10 ways to drive people away from your organization

It has been some time since my last posting.  Busy enjoying my semi retirement.  Nothing of real value to report.

This morning I read with interest a posting by Mel Kleiman in the on-line group The Business of HR.  It motivated me to write this posting.  

Let me start by agreeing with Mel's conclusions.  He does a great job of organizing the major causes that drive away the better talent in an organization.  These causes do not necessarily drive away the average talent.

The list is in reverse order of its importance:

10.  Treat everyone equally.
9.    Tolerate mediocrity.
8.    Have dumb rules.
7.    Do not recognize outstanding performance.
6.    Do not have any fun at work.
5.    Do not keep your people engaged.
4.    Micromanage.
3.    Do not have a retention strategy.
2.    Do not conduct retention interviews.
1.    Make on-boarding a tedium.

I am sure that you have your own list, but Mel's list rings many bells with me.  Here are some HR practices that give face validity to his findings:

1.  Companies implement employee programs designed to treat everyone equally, when we know for a fact that no two people are like, performance and capability-wise.

2.  Salary surveys are used often as a tool to pay the market rate, to go along with everyone else rather than finding more motivating ways to reward top performers.

3.  Promotions are based not necessarily on merit, but on longevity and political connections.

4.  Assignments made, willy-nilly, without adequate attention to individual interests and capabilities.

5.  Policies that are not only dumb but laughable.  Soon the become irritants and de-motivators.

This list is not complete.  I know that you will find many, and probably more appropriate examples, to illustrate the issue.

Compensation and Benefit Design

Published by FT Press in January 2013, this book is available on Amazon.  It is a must-read for the HR professional interested in learning how to apply finance and accounting principles to global human resources management systems.  The author is my good friend and colleague Bashker Biswas.

Because I have known Bashker for over 40 years, I was given the honor of writing the Foreword.  In the book, he shares with us his vast knowledge and experience in total rewards program design.  

As I have written before in my blog, there is art (soft) and science (hard) to effective human resources management.  The art part is "sexier" and, as a result, more seductive.  The science part is more difficult and riskier.

I have seen larger organizations outsource compensation and benefit design to outside experts in well known consulting firms, while retaining the responsibility for its implementation.  One way people justify this choice is that the external consultant is more objective and perhaps more skilled.  As a result, most organizations have limited internal capacity to do the design work.  

The book is an antidote to this problem. It guides you through a variety of design considerations, issues, and alternatives.  It makes you more knowledgeable of a complex and demanding function.  It is also a great resource to go-to to find answer to specific issues that might hinder implementation.

A quick review of the contents follows to spur along your appetite.  You will find specific chapters on:

• Business, Financial, and HR Planning
• Projecting Base Compensation Costs
• Incentive Compensation
• Shared-Based Compensation Plans
• International and Expatriate Compensation
• Sales Compensation Accounting
• Employee Benefit Accounting
• Healthcare Benefits Cost Management
• The Accounting and Financing of Retirement Plans
• Human Resources Analytics
• Human Resource Accounting

Compensation and benefit expenses are often the largest individual line item.  Research as taught us that often it represents anywhere from 20 to 60% of gross revenue.  In the service sector the range is on the upper side. Yet most HR professionals often lack the working knowledge of how their activities can add value to the cost management process. 

In search for relevancy, HR professionals, with the aid of academics, have been playing word-games. The title in vogue for the past 10 years is business partner.  This term gives the illusion of equal footing to the HR professional in his/her interaction with line management.  Reality is that line managers are quick to recognize his/her lack of sound preparation and application of the management discipline.  Becoming fluent in compensation and benefit design, in my view, can be key to career advancement.

Life Planning -- One More Time

BACKGROUND

Two years ago I wrote a short blog on the subject.  The subject continues to occupy a significant amount of space in my thinking. Why?  Perhaps, it has to do with the worldwide crisis.  Perhaps, I see one too many cases where lack of it contributed to unnecessary meandering or resulted in getting stuck in a sort of circumstances cul de sac.  The driving force for pushing this subject further is fueled by my helpful intentions.

