About 10 days ago, I posted a blog post which consisted of a series of images and the simple question: What do you see?
The reactions it gained, both in the comments and on social media, were interesting and varied – as I’d suspected, everyone saw the images in a slightly different way – some saw them individually, some saw them thematically, and the same picture could elicit different reactions.
The differences occur because we all perceive things based on our own knowledge, experiences and values – everyone has a different frame of reference. And these frames of reference transfer into the workplace as much as any other aspect of life.
Sociologist Alan Fox broke these workplace frames of reference down into 3 broad categories:
· Unitarist – everyone in the organisation shares similar values and culture and they are all working to the same end
· Pluralist – people have different aims and objectives, which may depend on where they are in the organisation and as a result organisations become a coalition of interests – and these interests can and do sometimes conflict
· Radical (or Marxist) – the groups in a workforce (which can crudely be split into ‘managers’ and ‘workers’) are inherently in conflict – if one gains the other loses.
For the last 30 years, the dominant viewpoint in HR and business has been the Unitarist one – whether it’s Tom Peters and his “excellent” companies, or HR concepts like ‘best practice’ and ‘employee engagement’. But is it time to reconsider the idea that “we’re all in it together”? The increasing numbers of industrial disputes – which I highlighted here – suggest that increasingly groups of employees are considering that their interests are better served by opposing the wishes of their managers. While the so-called Uber model of employment distances people from their organisation even further.
After all if we interpret 5 photographs differently, why on earth should we all interpret something as complex as a business in a unified and agreed way?