The "fair" workplace: Ownership, control, recognition and reward

My friend, Bruce Eckel, write an interesting piece that has a recommendation on how to make workplaces more fair--everybody is paid the same hourly rate, and whoever works more hours, makes more money. You can read it here:

http://www.reinventing-business.com/2011/02/autonomy-vs-fairness.html

I know Bruce, and I know he's trying to "Reinvent Business" (that's also the name of his blog), but this is one of those ideas that sounds OK, until you think about it, and then it's kind of infuriating. 

The sheer number of hours you spend isn't indicative as to the level of work you've put in, or the value of your input.

When I work with clients, I explain I charge $x per hour, and what they get is X number of hours--PLUS 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE.

You could come up with an idea in 15 seconds, based on your 30 years of experience and continued study and research, that 10,000 hours of teamwork might not find. Does that mean you're paid for 15 seconds--and are penalized because of your experience and inspiration? 

Bruce says "It solves the "what am I worth and am I worth more than you" issue" but I don't see how. In fact, it feels so unfair it would put me off immediately and make me think my ideas would be more valued elsewhere.  Because, frankly, in organizations, some people's contributions are "more valuable to the organization" than others. That doesn't mean they're more valuable as human beings, but that their contributions are in this particular case.

Or, an I then supposed to pretend that my 15 second synthesis of 30 years knowledge really took me 100 hours, and even then, will I think it's fair if the entire company is based on the product I create, yet I only get paid for 100 hours? 

Then there's the point of people who don't fit in. Bruce posits that those people will realize they don't fit in and move on. But you've set up a system whereby they know they'll get paid for their posted hours, so maybe they don't like it, but they stick around for the money. Since this is already one of the reasons many people feel suck and stay in the jobs they're already in, based on human history, this is clearly not effective.

Fairness IS important, but if, at the end of the quarter, I feel strongly that someone else hasn't been productive (they've just been playing corporate games and talking big and not really contributing or producing), then I'm certainly not going to want to split the profits evenly with them. That would make me furious. And if someone doesn't fit in, and won't leave on their own, who decides that they go? Is it a democratic voting process? That sounds fair, but it can quickly devolve into alliances and political backstabbing ala "Survivor" on TV--the tribe has spoken.

We already see organizations that work against their own self-interest for these personal, often petty reasons. Even huge corporations can fire the top rated talent (Olbermann at msNBC) because he won't play their game. He's hugely valuable to them, yet for personal and political reasons they let him go--and this is in a publicly held corporations where they're supposedly responsible for actions that affect their shareholders.

I wish the solution was as simple as what Bruce proposes, but it's far more complicated than that--just that way that individuals sense "fairness" is more complicated that than.

I think the basic issue with his theory is that it's like communism. "...in a communist society, there is no centralized government - there is a collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members." It sounds great on paper--always does. Yes--we're all equal--hooray! Except, it inevitably turns into a situation where some people have control and more than others, and the others feel less rewarded and less reason to contribute and then things start to fall apart. 

What Bruce is describing is really socialism, again, sounds great on paper, but so far, only works in the form of Democrat Socialism: "A socialist society is a social structure organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism. This ranges from the establishment of cooperative management structures in the economy to the abolition of all hierarchical structures in favor of free association."

And while I believe in Democratic socialism, and believe in social justice, I also believe in human nature, and know it's at odds with pure socialism. 

I think the issues here are OWNERSHIP, CONTROL and RECOGNITION/REWARD. You want people to own their contribution, their part in the process. But ownership comes with strings--attachment, and ego, "This is MINE," but it's not just yours it's shared, but you think it's yours and you control it and so does somebody else.

And there's always going to be contention over who's job is more important--the IDEA vs the IMPLEMENTATION.

I can have an idea, but I need other people to implement it. Without my idea, there'd be nothing to implement (or sell). It sounds "chicken and egg," but I guess because I'm an "idea guy" I feel that without the idea, you have nothing. The idea is what sells (if it's developed properly). You can have a bunch of smart tactical and strategic people, but if they don't have a central idea, they still have nothing. 

But the implementation can take a lot more time than the idea-- so does that mean the people who do the implementing make more hourly wages than the person who thought it up?

Part of feeling useful is getting recognized and rewarded for your work. Even when you're work is purely pro-bono, your reward can be the recognition. One reason communism fails is because people are not rewarded for their work. If you don't have a deep personal sense of accomplishment, than after a while you think, "What's the point?" And everybody needs positive reinforcement, recognition and reward for a job well done.

At some point--the contributions of some people are going to be more important to a project than the contribution of others. How do you FAIRLY compensate for that if everyone is getting paid the same, and the people with the ideas are working fewer hours? That's inherently unfair.

What might work better is actual shared ownership--everyone having a vested interest in the organization. But whoever starts the organization, whoever has the initial ideas, is still going to want--and probably deserve--a bigger piece of the pie.