In my earlier blog, I did not offer an how to solution.  This time I will try.  Hopefully with better results.  In the early years of my OD practice, I facilitated 3-day residential career development workshops for upcoming executives every 6-7 weeks.  After 10 such workshops, I noticed a glaring hole in my approach.  I was helping these executives to focus on an important, albeit, incomplete part of their life.  To remedy this, I expanded the workshop design by one day.  On the fourth day, I asked participants to invite their spouses or significant others to join our laboratory for the purpose of sharing the work product and getting understanding and support from the so-called better half.

I was not prepared for what transpired.  Although successful and upcoming, the majority of the participants had a darker and hidden side.  Their spouses/partners were isolated and to a certain extent despondent.  Much alcohol and drug abuse came to the surface.  Complaints centered around the  inability to communicate and, in some cases, sheer avoidance to discuss important life impacting choices.  The often repeated rationalization centered around the fact that the great majority of these upcoming executives were engineers, and the inane excuse was that engineers are not necessarily good at the soft part of the human interaction process.

During the past 40 years, I have coached and counseled many executives.  I have been most helpful when I have been instrumental in expanding the discussion from career matters to life matters, where I have convinced my clients of the importance to bring their spouses/significant others into this critical and often ignored conversation.  It is much more productive focusing on our whole life than honing any of its components.  After all, the parts have to fit together!

Wisdom from Yogi Berra

For those who do not know who Yogi Berra is, a quick introduction might help.  Yogi was a well known New York Yanks professional baseball player during the 40's and 50's.  He was known, not just for his great athletic achievements, but also for his convoluted way of speaking.  It is the latter that has made him an icon ... to the delight of those who often invoke his name.

My favorite quote from Yogi, commenting on the importance of planning is: "If you do not know where you are going, you are bound to get there!"  That is exactly the message from this blog.  If you do not engage in life planning, you are bound to find yourself a ship without a rudder.  

THE MISSING LINK

From our early years, we are encouraged to plan our academic journey, to select a path that might lead us to a satisfying and rewarding career.  In college, we are exhorted to start our career planning by charting development actions we need to implement during our professional journey so that we might achieve  satisfying and rewarding career milestones.  Later on, we are encouraged to start planning for our future financial needs.  So planning is not a new activity for us.  It is something we have been taught to do since early childhood.  

The lesson learned from planning is that what is important is not the plan itself, but the planning process -- the rumination that sorts and illuminates our thinking.  The latter is more fluid and more apt to change, and fine tuning; the latter, unchecked, has the ability to turn itself into a straight jacket that can crimp our styles and regiment our lives beyond the desirable.  

It is my strong belief that life planning is a missing link.

The late Steven Covey encouraged us to "... always start with the end in mind."  That is precisely my point.  Career plans must be directed toward a higher goal than just trying to climb the career ladder; they have to have a rationale behind.  Financial planning also must meet some need beyond a monetary measure.  After all, financial security can be (although it is not always) a means toward a better life.

The sweet spot, in my thinking, rests on the three planning activities linked together to form a whole integrated plan -- our life plan.   The three parts not only must support one another, but to a certain degree relate to one another.  

HOW DO YOU DO IT?

Like all other forms of planning, it starts with a vision of the "end in mind".   Here are some data collection questions that might help the construction of your personal mosaic.  There are no right or wrong answers per se, but the answers must fit and support the overall plan.  

1.  What is the most desirable state for you?  What are the values that drive your actions?  What are your priorities, and how are they established?   Money, status, health, desire to help others, family, etc.?  Can you answer these critical questions in one to two pages?

2.  Can you describe in one to two pages the ideal day in your life?  What is going on?  Where are you?  Who are you with?  What are you doing?  How are you feeling?  

3.  Can you write in one or two paragraphs your own epitaph?   What do you want to be remember for?  What do you want people to say about you after your demise?  What others will miss most after you have signed off?  Who would you ask to deliver your epitaph at your funeral?  Why did you select that person?

4.  Can you rank order the top 3 priorities in your life?  Choose from the following but feel free to add to the list, if you wish: family, leisure time, health, financial security, travel, philanthropy, location, religion .... 

