The sofa as the limit of the lazy employee's abilities in the turquoise paradigm

Here it is. Comfortable, soft (or hard - as you like), with armrests, pillows, which are more suitable just under the ear, and not under the elbow. Perfect sofa. And most importantly, is at your work.

He is completely free, there is never a queue for him, this is your sofa and nobody else's, but you work and do not notice him until exactly the moment you suddenly want to lie down.

And then a mental experiment arises: try to lie down on your sofa in your organization during business hours, of course.
')


Now we’ll go through paradigms with the sofa:

1. In the red-impulsive organization (prison, for example), in principle, there are notions of “working time” and “rest time” - when the elder wants, then you will rest (maybe, never, and most likely, the sofa is no longer yours). But when a senior does not see, you will definitely take a moment, because there is a hunt all the time.
2. In the amber-conformist (prosecutor's office, suppose) you lie down when the boss permits, but this will occur strictly in accordance with the prescribed rules, at the specific time allotted by the articles of association and in the position specified by the regulations. But secretly from the chef, you change your posture, and try to lie down a bit longer.
3. In the orange-competitive (Google Corporation), if you do the indicators, bring the company a fabulous profit, and a nice percentage of yourself - you can lie as you want. At the same time, indicators will surely want to be artificially inflated in order to lie down longer. But it is better to lie very quickly and secretly, imitating a violent activity. Because the minimum figures will increase in a month due to your relaxation, and your competitor in addition will add some intrigue and take your sofa.
4. In the green-pluralistic (in the family ice cream shop, which has grown into something global, but family values ​​have remained at the head) you can lie down as you wish, do it quite openly, but before that, you might offer your sofa to the founding father, and then all team members, so after a series of mutual concessions and counter-courtesies, the working day will end, but it will not work out.
5. And finally, in a turquoise- evolutionary organization (I’ll leave the example open, although there are plenty of them, and in principle, in addition to non-profit organizations, every IT company has a great potential to become synergetic) you decide when to go, no one will help you. it will not punish, therefore, probably, you will lie down immediately or only after you shovel another pile of tasks, inspired by a common goal, mission and finding yourself as part of a larger one.

Source: mann-ivanov-ferber.ru

Of course, this is not about fatigue, but about return in the company. About the limit of possibilities. This, of course, the ideal results of the experiment. And if in the red, amber and orange paradigm, most likely, it will be so, then with green and turquoise questions arise. What if you are a lazy employee and lie on the couch a little (or even not a bit) longer than your surrounding colleagues would like? Well - not you, it's hard to admit it at all (to me - no - I'm lazy, although it is two in the morning, the tracker timer is ticking, I'm not losing my pleasure over this article, but I would prefer to sleep - well, you understand - excuses started - this is really difficult to admit). And even if it is easy - you will have to talk about yourself ... let's show it to him better. Your colleague is lazy. Previously, he flew, tore and threw, and now he is extinguished and lazy. And you work with him in a turquoise organization. Do not even work - live. Common goal, autonomy in decision making, integrity and all that.

What to do with a lazy employee in a turquoise organization?

"Charter" of turquoise organizations - the book of F.Lalu - tells:

1. Find out why? After all, there are no lazy people, there are those who are not purposeful (precisely for this purpose) and unmotivated. Maybe a colleague has outgrown his role, maybe he has found another way to be realized for the benefit of the company, maybe the value system has changed, maybe something in his personal life - thousands of reasons, in fact.
2. If he no longer shares the collective goal, is not able to give something to his company, dim everyone with imitations of work, the team gets together and discusses whether or not he wants to serve the “fatherland” or “the carriage for him!”

It sounds simple, but in fact nuances.

In general, objectively - turquoise organizations - the concept is simple and quite definite. But the problem is that objectivity is always “dead” (after giving it objectivity, of course). Well, that is, immovable, non-interacting, "it seems to be there, and it would not exist as if." And it comes to life only when a certain regular subject puts meaning into the concept or starts interacting with it, putting it into practice. And at this moment turquoise organizations, as the highest stage of development at the moment, become incomprehensible or inaccessible. Like an ideal program code, like an ideal society, like God for someone.

Because representatives of the orange worldview are putting “in” and pulling one out of “out”, green - another, even amber and red probably see theirs or see nothing (that is, deny).

I work in a company that provides a service for creating an online store. We also decided to become a turquoise organization. More precisely, an understanding gradually came to the chef: what he is trying to make of the team is now called the buzzword “turquoise” or “synergy”. But they decided to solve it, understanding came, this understanding was supported in principle - and it is not yet fully realized. There are several reasons for this from my short bell tower: the skepticism of some colleagues, - as a result - a reluctance or partial desire to work “in a turquoise manner” and with it a tremendous desire to work in this company in general and to bring benefit to it; inability to work independently and take responsibility; perhaps, unwillingness or fear to give this responsibility in some situations; simple - the beginning of the journey, that is, too little time has passed; there are certainly other reasons.

