Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
June 01, 2009

Burnout at the Not-OK Corral

I've just read an intriguing article about burnout among web designers by Scott Boms, in the most excellent web 'zine A List Apart.

From Scott Boms' article:
Phases of burnout are:
  • A compulsion to prove oneself
  • Working harder
  • Neglecting one’s own needs
  • Displacement of conflict away from true cause of distress
  • Revision of values (dismissing friends, family, hobbies)
  • Denial of emerging cynicism, aggression, frustration
  • Withdrawal from social contexts, alcohol or drug abuse
  • Behavioral changes become obvious to others
  • Inner emptiness
  • Depression
  • Suicidal thoughts, mental / physical collapse
 Causes of burnout:
  • Every day is a bad day
  • You're not emotionally invested in your job
  • You feel unappreciated
  • You feel like you’re not making a difference
  • Clear disconnect between your personal values and what is expected of you
  • Unrealistic or unreasonable goals are imposed on you
  • A significant amount of your day is focused on unfulfilling tasks


Burnout results from a lack of balance. Something's wrong, you don't or can't deal with it directly, you start with work-arounds, and you end up off balance. I was kind of amused recently to see somebody with a box of Balance bars. I didn't know they sold balance in boxes. I need a few boxes of that, and also a few boxes of Judgement if they sell that, too.


One thing that I've learned in the last ten years is that although we all tend to think our industry/ specialty/ niche is unique, there's really very few unique fields, and the human condition is universal. What Boms says about web designers applies to doctors, rocket scientists, and even Azimuth Technologies Corp.


Azimuth Technologies Corporation

Azimuth Technologies' employees are bright creative people, artists in a unforgiving industry, technowizards. They do things that other people can't, return outcomes that others can describe but not deliver, and their errors are judged by lesser creatures.

The Great Change

Three years ago, headquarters at Azimuth Technologies Corporation radically changed the way they treated employees. They wanted to break the employee-driven culture. Azimuth Technologies wanted a clear change of the status quo, a reversal of the previous decade, and a redefinition of the world of work.

On the Interface

I knew a group of ten team leads (supervisors) at Azimuth's local shop at the time of the Great Change.
  • 4 of them retired to get away from it
  • 4 of them took promotions away from the front lines
  • 1 transferred to another location
  • only 1 is still working as a team lead
  • 2 of these 10 have had major nervous breakdowns.


Under New Ownership

The Great Change has had its way for three long years. Recently, Ownership changed hands. The new Owner has called for a return to the way things were, they've insisted on a revision to the rewrite, and there's a chance that Great Wrongs will be set right. Paychecks will be corrected, procedures and processes will be restored, efforts will be made. Thank God for the new owners.

Even St. Jane can't restore trust. You can't restore the destroyed assumption that Azimuth will support their people, which is a key requirement for front line troops. The people have learned that a change in Ownership can throw all their assumptions and agreements out the window. They also know that this new Ownership, admirable as their position is, will someday be a former Owner, too.


The Pendulum Swings

Among the Quislings who championed the change, this swing of the pendulum toward equilibrium will be deeply resisted. They will throw their sabots in the machinery, they will attempt to bog it down, there will be pockets of recidivism, but they cannot change the pendulum's swing any more than the managers who opposed the change three years ago could stop it in their time.

The Damage

The ones who suffered the most are the employees - their families were hurt, they were treated with contempt, and they were subjected to capricious change just to show that they weren't in charge. They'll never trust Azimuth Technologies Corp. or the managers again. They shouldn't.

Strategic Damage

The strategic damage is the destruction of trust and the loss of relationship. At one time, Azimuth employees knew that if they were trying to do the right thing, Azimuth Technologies would support them. That assumption is long gone. What's the ROI on a culture of distrust?
All the King's horses,
all the King's men,
couldn't put Azimuth together again.


Downstream Impact

Demographically, Azimuth Technologies Corp. is going to churn 75% of their people in the next five years. Let's call the 25% that remain the bridge cohort. They'll be the legitimately bitter veterans who'll convey the story and the distrust to the new 75%, Azimuth's "Generation Next". A lot of the Gen-Next's won't listen, or will forget. I hope enough will remember: "The struggle of men against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting".

The upcoming correction will have winners and losers, just like any change. Winners will be the employees, Justice, and Right (vs Wrong). The Losers will be the people who embraced and championed the Great Change. Other Losers will be the people who stepped in to fill Team Lead vacancies, and whose only experience has been during the Great Change.

The Wreckage

The working people bear the impact, the cost , and the stress of the change. I think the supervisors, with one foot on each side of the labor/management divide, bear both damage and responsibility.

Let me be clear that the greatest injury, the most egregious wrong, has been done to the employees and their families. But I also count among the wreckage the two team leads (out of ten) who had nervous breakdowns. Surely this is the manifestation of Azimuth's implementing a morally wrong policy. Another writer describes the ATC experience as a real-world Milgram Experiment, and it's a legitimate point; most of the Nazis were "just following orders", too. (edited for clarity)

Nature of the Beast or Job Related Injury?

Europeans view burnout as a job-related injury. The way we Yanks continue to view burnout as an individual problem and an individual inadequacy, rather than an occupational issue caused by factors beyond the individual's control, is a barrier to dealing with the organization issues.