5.  What are your gifts, talents, and skill set?  Brag about yourself!  No one is looking over your shoulder, except yourself.  

This whole process might take one to two days, spread over several weeks.  By answering diligently and sincerely the questions I suggest above, you will complete your data collection steps.  Now you need to go to the next step.  So what?  What does all this mean to you?  What do you wish to take away from the process?  

Now, you have the opportunity to translate these data points into something more specific about your life.  You can define more clearly your own success criteria.  For example.  If you peruse your ideal day and circle those things that you don't already have, you will have isolated those life goals that are implicit or hidden.  If you examine your epitaph, you will also identify things that are very dear to you, things that give meaning to your life.  If you review your list of gifts, talents, and skills, you will realize what your core capability is and hopefully stick with what you are best at rather than wandering into problematic areas.

You can now determine who else should be involved in your planning process e.g., your spouse, partner, children, friends, etc.  Children, depending on their age, can contribute to certain elements, such as to where they would like to live and why. 

By now, you should be clearer about the criteria you need to use when making important life choices, because you have examined in depth your end in mind.  

During the process, you might be overwhelmed by all the data in front of you.  This is normal! Take it easy!  Take your time! Ponder it! Distill it!  Put it to good use!

CLOSING

I was first exposed to life planning one cold February 42 years ago by a trusted professor.  At first I approached it skeptically, not being convinced that we can actually plan our lives, aware that too many variables are outside our control, and that being at the right time and at the right place was what counted.  Then, I realized that I might want to have a role in picking the right time and the right place.

Soon I began to make decisions with more confidence.  Three years later I engaged my wife in the process by suggesting we do a life plan together.  At first, Cassandra was not sure about it and asked what was the catch, but she was willing to try it.  At one point, we asked our daughter Thalia to tell us where she would like to live.  We were living in Minnesota at that time.  She was 12 years old!  She readily admitted that she wanted to return to Palo Alto, California because her maternal grandparents lived there.   

I was anxious to leave Control Data and I had opportunities in Michigan, Baltimore and Belgium.  We chose instead to return to Palo Alto because of Thalia's want.  There I started my first consulting company.  Although I had never done independent consulting work, I was optimistic about my chances for succeed because I was making an informed decision.  The plan gave me the confidence I needed to enter an unknown field as an unknown.  

Every year since then, around Christmas, Cassandra and I review our summary plan by answering a simple question:  How is it going?  The answer to this question guides us toward some adjustments.  We do not always agree on what and when to make these adjustments but we have a framework to work through the issues.  

I still have my struggles, my challenges, and my blind-sposts.  I know now how to reset my confidence button, by going back to the fundamental life planning questions.

Life planning is not a panacea, just a means to an end ... you define what that is!  

The New America

Background

I came to America 57 years ago, a month after my 18th birthday for a one year stay.  My father wanted me to return to Italy to continue my studies but events complicated the decision process.  I received draft papers from the Italian military 7-8 months after my arrival requesting that I visit the Consul General's office in New Haven -- a short train ride from New London where I lived with my parents, younger brothers, and my paternal grandmother.  As a green card holder, I was required to register with the Selective Service.  I did not want to go back to Italy.  I liked the lifestyle in America and the many opportunities it offered.  Without my father's approval, I coaxed uncle Angelo to approve my joining the US Army Reserves.   If I had chosen to serve in the Italian military I would forfeit my green card and the right to readily return to America and to my family.  

America as I found it ...

My father applied for an immigrant visa on his behalf and the entire family five years earlier.  His brother, an American citizen, was our sponsor.  Sponsors were responsible for the economic needs of those sponsored for five years.  

In those days, immigration was tightly controlled with racist overtones.  Those wishing to come from Northern Europe were given a visa pretty much upon request.  Those wanting to come from Southern and Eastern Europe were allotted an annual quota -- small enough to keep people in line for five or more years.  It was US policy to give preference to certain nationalities and to exclude others, namely Asians, Latin Americans, and Africans.  

