade union structures. Though forced to move some way towards more genuine and locally based worker representation in the face of the labour protests, the ACFTU remains opposed to independent labour organising and the situation of the non-elite knowledge workers. And yet independent activity is a growing phenomenon. Linchuan Qui’s article argues that the NEKWs are relying on informal, web-based channels of communication to organise their opposition (especially the local QQ social networking service) – and have drawn on cross-border support from NGOs based in Hong Kong too. Yu Hung’s more general survey similarly highlights international linkages as a key development, one underpinned by China’s place at the centre of Asian production networks. In one case, a Taiwanese firm (Wintek) with a Chinese subsidiary (Masstop) both came under pressure when trying to retrench in the face of global recession through redundancies and pay cuts. Cross-border labour networks were able to target the client base of the parent company to win some concessions – but the scope of this activity on mainland China is limited without the presence of a strong domestic labour force able to exert pressure on Chinese manufacturers.

At the other end of the ‘knowledge spectrum’ stand the creative cultural producers and traditional information-based occupations, conventionally seen as less close to trade unionism. What ‘Getting the Message’ shows, however, is that changing economic conditons facing these groups are leading them closer to collective mobilisation. Take the case of the Taiwanese documentary makers, examined by Chiang-de-Lui, who have launched their own union (the DMWU) to try and defend their interests in a harsh economic climate – a local film industry overrun by Hollywood imports and dependent upon meagre public subsidies, suffering poor pay and working conditions.

The Taiwanese labour movement is weak overall, and cultural workers face a range of particular obstacles to unionisation – internal divisions between an elite of well-paid ‘stars’ and the mass; the self-conception of workers as ‘independent artists’ rather than workers; a ‘professionalism’ that inhibits any deep engagement with union work. Despite this the DMWU has made some headway, pursuing traditional goals of improving the pay and conditions of its members as well addressing their concerns for professional development and the expansion of the entire industry itself. This strategy has been dictated in part by the ‘dual consciousness’ of its members, who see themselves simultaneously as professionals and workers. There are strong tendencies in Taiwanese unions to function more as associations, securing access to health insurance etc, rather than fighting for workers rights.

The DMWU has tried to avoid this by deepening links with the wider labour movement – initiating film-making training for other union activists – and forging connections with other progressive social movements (e.g. immigrant rights, environmental groups). Chiang-de-Lui suggests there is here the beginnings of a ‘social movement unionism’ that could become an alternative future for Taiwanese cultural workers’ organisations.

The librarians of the Florida university system are similarly pitched midway between unions and professional associations, according to the research of Tracy and Hayashi. Members of both organisations, these librarians have found that the relevant associations do little to address their specific concerns (being strongly management influenced), whilst the faculty union historically has focused too much on its tenured teaching staff at their expense too.

The authors believe, however, that the faculty union (the UFF) could mobilise the librarians if it was to carve out a specific agenda for their concerns. Recent changes in the union and its membership base – the reinvigoration of its local chapters in a statewide fight against privatisation, and an expansion of the non-tenured workforce in universities – are pushing the UFF in a more expansive and participatory direction, that would support such an initiative, helping to address the perceived ‘second class status’ of the librarians.

Finally, there are those knowledge workers who ‘move messages’ and the products they inhabit – the distributors. Postal and telecommunications work would not be seen as typically information-based, but the structural changes this sector has witnessed in recent decades have brought it closer to the media and cultural industries -  as part of massive media conglomerates post-privatisation, heavily reliant on IT, and finding its specific products challenged by new forms of communciation. Nappo and Schiller takes us back to the beginning of this set of changes, examining the responses of US postal and telecoms unions to pending economic restructuring in the 1970s.

In the postal sector, unions were divided over proposals to form a single communication workers union, some opting to preserve their own craft identity and autonomy. The telecommunications union, CWA, was enthusiastic, believing a merger would enhance its bargaining power with the likes of Bell Communications and AT&T. Failure to reach any agreement cost the unions dearly according to the authors, individually unable to effectively respond to, or shape, sectoral restructuring which proceeded wholly along market-led lines. Today the CWA is a strong advocate of such a ‘labour convergence’ to boost its power, organising a variety of telecoms and media workplaces, as the self styled ‘Union for the Information Age’  – a strategy also followed by Canada’s CEP union we covered in a previous journal issue review.

Corporate convergence has been equally significant in another distribution sector, that of transportation. Roger Sealey argues that the emergence of new logistics conglomerates (expanding beyond their original rail or road freight specialisms) is closely linked to changes in global production regimes, whose far-flung supply chains they now integrate and coordinate through their distributional hubs. This integrative work relies on the application of ICT and also uses these technologies to rigidly control its workforces – e.g. offering remote monitoring of drivers. Alongside spatial integration, globalised production is pursuing a ‘compressed temporality’, an incessant drive to ‘speed up’ the production and distribution of goods, in response to changing market demands and point of sale electronic data capture. This trend forces logistics workers to labour more quickly as and when required, aligning their lives to ‘the unpredictable tempo of global markets’ (p29).

At the head of these global supply chains, creating the incessant pressure upon suppliers, distributors and workers, stand the mega retailers, dictating production volumes, locations and timescales – a feature we examined at length in our review of Edna Bonacich’s ‘Getting the Goods’.

Although all this seems to bear down on logistics workers unremittingly, Sealey suggests there are key weaknesses in the whole regime that this workforce can take advantage of. Their complex networks, allied to a drive to hold minimal inventory at each point in the chain, are extremely vulnerable to external shocks, especially as regards their transportation processes. Furthermore these workers are actually the key power in the whole chain, controlling its hubs which, if disrupted, can rapidly transmit shocks across the whole network. This power is so far untapped – but the position does give them a unique leverage over global supply chains even without controlling the entire chain itself. From here they can potentially move forwards to demand improvements in their situation.

So what are the lessons we can derive from this global panorama? The editors don’t offer specifics, but it seems to there are at least four key themes that stand out:

• the need for unions organising communication workers to combat tendencies towards ‘professionalism’ amongst groups of workers by fighting for workers rights, signalling the clear distinction of a trade union from an employee association;
• the advantages of an expansive union strategy, to combat the diversity of cultural labour found across the sector, and effectively respond to corporate convergence;
• the benefits of cross-border labour networks, often rooted in globalised production regimes, as solutions to state and/or corporate obstacles to  union activity;
• global value chains embody their own vulnerabilities which key groups of communication workers can exploit.

Whether all that would be sufficient to enable ‘knowledge workers of the world to unite’ is another question.

Reviewed by Richy Leitch, September 2001.