Thursday, January 25, 2007

Wes Unruh (see his Online Prosperity Education link to your right on this page) is truly a gifted communicator who sees his role similarly to how Mark and I see our own roles in the media.

The following comment was in recent response to Wes' post regarding guerrilla tactics shown, by example, to counterbalance what employees see as their employers' unethical practices in the workplace.

Mark and I have been employees and employers; we've been contractors and we've been consultants - so we see the issues clearly from both sides of the bargaining table.

As real people engaged in commerce - or employed by a commercial interest - understand all-too-well, communication must be a two-way street if our time spent together in a useful exchange is to bear the most fruit...on a basis of fair play
...over time.

Fair play is that part of the social contract which underlies our assumptions about how and why our collaborations are to be defined, explicitly or implicitly understood, and acted upon accordingly.

Without effective communication we assume the risk that fair play will not sustain itself because misunderstanding and conflict naturally any event or circumstance.

Notwithstanding all other evidence to the contrary...factors, quotients and variables do any relationship where cognitive dissonance is, many times, at play...and buyer's remorse remains a possibility.

So, whether it be in our business or our personal relationships, this truism holds because it always exists.

It is up to each one of us to know this potential for tension and dispute is a naturally-occurring phenomenon found universally in Nature; and thus, it is within our human natures become empowered by this knowledge...and successfully adapt to it or change directions.

As Dad always said, "Life gives us lemons - so we make lemonade. It's up to you what you do with it."



You never cease to impress me with your thoughts, my friend!

Authoritarian constructs are often innocently or enthusiastically created when two or more parties wish to begin an exchange - for whatever reason or purpose.

Thus, your example perfectly illustrates what often goes awry in just such an authoritarian construct which assumes an equitable exchange of time and effort for money and stock options - the mediums of the exchange, in this case.

Here we have an often-used, real-life example of a classic employer-employee construct, coupled with a carrot-and-stick performance/results clause, commonly employed in many industries - not just the gaming industry.

This example is widely-used because skilled workers want a piece of the action in exchange for their creative efforts; and their employers want motivated efforts from them.

And it is from here that all-too-human machinations begin to unravel both parties' assumptions - leading to the grass roots campaign begun by our "significant other" protagonist, and its eventual outcome, as evidenced in your case study.

Utilizing leverage this way comprises a finely-tuned balancing act which both sides actively engaged in the aforementioned construct must stay attuned to perfecting as performance and results are actualized - lest we lose our way...or our health.

Without respectful communication we cannot expect good outcomes or positive results. So if an authoritarian construct - of any kind - is entered into, it is useful to remind ourselves that the devil is in the details very often, and a social or business contract must equally benefit both parties if this entanglement is to bear fruit for us over time.

Successful collaborations within an authoritarian construct begin and end when all parties engaged therein realize the truth as it stares them in the face. And honest assumptions require a compact of structured arbitration be built in the contract for harmonious results to be expected.

Alas...simply an employer-employee relationship in a capitalist construct - heavily weighted from its patriarchal underpinnings - often doesn't call for this understanding to be put in place at the authoritarian master-slave, parent-child, and/or even the outmoded man-woman construct is entered into, bees to the full flower of its poisonous bloom; in other words, with no recourse but to churn-and-burn its participants in a never-ending cycle of wanton abuse.

I think, therefore I am but a product of my own imagination. So if I imagine I must consider participating in any authoritarian construct, I can imagine this entanglement for what its logical experience and outcome might mean for me - from its beginning to its end - so I can leverage this experience to satisfy my own design.

Hence, all less-than-equal social or business constructs can be intelligently and compassionately seen in the light in which they are originally engaged, allowing us to see our way clear as to how best it can suit our highest, most-noble purposes.

Seen from this vantage point, knowing few things in life are co-equal, or even fair, we carry on...

Fair play is best understood when the parties so enjoined realize how successful collaborations are made harmonious within our natures as human beings.

When less-than-fair-play is tolerated...tension - or stress - can be expected to be the result.

And change - whether for good or ill - will be the only outcome of such a shared experience.

After all, a house of cards will most certainly fall, right?

In observations such as yours, a playing field can be leveled - with a little initiative and a bold approach - utilizing the power of leverage.

Bravissimo, wu!

Show us the way to the revolution!


Mainspring Mindshares


Go see Wes' original post in MySpace by...

Clicking Here...then heading over to his blog post which is entitled "Target Inc Overworking Diabetics, Refusing Breaks" to view more.