In the future, the transformation of employment must take place at eye level.
This can be facilitated by flexible work design on the one hand, and variable working hours on the other hand. Both points are regulated by state regulations and employment agreements, today, and they are designed in the spirit of Taylor.
Separation of doers and executives in the production process can be compared to the bargaining parties in the area of employment, who are trying to regulate the respective shares in the workforce by means of institutionalized negotiation rituals. In this case, collective action is understood to be a mandate for the representation of interests. Collective awareness of a seemingly new generation of employees is oriented towards a common feel-good atmosphere resembling the Communards—however, without of the commitment to change existing systems fundamentally. Collective behavior seems to aim at establishing a micro system within the system, rather than trying to change the system itself.[82]So called “New Work” organizations prioritize teamwork, implementing the 4 ‘Cs[83]—critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity. The question of participation will certainly play a major role in the development of companies. The significance of existing mechanisms representing work-related macroeconomic issues will remain uncertain for the future. The individual employees want to determine their employment quality in discourse with others, rather than being represented by the solidarity idea of trade unions. In this case, autonomous work doesn't seem to have anything in common with classic neoliberal thinking, while both might look the same from the outside.[84]
This transformation can be explained by pluralization and individualization of structures in household and family. When it comes to the development of the ego, mankind has just started to emancipate him or herself during the last centuries, starting with renaissance and enlightenment.
Additional factors are the decline of Ford's social model and the rapidly progressing digitization of our environment. The latter has led to the (practically unnoticed) removal of boundaries between private life and work. The tendency towards more flexible work environments and the variable usage of time relating to work performance lead to subjectification of employment.Looking at “crowd-intelligence” as a product designer, we realize that crowd intelligence intuitively performs this role in relation to employment, too. Consumers naturally exercise their rights to participate in product design; equally, employees want to participate in the world of employment personally and creatively, rather than being represented by unions. The catchword “democratic enterprise” haunts the workforce of today's organizations that are deemed to be particularly innovative. It is often overlooked that in those innovative organizations the traditional formalized functions of regulated participation which are part of our democratic system are non-existent. Andrea Nahles, German Minister for Employment, once cuttingly commented: “works council over table tennis”; but the need for table tennis seems to win. The possibility of satisfying personal needs through employment increases expectations in personified employment offers. The 180-degree-turn of the labor market, induced by demographics and prosperity of the economy (e.g. Germany), fueled to raise expectations. This unveils a paradox. The wealth of offers increases the employee's worry of making the wrong career choice. Neuroscience explains this by means of evolution. Ancestors who ran away when they heard rustling in the bush survived—and thus passed on their genes—, not those whose curiosity made them run into the bush.[85]
Simultaneously, there is a desire for individuality and the need to have one's decision made by someone else. There is also a desire for stability for the own life
i. e. salary on the one hand and a maximum of self-development on the other hand.
The first criterion, applicants look at in organizations, is their robustness, rather than their innovative capability in global economy. This behavior of employees possibly determines the strength of the innovation overall. It also means that the risk of innovation does not lie in the perceived risk from the functional environment, but in the consequences from social acts, as defined above. In the future, legal needs to focus on aligning to the considerations of social interaction and less on the formal processes that describe this interaction.Matthias Horx has created the term “flexurity”,[86] explaining the alternation between stability and flexibility. Mastering both elements is a challenge for modern HR departments. Balancing subjectification and individualization of personnel management with securing collective accomplishments for the entire staff. At this point there is a need for a “creator” who understands that the element of security can only form basic conditions. Only the power of an institutional function can enable such a transformation process in organizations. Future oriented organizations need a switchboard that understands the different needs of people and can couple them with the specific necessities of one's own enterprise to design the labor framework required.
It can be compared to the cultivating influence of the forest farmer, who generates income from a plot of mountain forest. If cultivation did not take place, we would face a jungle which is insignificant for the economy. Nowadays, top management is in the role of the forest farmer. Employment lawyers are in higher demand than ever to trigger these processes and guide the whole management team. Though, seemingly paradox, outsiders frequently experience legislation as a jungle with pitfalls, or they have the impression that lawyers prefer sitting between two chairs, or brooding over legislative texts. However, as soon as the fog of blurred perception has lifted, the potential of creative power of labor and social legislation for the organization become apparent, and thus the potential creative power of the designing lawyer.
