The following are approximately the first 1000 words from Chapter 15 of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

Fluid shares:

How to cause a chain reaction

If you have ever fired a double-barrelled shotgun, you will have felt the kick-back that could have easily dislocated your shoulder if you were either not ready, or not strong enough to handle the impact. This analogy serves to highlight how the ideas in this chapter, if implemented, could impact on the executive who decides to cause a chain reaction through fluid shares. As with the gun, the power not only jolts the executive but also shocks the organisation in a most powerful and definite way. And as with any weapon, fluid shares can be used to hit a target, or can cause all sorts of unfortunate destruction. However, no earnest implementation of a business solution can take place without casualties; and as with all serious solutions, the results can be exceptionally powerful.

Of all the controversial chapters in this book, this one could be the most infuriating to employers and unions. It could also prove to be invaluable for them if only they would take a moment to understand its essence, and why fluid shares is different from traditional profit-sharing schemes. This chapter must not be judged hastily. It is powerful because it examines an age-old problem — the destructive notion of management versus unions, and workers versus management. The ‘them-and-us’ attitude has destroyed corporations and industries.

This chapter offers solutions based on the creation of magical chain reactions through powerful fluid shares. Anyone who does not grasp the importance of these concepts will not understand how this chapter can crack a problem that has stifled organisations for decades. In fact, those who do not appreciate the significance of these concepts might conclude that this chapter expresses naïve recommendations.

The ideas contained in this chapter could not work in all organisations. In some industries, acts of parliament might be required if current industrial awards were to be modified. If such major reforms are required, so be it.

As for unionists, this chapter might make them furious. However, this would be a curious outcome because the ideas espoused here are beneficial to their members. Sadly, some unions have forgotten their charter.

To be or not to be

There are people who amuse themselves by latching on to new concepts that spring to mind as a result of a recently expanded vocabulary. They learn a new word and are impressed by what that new word can do to their understanding of a particular concept. For example, there are managers who learn that there are differences between being ‘effective’ and ‘efficient’. As a result, they take it upon themselves to tell their employees that one word is more important than the other. Thereafter, they will speak about these differences at staff meetings, and if overly enthusiastic, they begin to use them in memoranda and reports. On occasion, the words will find their way into the mission statement of the month.

This chapter deals with two words that have confused employees and managers alike for a long time — ‘proactive’ and ‘reactive’.

These two words should not exist. What does it mean when a corporate directive requests employees to be either ‘proactive’ or ‘reactive’? It would be like suggesting that people ought to either ‘speak’ or ‘listen’. Surely the combination of both would be ideal, and undertaking one and not the other would be as erroneous as suggesting that the flavour of the month is to breathe in, and not out.

What is proactivity?

Those who promote the concept of proactivity suggest that it is better to engage in tasks that have been decided upon as a result of taking initiative, and not as a result of a crisis. It is more akin to being on the offensive, rather than being on the defensive. Clearly, it is better to attack and keep the enemy at bay, than to be attacked — where the latter consumes more time, energy, and resources. When proactivity refers to customer service, it involves a level of educated guesswork that can keep the organisation one step ahead of the customer, saving time and money, and creating a perception that the company cares about its customers so much that it is thinking about their needs and taking action without being prompted, or before it is too late. (For more on customer service, see Chapter 19, ‘Customer service — my foot!’)

What is reactivity?

In the 1980s and 1990s, it was most unfashionable, and definitely unpopular, to endorse reactive behaviour. To be reactive was associated with images of people not having a plan of action, and moving from one crisis to the next. When this school of thought clashed with the newfound wisdom that customer service relies heavily upon the need to react to customers’ demands, a new word was substituted, ‘responsiveness’. This meant that organisations were allowed to be responsive, but not reactive. Being reactive is a vital part of any business. Being reactive not only encompasses responsiveness but also demands that people be alert, amiable, and aware of the customers’ and the environment’s changing needs.

What is the root cause?

What was it that started managers talking about proactivity and reactivity? Why was there a need to articulate behaviour? The root cause was the realisation that employees were confused. They had been brainwashed into providing excellent customer service to external and internal customers, thereby creating a burden within the organisation. Priorities were convoluted even further when the mission statement espoused ‘making the customer happy’ while internal measurement systems focused on the ‘bottom line’. This over-eagerness by staff members to be ‘reactive’ led managers to insist that ‘proactivity’ ought to be just as effective, and much more efficient. At this point, people became utterly dumbfounded, to the point of inactivity.

The root need is to ensure that every board member and every staff member operates at the same level of urgency and diligence. With this realisation managers are better served to implement a system that utilises a chain reaction.