After basic training in New Jersey, I was sent to Fort Gordon, in the State of Georgia.  After a long train ride, upon arrival in Augusta, I discovered segregation.  Blacks were not allowed to eat in restaurants; there were two different water faucets: one for white and one for colored; and they had to sit in the back of the bus.  Although the Armed Forces had been integrated after WWII, discrimination was widely practiced.  People like myself were more or less in limbo.  Some felt that I was not white, others treated me as an in-betweener.  I found this element of American society disturbing, to say the least.  But soon, I returned to New England and the memories of this experience began to fade.

Upon my return to New London, I found an interesting job in a linoleum manufacturing plant. I wanted to improve my command of English before going to the university.  I worked there for a year and one half.  Although I enjoyed the work and I was satisfied with the money I was earning, I discovered that immigrants were not as welcome as I thought.  I was ridiculed for my accent, belittled for having come "on the banana boat".  I was called a dago, wop, guinea, grease ball, spaghetti bender, and a DP (displaced person).  It was constant, unrelenting abuse.  No political correctness, no mercy.  My co-workers told degrading jokes about my and others' nationalities and laughed mercilessly.  

Jobs were plenty ... America had won the war and its economy was in high gear.  The European and Asian economies had been decimated by the war.  Gasoline was 25 cents per gallon.  A cup of coffee cost a mere dime.  You could eat a nice meal at the local diner for 75 cents.  

We were discouraged to speak Italian.  We were in America and we had to adapt as quickly as possible in order to avoid being singled out.  Italians were beginning to marry non-Italians (primarily other catholics), although the practice was discouraged on the basis of incompatibility of values, history, and yes, food tastes.  Many of these marriages ended up in divorce -- a scandalous practice to Italians.  People were telling you that America was a melting pot, yet Italians retreated to their own ghettos and neighborhoods.  There were Little Italys all over America -- New York, Boston, Hartford, New Haven, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore, San Francisco, to name a few.  And of course, you had the Chinatowns, Greektowns, Polishtowns, Jewish quarters, and Black ghettos.  The melting pot was a myth to be revered and celebrated, but it remained just that a myth..

Politicians were all white and male.  Italians were proud to point out that Fiorello La Guardia, the well known mayor of New York, was half-Italian.  My mother was impressed to find a distant cousin to be a judge in the Superior Court of New London.  Although we had many famous singers with Italian names, few Italians were elected officials.  Often labeled by their opponents as members of or associated with the mafia, they would face certain defeat.

Things began to change ...

The civil rights struggle of the '60's ushered a decade of hard fought battles to defeat discrimination.  The Viet Nam War served as a catalyst to a number of causes, including the notion of freedom and equality for all.  Segregation was defeated.  Equal access by Blacks began to increase, although many whites resisted it. Examples of civil discontent was on page 1 of all newspapers and evening news programs. The Civil Rights Act was heralded as a major breakthrough for racial equality in America.

In my view, a less noticed act of Congress was, by and large, the biggest change yet.  Its huge impact would be felt decades later with concomitant implications.  The change was the immigration reform.  No longer quota was set based on ethnic or racial background.  All aspirants would be treated alike.  It was now possible for Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans to join the pool of applicants.  Immigration from Europe began to drop off dramatically as European nations began to improve their economic conditions and join the boom.  Therefore, most, if not all, legal immigrants were now Asians and Latin Americans.  Immigration policies were adjusted also to allow people with scarce skills to more easily come to America.  

America now accepts 1 million legal immigrants per year.  A large number of illegal (euphemistically called without papers or sin papeles) immigrants began crossing the border unwilling to wait in line for five or more years.  Bad economic conditions back home pushing them to cross the borders.  We now have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in America.  

Where are we now?

You can see the changing America in the profile of our newly elected Congress.  Never before so many Blacks, Latinos, Asians, women and gay members have been elected to Congress.  They bring a new perspective, and, perhaps a new approach.   Minorities are now approximately 30% of the electorate.  By 2050, they will be the majority.  They are already the majority in California.  The growing influence of women on politics will also bring many subtle changes.