Let us use the picture of a tetris-game to explain the challenge for a designing function. At the current level, falling shapes had to be fitted into a particular pattern. Successful execution means good result. Success depends on speedy recognition of individual patterns and of matching the parts with the correct positions. Translated into our process thinking this means that on one level the same pieces are recurring and we optimize the time to move these. Yet, our reality is changing, we seem to have mastered a new level. Now, pieces which are unknown to us, are descending more dynamically. Just as the tetris player trains his spacial thinking and improves his handling in order to master the next levels, Legal will have to understand rules, norms and principles as stable social interactions, rather than corporate risk minimization.
The player must place seven different blocks in a rectangle, so Legal can use seven principles for change. The possibility to rotate the blocks leads to an almost infinite range of alternative solutions. Therefore Legal can use this concept of seven principles for change. The leeway predetermined by Legal reflects the possible twists in the game. So Legal must have an idea for the recombination of norms and principles into new rules. The Seven Principles for providing innovations driven structures (in support of Hanjo Gergs[87] [88]) are: 1. Know thyself—willingness for self-reflection of management 2. Communication and networking—dialogue leads to change 3. Allow diversity and paradoxes—learn to love contradictions 4. Doubts and forget—get rid of old ideas, to separate the known and proven 5. Explore and experiment—develop awareness and curiosity 6. Establish error and feedback culture—learn from mistakes and successes 7. Perseverance and thinking in systems—thinking in social action 18We distinguish the application of the seven principles on (i) the role and (ii) the task of labor law. Transformation of organizations will need to happen by means of adopting new teaching and learning methods, which should follow Maria Montessori’s principles of self-empowerment: “Help me to do it by myself.” Therefore, time and result must be separated in the learning process; for the teaching process it means, asking questions rather than teaching solutions. This also entails dissolving the surreptitious tunnel vision towards the younger generations. The German comedy “we are the new generation”[89] is about a commune of a group of elderly people that deal with the generation conflict, an issue which also professional organizations will have to face in the future. It is equally important to consider how the majority of staff can work towards a retirement age of 70 years whilst maintaining the company’s performance. We must distinguish between the brand product of a company and the product job of an organization which has to be sold in a jobseeker’s market. This approach is more radical than depictions of current employer branding strategies. The final transformation task concerns the continuing development of corporate culture; since the latter can only be considered retrospectively, leadership models and management development according to Taleb have to be understood as an evolution and thus must be constantly re-developed. Today, we can only speculate about the changed expectations of future employment, since there is no linear development of employment that can be encountered. Feeling involved in tasks and responsibilities is the first indicator for staff identification with their organizations and their willingness to tackle change. The peer-to-peer interaction is crucial for leaders who at most had to deal with management cybernetics. The community votes and negotiates the role and task, just the way old-school unions were dreaming about once—but it is an entirely different method. The acquisition of role and task presumably stems from an immense self-confidence, a kind of technical superiority of ensuing generations. Revolt of the cobblestones, the sharp distinction between capital and drudgery, the idea of dialogue creeps into our nation’s organizations in its new disguise, the web. This kind of exchange still lacks many attributes of a reflexive discourse, but it shows effect. Corporate management needs to be convinced not to use legislation or contracts to shift risks onto someone else, but to understand legislation and contracts as the tools for stability, thus allowing for growth. Nowadays, standardized work specifications and availability of workforce, restrictions in decision making and a lack of room to maneuver don’t seem to promote innovation any more. The work requirements are leaning towards indirect control and self-organization. This has massive feedback effects on corporate culture. Organizations opting for more community have to be willing to learn. New forms of collaboration require new openness and transparency, the functional structure is replaced by “We”. Company internal silos don’t seem to be necessary anymore. The systemic approach of observing, understanding and changing has been developed into deciding, development of ideas and trying out. This approach has ceased to be in the hands of a privileged person; now is the time to claim for the dialogue of a “We-collective”.[91] 1.3.1