Christina Maslach, author of the benchmark Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), has always contended that burnout says more about the employer than it does about the employee. “Imagine investigating the personality of cucumbers to discover why they had turned into sour pickles,she famously wrote in 1982, “without analyzing the vinegar barrels in which they’d been submerged!

Burnout as the New Norm

When I consider the new team leaders who have replaced the ten I knew, and I look at the 25% "bridge cohort" that will convey today's culture to the Gen-Next's, I think they're all dead set on the burnout track that Boms described in his article.


The long-term cultural implications of a demanding technocreative organization, with team leads and a cadre of experienced employees that personify the burnout profile, will provide a very challenging environment and a very interesting study.


March 28, 2009

Unenforceable Contracts and the Economy of Trust

A fav blog brought me to Marie Cocco's blog entry, If You’re a Little Guy, a Contract Means Nothing. Excellent writing; she had me at Orwell.

I am not a lawyer (IANAL) and so I will leave the art of contract law to those professionals. But The nature of contracts in America has changed during recent (post-WW2) history and it has implications for where we go in the future.

Enforceable Contracts

A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do (or refrain from doing) an act which is enforceable in a court of law. It is a binding legal agreement. That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises for the breach of which the law will provide a remedy. A contract requires agreement, consideration, intention, capacity, and formalities.

Why do we make contracts? Why does society define them? Because if you observe the rules, a contract is enforceable.

Bankruptcy and Assymetrically Enforceable Contracts

Cocco's article describes how, in current practice, contracts are only enforceable against the "little guys".

The practice of using bankruptcy laws to abrogate union contracts in aviation was the particular expertise of Frank Lorenzo, who ruined Texas Air, New York Air, Continental and Eastern, and left the technique of using strategic bankruptcy to void contracts as his legacy to the industry.

In Pittsburgh, USAirways made contracts with their employee unions and with the airport. Although the airline thought the contracts were a fair bargain when they entered into them, when the world and their priorities changed they felt it was a burden to honor the contracts - so they filed for bankruptcy, voided their contracts, repudiated their agreements, and left their contracting parties in the lurch.

Unenforceable Contracts

unenforceable contractThe extension of bankruptcy laws from the original concept (protection of creditors and assets) to the cancellation of contracts is an overwhelming change in our system of contract law. The result of this extension is that contracts are now asymmetrically unenforceable; the big party can play the bankruptcy card, and the little party has no significant recourse.


Used to be, when you entered into a contract for the next five years, you could reliably plan on the conditions of the contract unless there were extraordinary events (force majeure). Now, contracts with large entities are only valid as long as the entity finds it beneficial. It's a lot harder to plan in the face of such uncertainty.

Cocco points out the dialectic in our public posture on contracts. Contracts describing bonuses at AIG just had to be honored, in spite of the fact that the company was out of cash, received ma$$ive federal bailouts, and the President wanted them stopped. Contracts describing wages and benefits at GM plants for UAW members just had to be broken and rationalized in order for their jobs to exist for another year. Some contracts are enforceable, some are not, and the fickle capriciousness is unjustifiable.

Imposed Conditions as Pseduo-Contract

In the December 2008 showdown between Pittsburgh's PAT Authority and Local 85 (blog entry), the County withheld appropriated funds to contrive an artificial financial deadline, and then the Authority threatened to void the existing labor contract and impose new terms, which it referred to as a new contract. This is pure Newspeak; imposed working conditions do not meet the agreement / consideration / intention / capacity / formalities definition of a contract.

As contracts mean less, the benefits of making a contract are diminished, and the economic machine is damaged. Ask any USAirways pilot, whose retirement is gone and whose contract is gutted, how much they trust any contract or organization. Ask Captain Sullenberger.




The Economy of Trust



Frances Fukuyama's book, Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity, talks about the role of culture and laws in establishing a culture of trust, and how prosperity and wealth increase in a society in which people and companies are comfortable undertaking risk mitigated by trust.

I think that the erosion of contract enforceability through bankruptcy laws, combined with capricious political decisions about which contracts cannot fail and which contracts must fail, reduce the culture of trust and will prevent the prosperity that depends on a culture of trust.

I take a shallow and mechanistic view of culture, and try to diagnose our maladies the way you'd troubleshoot a system. When something's not working the way it used to, I wonder: what was the point at which things changed? What was the event that set us on this new path? What changed that caused this problem?

Modern Origin of Unenforceable Contracts

When did contracts start becoming unenforceable? I believe it started way before Frank Lorenzo. I think it started when we liberalized divorce and made the marriage contract unenforceable - either party could get out easily, even if the other party objected. What could be the harm?

Sure, you had agreed to the marriage, in fact you'd sworn to specific terms -- but now you've grown as a person, you're beyond them, and so you file some forms and you're out of it, regardless of the other party's desire to keep the marriage contract together. Marriage was the first generally unenforceable contract in modern times, and now the concept is rippling through the rest of the economy.


A Pox Upon Their House

The dark part of me races to harsh thoughts, and I wonder about all the Captains Wannabees of Industry and Management who break contracts as a technique instead of working at their committments the old-fashioned way. I wonder what they do if they go home and the spouse says, I want to dissolve our marriage contract, it's not working for me anymore, you're not the MBA I married. I wonder if they say things like, "I trusted you. We had a deal. I've given you the best years of my life. I built you a midfield terminal house, and now I'll still have to pay it off and get no benefit from it."

I wonder if they'd appreciate the irony.