Friday, December 03, 2004
My post earlier in the month introduced, what I consider, a stellar book by Graham S. Lowe titled The Quality of Work: A People-Centred Agenda. Since that post, I wrote the following paper,which (ironically?) focuses on work culture. If you feel so inclined, take a read and feel free to continue the dialogue.
Cultural Redirect
Recently, I left a comfortable career position in a global corporation to begin a journey of self-discovery. One of several goals of this journey is to redefine what sort of work environment I want to be a part of. Graham S. Lowe’s book, The Quality of Work: A People-Centred Agenda, reinforces for me that there are others who are looking to create the future of quality work. Lowe defines quality of work as a measure of humaneness, such as personal job satisfaction, challenging work, availability of learning and education, and job security. The rationale behind the quality of work is that it remain solid on the principle of change. Therefore, workers with the desire to attain quality of work must be open to change their current attitude, identity, and culture. In order to align the current Canadian work identity with a quality of work agenda, workers and union are responsible to initiate, create, and perpetuate a new culture of work.
To form this new work culture, one must step back to look at the recent Canadian work history. The 1990’s emphasized an overwhelming culture of survival of the economic crises rather than that of a quality of work agenda. In my experience, Lowe’s synopsis of the recent history of work - which incidentally marks my introduction to the Canadian work culture - is accurate. I was not familiar with any other work environment, therefore the work culture of survival was acceptable and I, consequently, acquiesced. The 1990’s featured downsizing, cost-cutting, and lay-off trends. In addition, there was a sharp growth in the amount of part-time positions, involuntary part-timers, and noticeably, the amount of women in the workforce. The cost-cutting trend of the 1990’s not only occurred in downsizing but also in government social programs. All the while, the Canadian labour movement did not falter.
It isn’t surprising then that the survival culture of the 1990’s transforms into one of a widening gap. The current work culture, though it attempts to portray humaneness through new management paradigms, demonstrates a class polarization because work is not equally distributed in the Canadian workforce. One merely needs to analyze the current attitude, identity, and culture of our work dynamics to prove this polarization.
Often, employees are blanketed in attitudes of fear and insecurity. With the aftermath of downsizing, employees question their job security, distrust their employers and government (who have failed to set an alternative approach), and move from one job to another with no guarantee of full-time work. Hence, high stress is rampant as workers scramble to balance their work and personal lives. One noticeable trend that furthers the work culture of polarization is the overwork of employees next to the under-work of others.
More deeply entrenched in this polarizing work culture is the contradiction of essential education with that of job accessibility. For example, workers that are highly educated tend to have access to on-the-job learning, whereas those that are less educated have little to no learning opportunities at work. Training For the New Economy: A Synthesis Report states that "the net affect is to exacerbate labour market polarization, which creates social and economic difficulties and also reduces the country’s productive capacity" (p. 36). The reality of this work culture sharply contrasts the need for a quality work agenda. I can attest to the fact that once I successfully began the climb up the corporate ladder, my opportunities for training and skills development were sharply increased.
In addition to a fearful attitude and an incongruous skills identity, the culture of work is further polarized by the rising number of self-employed and nonstandard workers. For the union, these two types of workers are difficult to organize. For workers, these two work camps diminish the opportunity to attain a national quality of work agenda.
In order to offer alternatives to both survival culture and polarization culture, the definition of quality of work culture - in a stable economic position - must be described. A quality of work culture truly values and advocates the development of people resources.
First, a quality of work culture intentionally promotes workers’ physical and mental health, inviting flexibility in work schedules and worker responsibilities in an effort to de-stress the work environment. For me, an active example of this is when my employer discontinues to reward employees who overwork.
Second, an exemplary work culture is one that promotes on-the-job learning, education, and skills development. In regards to learning organizations, Betcherman, McMullen, and Davidman remark that "in a sense, then, while, these organizations often have a formal framework for training, it is very difficult to actually identify training because of the way in which learning is integral to the culture" (p. 53). On a personal level, this quote encompasses my ideal work environment.