Actually, to the arguments on the topic of the limit of possibilities, I was prompted by an interesting dispute two years ago. Two of our team leaders argued (one of whom left the company, unfortunately or fortunately - a definite answer, even after almost a year, I cannot give - and he left, first of all, because of the difference in views on the team’s work and on turquoise).

Odin (Vladimir) made a video about the history of turquoise organizations . A dispute with another (Alexander) arose because of the wording.

Alexander:

I am sure that the concept of turquoise organizations is the basis for future relations in joint activities, but I cannot agree with the wording of the authors:

1. “People want to be effective and stop being afraid of mistakes” - This expression corresponds more to the competitive orange paradigm than to the turquoise level of consciousness, it’s better to say “people want to develop and realize their potential, overcoming the fears of their Ego”. Being effective and being a holistic and happy person is a very different state, I don’t think that a person’s goal is to strive for efficiency, yes, it is needed, but the integrity and happiness of a person is paramount, and this does not take into account the competitive approach, turning them upside down .

2. “The main thing is to do the maximum at the limit of the possibilities for the sake of the common goal of the company” - in my opinion, the misinterpretation, again due to the highly ingrained competitive worldview, in turquoise organizations it is important to work in full force, realizing the personal and collective potential for the organization’s evolutionary goal while preserving the integrity of the individual and relying on the self-organization of the collective. Constantly working at the limit of possibilities is impossible, it ultimately leads to exhaustion and destruction, if we compare it with a living organism (this metaphor reflects the essence of a turquoise organization), then we can take the example of a horse that can overcome the distance at its limits, but then will die, or will not be able to fulfill the role of high-speed transport, and the period of its life will be reduced. And it is unlikely that a horse without a rider (read the boss) will drive itself to such a final, so this is exactly the disease of the orange companies, but not the goal of turquoise.

3. They took the best, from the orange “desire to compete”, I think that this is also an erroneous interpretation, since even the names “competitive-orange” and “evolutionary-turquoise” indicate a fundamental difference in this aspect, the desire to rely on orange on logic and analytics of the left hemisphere, and in greens the creativity and intuition of the right hemisphere, which ensures the holistic realization of a person. At the turquoise level of consciousness, the concept of competition is replaced by the concept of cooperation and development, and the fact that the surrounding orange is not ready for such an approach only confirms their simplified outlook.

In general, all this needs to be discussed and find a common vision of this new and very interesting phenomenon.

Vladimir:

Alexander, there is a vicious circle, as is customary to say in formal logic: you initially give concepts a negative content, and then say that this is not true. Of course, not true. But to add what is not said and not to take into account what is said is fundamentally wrong.

1. The effectiveness of a person in a turquoise organization lies precisely in the fact that he, as an integral and proactive person, does everything to achieve the set goal. People work in orange organizations only from the side of effective: those who are forced, those who work according to the instructions, etc. work is just not efficient. Effective management, owners. And the attitude of a person to work as his own is just as effective. Here is the simplest definition of efficiency: Efficiency (lat. Efficientia) - the efficiency of resource use in achieving any goal. Here you have the balance of funds and resources. The fact that efficiency is now sometimes understood is not true - does not mean. that this concept should not be used, especially since it does not contradict integrity and other basic principles of human activity in the framework of the synergetic paradigm.

2. Again about the limit of possibilities, Alexander, you give a concept that is just imposed on you by the orange paradigm and you try to interpret it in the framework of turquoise. It is impossible to do this, otherwise we risk changing the entire language in order to create some categories that already exist. Namely: predol - an object that represents an imaginary or real boundary for another object. Opportunity is the direction of development present in every phenomenon of life; acts as the upcoming, and as an explanatory, that is, as a category. Accordingly, the limit of possibilities is the direction of development in which the subject acts as the boundary for the change of objective reality. And the horse has nothing to do with it: it is just NOT effective and it is NOT at the limit of opportunities to make 1 spurt to kill 10 years. Effectively and at the limit of opportunities means that a person a) allocates temporary resources, b) knows how to make good use of opportunities, c) expands his own capabilities. You see in the phrase “at the limit of possibilities” only that which is the limit of physical abilities. The concepts intersect: the latter enters the first as a particular. But only. Yes, if a person is so stupid that he uses only the physical component, without appreciating the effectiveness of others - he, of course, will simply be exhausted. And this, yes, the orange approach. But, if a person owns himself and understands that the limit is an opportunity - a set of spiritual, intellectual, emotional, physical qualities and that efficiency in their ratio, a cat. different will be different, then there are no problems. Just the approach that a person should not be effective is dangerous because it is a direct path to what has already happened in history and more than once: even in ancient Greece and Rome, even in the USSR during the period of stagnation.