This change in the landscape will modify the prevailing value system and the many symbols we associate with that value system.  The changing face of America looks to Gandhi, Mandela, and Obama as role models and inspiration, just as earlier whites looked to Washington, Jefferson and other founding fathers for theirs.  To see a Black man leading our country has a very strong appeal and a lot of positive symbolism for the emerging majority.

Although a 75-year old white male, I do not suffer from nostalgia of the good old days.  They were good for me, but they were not all that good for some others.  I have had the opportunity to work and associate, in addition to whites, with many friends and colleagues from Asia, Latin America, and Africa.  They bring much energy, culture, and brain power to America.  We will be better off for their arrival, and we should celebrate the future rather than mourning the past.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make America my home.  I have lived here more than 80% of my life.  New comers will fall in love with America, warts and all.  They will have their chance to make this union more perfect.

The Genetics of Power

I just returned from a week of relaxation and sunshine in Playa del Carmen, in the beautiful Maya Riviera of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula.  As customary, before leaving for Cancun, I loaded up at the airport with reading materials for the week.  Among my purchases ... the Economist, Time, and Newsweek.

An article about the genetics of power in the Newsweek psychology section by Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist at Rutgers University and the chief scientific advisor to Chemistry.com, caught my eye.  I must admit that the subject is totally new to me, but I found the article interesting.

Fisher tells us that recently Peter Hatemi of Pennsylvania State University and Rose McDertmott of Brown University reevaluated much of the evidence about the genetics of politics concluding that "genetic influences account for a substantial portion of individual differences in political traits"  .. perhaps as much as 40 to 60%.   She goes on to suggest that we must know who we are biologically and genetically speaking.

Her own research suggests that there are four broad primary styles of thinking and behaving within one of four universal brain systems: the testosterone, estrogen, serotonin, and dopamine systems.

Each one of us is a unique mix of the four, but we express the traits of some more than others.  For example, those of us who are particularly expressive of traits linked with testosterone, she calls Directors.  Those primarily expressive of estrogen she calls Negotiators.  Those primarily expressive of serotonin she calls Builders.  And those expressive of dopamine she calls Explorers.

Her information comes from multiple sources, including brain scanning, genetics, neurotransmitter and hormone systems, and a scientific questionnaire she constructed which resides on the dating site Chemistry.com, a subsidiary of Match.com, and which has been taken by more than 12 million people.

Here is a summary of the four brain systems that contribute to personality according to Fisher:

TESTOSTERONE

Qualities: analytical, tough-minded, direct (often blunt), skeptical, and determined to win.

Examples: Margaret Tatcher, Nicolas Sarkozy, George Patton

Not strictly a male hormone, data also link testosterone with the tendencies to be less socially aware, with poor emotional recognition, less eye contact, and less verbal fluency.

ESTROGEN

Qualities: sees the big picture, has people skills, verbal skills; imaginative, intuitive, compassionate.

Examples: Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Bill Clinton

Not strictly a female hormone, the effects of estrogen begin in the womb, contributing to a more contextual, holistic, big-picture, long term view, as well as superb linguistic skills.

SEROTONIN

Qualities:  cautious, conventional, concrete, meticulous, respectful of rules and authority, religious.

Examples:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Colin Powell, George W. Bush

Caution, observing social norms, following the rules, respecting authority, orderliness, adherence to plans and methods, frugality, figural and number creativity and religiosity are traits associated with the serotonin system.

DOPAMINE

Qualities:  curious, creative, spontaneous, energetic, mentally flexible, daring.

Examples: Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt

Genes in the dopamine system are extensively associated, in biological literature, with novelty seeking and risk taking, spontaneity and energy.

Concluding Notes

No one is a pure this or that, in my view.  Human behavior is too complicated to pigeon hole anyone in one box or another.  Scientists have a knack about using 2x2 matrices to illustrate their insights or research findings.  They do so in order to more easily communicate with lay persons.

My own experience teaches me that we are more like a mosaic composed of many traits and qualities. some smaller, other larger, together capturing our individual characteristics

.

For example, applying the author's descriptions to myself, I can identify with most, but not all,  of the Negotiator/Explorer qualities.  Conversely, fewer qualities in the categories of Director/Builder seem to apply to me.