Finally, a quality of work culture is goal oriented, with the understanding that the goals must be adaptable because work is always in a state of flux (Lowe, 2000, p. 145). The quality of work culture is flexible, democratically designed by the employees, and if applicable, with the support of the union who have the understanding of the employer. "It may be that only by such collaboration will a high quality of working life be truly provided for the members of the organizations" (Davis & Sullivan, 1993, p. 251). Therefore, it is imperative to outline the responsibility that workers and unions hold to support the future of quality of work.
At this time, the role of workers and unions to promote a quality of work agenda is to create a new work culture. This economically stable work culture is one that is resilient to the constant change of work identity, workers’ personal attitudes, and environmental factors. In The Future of Work: A Synthesis Report, Betcherman and Lowe state that "we can never expect to immunize ourselves from change. Indeed, doing so would guarantee an eventual decline in our standard of living" (p. 48). The culture is in and of itself a long-term evolution.
In this new culture, the part that the union plays is significant. Despite the considerable deterioration of the American labour movement, Canadian unions sustain a consistent union membership growth. Consequently, the Human Resources Department of Canada (HRDC) tracks workplace innovation and follows the unions’ collective agreements. Therefore, unions set the trends and have the potential to ‘tell the story’ of the new Canadian work culture. The role of unions, and workers, is to distinguish the shift in culture and recognize that the solution to each work environment is independently successful of another.
To synopsize, Lowe’s definition of the quality of work culture is driven by workers and unions who support workers’ physical and mental health, integrates training and education on-the-job, and embodies adaptable, worker-participative goals. Betcherman, McMullen and Davidman further support Lowe and write "training can alter the organizational culture and strategy – it can be a tool for redirecting the organization toward a higher value-added competitive strategy based on the contribution of human resources and a more constructive labour-management relationship" (p. 58).
The suggestion that workers and unions are responsible to create a new work culture is another marker in the evolution of work. Canadian workers and unions have come through a survival culture and currently face the barriers of a polarization culture. Lowe’s book explores the importance to define the quality of work and starts a dialogue for the workers and the unions to continue. The quality of work is a cultural concept, one that requires workers and unions to collaborate with their employers in order to attain a new and adaptable work agenda.
Work Cited
Betcherman, Gordon & Graham S. Lowe. (1997). The future of work in Canada: A synthesis report. Ottawa: Renouf Publishing Co..
Betcherman, Gordon, Katherine McMullen & Katie Davidman. (1998). Training for a new economy: A synthesis report. Ottawa: Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd..
Davis, Louis E. & Charles S. Sullivan. (1993). A labour-management contract and quality of working life. In Graham S. Lowe & Harvey J. Krahn (Eds.), Work in Canada: Readings in the sociology of work and industry (pp. 244 -252). Scarborough: Nelson Canada.
Lowe, Graham S. (2000). The quality of work: A people-centred agenda. Don Mills: OUP.
Cultural Redirect
Recently, I left a comfortable career position in a global corporation to begin a journey of self-discovery. One of several goals of this journey is to redefine what sort of work environment I want to be a part of. Graham S. Lowe’s book, The Quality of Work: A People-Centred Agenda, reinforces for me that there are others who are looking to create the future of quality work. Lowe defines quality of work as a measure of humaneness, such as personal job satisfaction, challenging work, availability of learning and education, and job security. The rationale behind the quality of work is that it remain solid on the principle of change. Therefore, workers with the desire to attain quality of work must be open to change their current attitude, identity, and culture. In order to align the current Canadian work identity with a quality of work agenda, workers and union are responsible to initiate, create, and perpetuate a new culture of work.