3. Again, there is an important clarification in the text: we are talking about competition when a person chooses a product, service, or job. Is there competition between organizations for him? Yes, and it is obvious. The fact that turquoise organizations do not participate in it, replacing cooperation, is another aspect, it is said about it both in this and in the 1st issue, as I see it.

General note: analysis as the basis of knowledge is a purely method for orange organizations that requires division, separation, separation, as well as competing aspects. It is of little use to the evolutionary paradigm. Here, in my opinion, synthesis is much closer: you need to understand the vector you are talking about, since any category can be challenged. For example, if a person is whole but not effective, then does he need a turquoise organization? Most likely nett, because it is not integrity, but eclectic, that is, an artificial connection of 4 components. And if a person is a homeless person and he is happy, but extremely ineffective? All this will lead to a long discussion, which differs from the dispute just by the fact that truth is not born in it, but is replaced by a compromise. Compromise and synergy, about which so much is said, the concept is not just different, but completely different. In a word - any categories pulled out from the context of the narration can be challenged. In any video. In any book. And so on.

Alexander:

Vladimir, I try to give concepts the content that they can cause to an outside listener, maybe I’m wrong, they need feedback, but still.

1. For me personally, a holistic person is effective as a result, if we are talking about integrity, therefore, she stands above efficiency and does not contradict efficiency, but includes it. Man strives not for efficiency, but for happiness and integrity, efficiency here acts as a way, not a goal.

2. I interpret the concepts used to describe the turquoise paradigm from the listener's point of view, and I think that the expression “The main thing is to do maximum at the limit of possibilities for the common goal of the company” causes a very specific negative association in a person who first encounters this an idea.

I think the purpose of the video is to truly convey the idea of ​​turquoise relationships to most people, and here it is very important to use precise definitions and terms that are free from the associative background of the listener. My definition is: “it is important to work in full force, realizing personal and collective potential for the sake of the organization’s evolutionary goal, preserving the integrity of the individual and relying on the team’s self-organization” is longer, but more accurately describes the essence of turquoise relations.

3. About the competition in the video clearly states that they took from the orange desire to compete, which, in my opinion, is wrong. 3:20 - 3:28

In general, I am in favor of us speaking with the audience in a language understandable to them. If readers misunderstand the work of the author, then this is more the problem of the author, and not the reader. IMHO

I'm not sure if it turned out ideally to clearly define the limit of opportunities for someone in this dispute. For myself, made the following:
1. The holistic person himself correctly defines the limit. It’s worthless to point out to the non-integral.

2. Holistic person - the basis of turquoise organizations. Inferior - the basis and ideal material for organizations of two or three lower stages.

A reasonable question: how to be a non-holistic (fragmentary) personality, that is, one that is external to its actions contrary to its internal content, or is in the process of becoming? Does she have a right to exist in a turquoise organization? It seems to have, if it seeks to develop, and not only in their own interests, but also in the interests of the company. Does the organization need it in this case? It seems to be needed, because “turquoise” is evolution, evolution is development. Then the whole question rests on the specific roles that the employee can perform, and which the organization needs to fill out. That is, not only holistic, but fragmented individuals deserve to evolve with the organization. But you need to work with them. Pull, if not stretch, direct, if lost. And as long as a person has an incentive to reach out and go, it makes sense to work with him. And even after - if he performs some roles well and does not pull the team behind him to some of his vector or simply - down.

In this regard, the following quote looks contradictory:

Turquoise organizations are aimed at ensuring that everyone involved in the decision making phase feels like an entrepreneur.

If we find fault with the word “entrepreneur” from the point of view that its activity is always aimed at making profit (for an amber state, only this quality is the main one), then everything looks like something “orange”. That is, every employee should always think how to increase profits? But, of course, that is not the point.

And the fact that each employee must, according to his abilities, create something new in the company's product, contribute his own to it, undertake it. How then to be with pure performers? High-class, getting a buzz from a simple and high-quality execution of tasks set by the "creative". They love this job and love to get paid for it. Is it worth it to pull such employees and make them constantly feel like entrepreneurs? Or such does not exist?

I think that in an ideal turquoise organization one should not forget about the division of people into leaders and followers, into people of convictions and people of internal harmony ( https://www.psychologos.ru/articles/view/celostnost-lichnosti ). But it is certainly not worthwhile to completely deviate from attempts to cultivate an entrepreneur in every person.
Otherwise it will turn out that either under constant pressure, or without it at all, the employee from the dissonance he experiences will start thinking about the sofa a little earlier than he can.

And at the end, briefly about the main thing, so as not to forget what it was all about:

1. There are no lazy employees.
2. The sofa in the article is an indicator of employee return.
3. The limit of opportunities in turquoise organizations is not a constant maximum effort, but action in harmony with oneself and with the interests of the company.
4. It is necessary to distinguish between entrepreneurs and performers.
5. In an employee, not integrity, but integrity is important.
6. Between organizations is not competition, but cooperation.
7. "Every person can become a sofa, but not every sofa can become a man."