The article suggests that no man is an island, particularly a leader.  So the author offers a modest piece of biological advice: surround ourselves with people who do not think the way we do.

Recent data from Stanford University seems to suggest that "in the long run teams do better when they are composed of people with the widest possible range of personalities".

I am a strong believer and supporter of this advice.  There is much to be gained by diversity in approach, thinking and learning style.  The price we pay for the benefits that accrue includes being more patient, more tolerant, and perhaps less efficient.

How about your thoughts?  What is your dominant style? Would others agree with your assessment?

Joblessness Data

Let me start this blog by saying that I am not a professional statistician.  I have chosen to address this topic to shed some light on this topic using some research and a layman's understanding of what I learned.

Every month we are fed by the Labor Department unemployment rates.

The rate for September raised many eyebrows.  Several economists and management gurus questioned the validity and reliability of the method used for calculating the rate.  Others went further to suggest manipulation for political reasons.

The reasons for this debate are many.

The most compelling explanation by the skeptics is that for the rate to drop from 8.1% to 7.8% 900,000 jobs would have been created in September.  The implausible statistical quirk may be a result of the method used for determining the rate.  Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses a household canvass to measure how many of us are employed.  Professional statisticians advise us to discount these data because they lack reliability.

Can you be more specific?

For the rate to drop .3% in one month one of several factors must be in play, including:

First, the economy must grow rapidly and, as a result, it is creating lots of jobs.  For this to be the reason, our GNP would have to grow by a healthy rate (5% or more) -- which was not the case for September.  The number of jobs added during that month was a mere 114,000.

Second, since there is inadequate job creation millions of job seekers stop looking for work.  That has been the experience throughout the recovery.  For some reason, BLS does not count those who have given up looking.

Third, BLS counts part-time jobs as if they were full time contributing to further obfuscation of the real problem the nation faces.

So the numbers do not add up because they lack face validity.

We lost 9 million jobs during this recession.  Just 5 million have been recouped.  Even worse, the level of private sector jobs remains 13 million below the pre-crisis job growth trend.

The employment gap is a national crisis.  23 million people are either unemployed or under employed. These people are not a statistic, they are real human beings with needs, aspirations, and obligations.

Politicians, like Nero, are playing the fiddle while Rome is burning.  Except that it is not Rome burning, but our fellow Americans who are suffering.

Where is the sense of urgency?  Where is the bipartisan approach?  We need action, not excuses, and soon.  Real soon!!!

The Politics of Work

The European Lesson

I just returned from a four weeks visit to Europe.  During my stay I would watch every night one or two evening news on Italian television to keep up with world events and better understand Italian and European concerns regarding job creation and the economy.

Needless to say, the European economy varies from member-state to member-state.  German and most Northern European economies seem to be faring better than their Southern and Eastern counterparts.  The pain is most evident in Greece, Ireland, Spain, and Italy.  Why?  The global recession impacted them the most.  Why? Because their government deficit was way above the stipulated ceiling of 3% of GNP, and their total debt exceeded their GNP.  It was also evident from the various reports that the excesses of the past 40 years had come home to roost.  

During the expansionary and boom years of the last 4 decades, politicians were spending far more than their annual revenues.  On the social front, politicians eager to gain the approval of their constituencies endorsed laws and practices advocated by labor unions and other interest groups.  In addition, the spending binge fueled corruption and in some cases outright thievery.

I learned in my studies of business policy that the test of whether a policy is good or bad is dependent on a simple question.  Can the organization afford the policy under good as well as bad economic times?  If the answer is no, then the policy is not sustainable over time.  Politicians failed to ask this basic question before getting on the bandwagon of spending.  

As governments have been applying the ax to many policies to bring spending under control, it is evident that the burden has fallen most heavily on the lower economic classes.  Increase in taxes, postponement of retirement, unemployment, and inflation have led to confrontations of all kinds, some violent, and a steady deterioration of the social fabric.  It was painful to watch nightly elderly folks, the handicapped, the youth, and the unemployed display their anger and plight.  

As political parties jockey for advantage, a bit of reflection is in order.  Asking the arsonist to put out the fire seems to me to be foolhardy.  But that is what it seems to be happening, including here at home.