To form this new work culture, one must step back to look at the recent Canadian work history. The 1990’s emphasized an overwhelming culture of survival of the economic crises rather than that of a quality of work agenda. In my experience, Lowe’s synopsis of the recent history of work - which incidentally marks my introduction to the Canadian work culture - is accurate. I was not familiar with any other work environment, therefore the work culture of survival was acceptable and I, consequently, acquiesced. The 1990’s featured downsizing, cost-cutting, and lay-off trends. In addition, there was a sharp growth in the amount of part-time positions, involuntary part-timers, and noticeably, the amount of women in the workforce. The cost-cutting trend of the 1990’s not only occurred in downsizing but also in government social programs. All the while, the Canadian labour movement did not falter.
It isn’t surprising then that the survival culture of the 1990’s transforms into one of a widening gap. The current work culture, though it attempts to portray humaneness through new management paradigms, demonstrates a class polarization because work is not equally distributed in the Canadian workforce. One merely needs to analyze the current attitude, identity, and culture of our work dynamics to prove this polarization.
Often, employees are blanketed in attitudes of fear and insecurity. With the aftermath of downsizing, employees question their job security, distrust their employers and government (who have failed to set an alternative approach), and move from one job to another with no guarantee of full-time work. Hence, high stress is rampant as workers scramble to balance their work and personal lives. One noticeable trend that furthers the work culture of polarization is the overwork of employees next to the under-work of others.
More deeply entrenched in this polarizing work culture is the contradiction of essential education with that of job accessibility. For example, workers that are highly educated tend to have access to on-the-job learning, whereas those that are less educated have little to no learning opportunities at work. Training For the New Economy: A Synthesis Report states that "the net affect is to exacerbate labour market polarization, which creates social and economic difficulties and also reduces the country’s productive capacity" (p. 36). The reality of this work culture sharply contrasts the need for a quality work agenda. I can attest to the fact that once I successfully began the climb up the corporate ladder, my opportunities for training and skills development were sharply increased.
In addition to a fearful attitude and an incongruous skills identity, the culture of work is further polarized by the rising number of self-employed and nonstandard workers. For the union, these two types of workers are difficult to organize. For workers, these two work camps diminish the opportunity to attain a national quality of work agenda.
In order to offer alternatives to both survival culture and polarization culture, the definition of quality of work culture - in a stable economic position - must be described. A quality of work culture truly values and advocates the development of people resources.
First, a quality of work culture intentionally promotes workers’ physical and mental health, inviting flexibility in work schedules and worker responsibilities in an effort to de-stress the work environment. For me, an active example of this is when my employer discontinues to reward employees who overwork.
Second, an exemplary work culture is one that promotes on-the-job learning, education, and skills development. In regards to learning organizations, Betcherman, McMullen, and Davidman remark that "in a sense, then, while, these organizations often have a formal framework for training, it is very difficult to actually identify training because of the way in which learning is integral to the culture" (p. 53). On a personal level, this quote encompasses my ideal work environment.
Finally, a quality of work culture is goal oriented, with the understanding that the goals must be adaptable because work is always in a state of flux (Lowe, 2000, p. 145). The quality of work culture is flexible, democratically designed by the employees, and if applicable, with the support of the union who have the understanding of the employer. "It may be that only by such collaboration will a high quality of working life be truly provided for the members of the organizations" (Davis & Sullivan, 1993, p. 251). Therefore, it is imperative to outline the responsibility that workers and unions hold to support the future of quality of work.
At this time, the role of workers and unions to promote a quality of work agenda is to create a new work culture. This economically stable work culture is one that is resilient to the constant change of work identity, workers’ personal attitudes, and environmental factors. In The Future of Work: A Synthesis Report, Betcherman and Lowe state that "we can never expect to immunize ourselves from change. Indeed, doing so would guarantee an eventual decline in our standard of living" (p. 48). The culture is in and of itself a long-term evolution.
