Building the Homocracy

2016-04-04-1459784231-9825456-humanitycomputerkey

If we are to build a future of work that is human, our approach to organisational structure and job design needs to change. How many times have we heard the mantra that we must design structures and roles across abstract need, not individuals? Why would we ever do that? Why would we ever decide the shape of a box and then try and squeeze the many sided human being into it?

Questions for Collective Bargaining in 2016

divided-we-beg-224x300

In the same week that the University & College Union (UCU) have gone out on a two day national strike, Jeremy Corbyn has restated his support for a move to collective pay bargaining in the Civil Service. But how do we balance the value of ‘strength in numbers’ against the responsibility of unions to secure the best deal for their members and for employers to offer more sophisticated proposals in the new public sector?

Bonfire of the Policies

IMG_0797_-_Perugia_-_San_Bernardino_-_Agostino_di_Duccio_-1457-61-_-_Falò_delle_vanità_-_Foto_G._Dall'O2

We have talked before about the shortfalls of Human Resources Management. Taking its principles from a so called ‘scientific’ approach to people management, we have shown how its approach has been to superimpose arbitrary structures on top of real organisational shapes, and then focus on attacking the rogue bits that don’t fit. Finally, we are realising this, and HR policies are the first to go up in smoke.

The Failure of ‘Employee Engagement’

groupthink

It became a new way of measuring success in people management. The concept of ‘Employee Engagement’ gained such currency that a whole field of practice developed to transform our workforces into efficient troops of evangelists who would go the extra mile without being asked (or paid for it). But has this changed anything? And does the idea of “engaged employees” still have any useful meaning?