It is evident to me that labor laws need modernization in Southern Europe and that the narrative about finding permanent positions needs to travel in a different direction ... the direction of finding meaningful and higher paying work.

Work versus Jobs

In Italy, there seems to be a fixation with job security.  

People want permanent jobs. Period.  Anything less than that is seen as uncivilized.  Unions want government guarantees that no one will be laid off for economic reasons or fired without "just" cause.  Their rationale is simple.  Temporary workers cannot get a mortgage without it.  And as a result, they cannot start a family or lead a "normal" life.  This kind of thinking, of course, fuels the notion that the best place for job security is to work for the government.  Never mind that government rolls are bloated and need to be cut down.  

I found it curious that an administrative judge would be asked to rule on "just cause",  most often ignoring the need to reduce costs or to eliminate inefficient practices.  The unions are most vehement on this issue.  The ranks of the administrative judge cadre is dominated by union-friendly judges. Once the progressives, unions are now hanging on to obsolete and often uncompetitive policies.  Once innovators, now unions are conservators of the status quo.

These antiquated labor policies are stifling growth and investment.  Global and domestic companies shy away from countries with high labor costs and from countries with labor laws that make it impossible to fire workers in case of economic downturns and restructuring needs.  

Italians are proud to point out that, unlike Americans, they work to live.  To them, the purpose of a job seems to be to meet one's economic needs. Never mind the fact that work is as natural as play and that we can gain tremendous satisfaction and self worth from our work.  Of course, this is a great generalization.  Not all Italians see it that way.  Although of Italian descent, I find the view that work's sole purpose is economic as antiquated and obsolete.  It ignores the psychological and social rewards we gain from work. At the same time, I too yearn for la dolce vita.

From childhood, we have been encouraged to work.  We are gives chores to do. We have homework to do.  We have to study.  We have to do our part. Sure, some types of work are more satisfying or less physically draining than others, but, in my view, all work is noble.  

The American Conundrum

The American story is very different.  Americans, by and large, live to work.  It has been ingrained in us since the beginning.  Maybe to a fault.  Our problem is not enough jobs.  

We are not as obsessed by the permanent versus temporary nature of jobs.  We understand that businesses might have to lay off workers when sales decline or when  unprofitable.  The problem here seems to me availability -- not enough good paying jobs to go around.  Why?  Because some work has shifted elsewhere, some overseas, in search of lower costs.

Germany has solved this issue by concentrating its efforts on niches where their competitive advantage is not derived principally from cost but rather from quality, service and reliability.  

Because we are in a political season, politicians are looking for wedge issues to attract voters.  I find this approach as divisive and not conducive to problem solving.  The dialog should be postponed for the legislative season when principled policies can be discussed and enacted.  

The most common topics are:

1.  Equality

While everyone is entitled to equal access, is everyone entitled to equal rewards?  There are those who believe that rewards should be dispensed based on results, while others believe that fairness requires that we share the rewards equally.  Some might argue that not everyone's inputs into the pot are equal to begin with: some have higher or more skills, others might work harder, etc. The equal pay for equal work issue, though, has a lot of merit on its own.  We do under-pay women and we have for centuries.  It is time to get into the 21st century on this issue.

2.  Proportionality

Some advocate that fairness is determined by the proportionality of one's contribution. Others disagree saying that everyone is entitled to be cared for, that every one should get a living wage, regardless of his/her contribution.  Is this another way to spin the equality argument? Possibly.

3.  Procedural fairness

Honest, open and impartial rules should be used to determine who gets what.  There is lot of agreement on this point, regardless of political persuasion.  The system is rigged with far too many loop holes.  People will point to affirmative action as an example of a partial rule.  Others will point out that the wealthy have far greater access to college education because they can simply afford it.  And, we all know that the old buddy network is alive and well.  

Summary

At this point you may wonder what the above three points have to do with work.  My view is that many people are left out of the workforce because they lack access, because their contribution is unfairly determined, and because dependency on government hand-outs makes it easy for some to forego work because the handout received is greater than the paycheck one might receive.

What is your view?