In this new culture, the part that the union plays is significant. Despite the considerable deterioration of the American labour movement, Canadian unions sustain a consistent union membership growth. Consequently, the Human Resources Department of Canada (HRDC) tracks workplace innovation and follows the unions’ collective agreements. Therefore, unions set the trends and have the potential to ‘tell the story’ of the new Canadian work culture. The role of unions, and workers, is to distinguish the shift in culture and recognize that the solution to each work environment is independently successful of another.
To synopsize, Lowe’s definition of the quality of work culture is driven by workers and unions who support workers’ physical and mental health, integrates training and education on-the-job, and embodies adaptable, worker-participative goals. Betcherman, McMullen and Davidman further support Lowe and write "training can alter the organizational culture and strategy – it can be a tool for redirecting the organization toward a higher value-added competitive strategy based on the contribution of human resources and a more constructive labour-management relationship" (p. 58).
The suggestion that workers and unions are responsible to create a new work culture is another marker in the evolution of work. Canadian workers and unions have come through a survival culture and currently face the barriers of a polarization culture. Lowe’s book explores the importance to define the quality of work and starts a dialogue for the workers and the unions to continue. The quality of work is a cultural concept, one that requires workers and unions to collaborate with their employers in order to attain a new and adaptable work agenda.
Work Cited
Betcherman, Gordon & Graham S. Lowe. (1997). The future of work in Canada: A synthesis report. Ottawa: Renouf Publishing Co..
Betcherman, Gordon, Katherine McMullen & Katie Davidman. (1998). Training for a new economy: A synthesis report. Ottawa: Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd..
Davis, Louis E. & Charles S. Sullivan. (1993). A labour-management contract and quality of working life. In Graham S. Lowe & Harvey J. Krahn (Eds.), Work in Canada: Readings in the sociology of work and industry (pp. 244 -252). Scarborough: Nelson Canada.
Lowe, Graham S. (2000). The quality of work: A people-centred agenda. Don Mills: OUP.
Comments:
<< Home
Fascinating stuff, Esther. I'm always skeptical of union involvement in these issues of quality, but I can see why you've pointed them out as a possible player. What has your personal experience been in seeing management collaborate with unionized employees?
Today, the issues of quality in work outside of unions are largely founded on historical union initiatives. It is amazing to me how little I knew of the labour movement's developments in our current world of work. Though work quality has so much room for improvement and evolution, it is quite progressive as a result of union initiatives and labour legislation. Amazing.
At Starbucks, it's hard to gauge the sincerity of involvement between managers and union employees. I say that because the direction that corporate gave managers, even partners (employees) was to not only to fear the union, but depict it as counter-productive to the development of corporate culture and daily operations. So, my idea of what I should do versus what I was able to do was conflicted. For the most part, I acted similar towards union partners to that of non-union partners. I felt ill-equipped to deal with union issues, though a sharp learning curve was forced on me when grievances came up - which were not involving my personal management rather that of the collective agreement between CAW and Starbucks, from a partner in my store. This resulted in a very confusing and tedious process for me.
Anyway, management co-operation with unionized employees, including myself, is dependent on what one perceives of the relationship and how it's acted out. I figured, going with the personal value that I'll create a good work environment, regardless of certification, for all partners. That seemed to be the best idea, but not necessarily a well-informed one.
At Starbucks, it's hard to gauge the sincerity of involvement between managers and union employees. I say that because the direction that corporate gave managers, even partners (employees) was to not only to fear the union, but depict it as counter-productive to the development of corporate culture and daily operations. So, my idea of what I should do versus what I was able to do was conflicted. For the most part, I acted similar towards union partners to that of non-union partners. I felt ill-equipped to deal with union issues, though a sharp learning curve was forced on me when grievances came up - which were not involving my personal management rather that of the collective agreement between CAW and Starbucks, from a partner in my store. This resulted in a very confusing and tedious process for me.
Anyway, management co-operation with unionized employees, including myself, is dependent on what one perceives of the relationship and how it's acted out. I figured, going with the personal value that I'll create a good work environment, regardless of certification, for all partners. That seemed to be the best idea, but not necessarily a well-informed one.
You wrote: "I say that because the direction that corporate gave managers, even partners (employees) was to not only to fear the union, but depict it as counter-productive to the development of corporate culture and daily operations."
To me, this sounds like the standard/traditional corporate stance on unions. I'll be curious to hear of any examples of different kinds of management/union relationships you come across in your new job. A great quote from the CLAC web site: "What makes sense is recognizing that a company where people work together in a spirit of cooperation will be more productive than a company filled with angry, bitter people."
It's been a few years since I read Lowe's book, but I remember being impressed by his data and analysis, but disappointed by his prescriptions for change. I don't think traditional organizations (government, big unions, and large corporations) will drive the shift toward better quality in work. I do hope, however, that new kinds of networks, ventures and entrepreneurs are rewarded for respecting their partners/workers...and I think they will succeed in the new economy because of their creative, happy collaborators. In theory, anyway.
To me, this sounds like the standard/traditional corporate stance on unions. I'll be curious to hear of any examples of different kinds of management/union relationships you come across in your new job. A great quote from the CLAC web site: "What makes sense is recognizing that a company where people work together in a spirit of cooperation will be more productive than a company filled with angry, bitter people."
It's been a few years since I read Lowe's book, but I remember being impressed by his data and analysis, but disappointed by his prescriptions for change. I don't think traditional organizations (government, big unions, and large corporations) will drive the shift toward better quality in work. I do hope, however, that new kinds of networks, ventures and entrepreneurs are rewarded for respecting their partners/workers...and I think they will succeed in the new economy because of their creative, happy collaborators. In theory, anyway.
I hear what you're saying about entrepreneurs having the potential to set the trend for a quality work environment. In many ways, my ideal would be to see that occur.
At the same time, it is not indicative of what has happened in the past. Generally, big unions and big corporations are who set the trends for other work environments (whether it be introducing fair compensation for all, implementing pay equity, etc...). Many people take direction from those big companies that are financially successful and transpose it onto their own small, fragile business. It is difficult to see that the self-employment route would be able to create and sustain a quality work environment because for the first 5+ years one is doing all they can to get it off of the ground. Specifically, this adds to the pressure of managing dollars and mental capabilities of self and others. Rarely is self-employment conducive to training and development for self and/or the employees. And it should be agreed that it is essential to be constantly involved in self-education in order to remain cutting edge and competative.
Maybe I'm a little pessimistic of the entreprenurial efforts because of the way it has negatively impacted people that I know. Personally, the entreprenuerial spirit has never ignited within me - maybe because it feels too divisive (or ostracized) from the larger work effort.
Ultimately, I would love to see more people enjoy an innovative, creative, and mentally stimulating work environment, whatever form it may be.
Post a Comment
At the same time, it is not indicative of what has happened in the past. Generally, big unions and big corporations are who set the trends for other work environments (whether it be introducing fair compensation for all, implementing pay equity, etc...). Many people take direction from those big companies that are financially successful and transpose it onto their own small, fragile business. It is difficult to see that the self-employment route would be able to create and sustain a quality work environment because for the first 5+ years one is doing all they can to get it off of the ground. Specifically, this adds to the pressure of managing dollars and mental capabilities of self and others. Rarely is self-employment conducive to training and development for self and/or the employees. And it should be agreed that it is essential to be constantly involved in self-education in order to remain cutting edge and competative.
Maybe I'm a little pessimistic of the entreprenurial efforts because of the way it has negatively impacted people that I know. Personally, the entreprenuerial spirit has never ignited within me - maybe because it feels too divisive (or ostracized) from the larger work effort.
Ultimately, I would love to see more people enjoy an innovative, creative, and mentally stimulating work environment, whatever form it may be.
<< Home
