|
|
 |
 Tucson Needs Some Fresh Approaches To Reducing Local Poverty. By Alice H. Mack THE TUCSON CITY Council should begin its upcoming study session about the alarming increase in local poverty by collectively reading a popular management book of recent years, The Flight of the Buffalo, by James Belasco and Ralph Stayer. Why? This smallish paperback is a readable, common-sense description of how two men changed their minds, and thus their approaches, to managing an organization: They transformed Johnsonville Foods from mediocre and troubled to superior and hugely successful. There are interesting parallels to reducing poverty.
Only when Belasco and Stayer discovered that they themselves were the problem did things begin to change. They transformed their "take-charge" behaviors. That does not mean they took a hands-off position. Quite the contrary--it was hard work to change ingrained habits. One of the examples in the book that illustrates this shift concerns a groundskeeper who was raking the company grounds; she was using a rake with only five teeth, one-sixth of its capacity. You can imagine the result, and how much longer the task took with this disabled tool. When asked why she was using this rake she responded that that's what they had given her to use. When asked why she didn't get a better rake, she responded, "That's not my job." The CEO of the $6 billion dollar company who employed the woman had witnessed the scene; he was visibly angry and immediately sought to solve the problem. His first response was to want to dress down the supervisor for not providing the proper tools; when asked if that would really solve the problem, he then considered that maybe as a "hands-on" leader that he should go get the rake himself. Ridiculous, right? Yes, the proper stance was neither. Instead, the leader needed to initiate the wider changes, starting with his own attitude, so that the woman had the authority to obtain a new rake (to become a problem-solver) at the same time that she was held responsible for the speed and quality of the raking. (It can be assumed that someone so treated would also feel good about herself and her contribution and take good care of her tools.) Furthermore, the leader needed to create a company where everyone felt responsible for a poor raking job when it was evident. The analogy to poverty is obvious: For decades we've maintained a welfare state that encouraged dependence and lack of responsibility; now we've cut it off without providing either the resources for people to become active problem-solvers nor hope that they might become responsible for their own destiny. Furthermore, we've created a materialistic, consumer-based society that tells people constantly that things and products constitute the good life, rather than emphasizing quality of life and the growth and learning of all its members. In addition, we've done all this in large cities full of urban sprawl and lack of community; this means that all of us must solve problems individually without either emotional support or resources that might be better employed through cooperative approaches. Take, for example, the issue of childcare. If you have money, you can solve this. Without it you cannot unless: 1) The state pays for it; 2) The extended family provides for it, or; 3) A childcare cooperative is established in your business. Obviously, we need more solutions like childcare cooperatives. But we'll never get to more community-based and self-empowering solutions like this if we continue our market-dominated thinking that says that only more and better jobs and training are the solution. Yes, undoubtedly jobs and training are a vital part of reducing poverty. In fact, they're critical, but my point is that fresh approaches must begin with the "click" in the heads of many of us like Belasco and Stayer experienced. Any approach to tackling the entrenched and complicated issue of poverty must begin with the attitude that "helping people regain their own authority and power to respond appropriately in work and life is a leadership skill of the highest order," to use the authors' words. We need to emblazon this motto in every public and private building all over town. Once that change of attitude is made in our present leadership, including politicians, social service agencies, and especially the business community, then we might have a chance at initiating some fresh approaches. These include: 1. EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP: There's a fatal flaw in our present system of capitalism--labor is left out of the equation when capitalism dispenses its rewards. A new, more mature form of capitalism would give low- and middle-income workers a piece of the action. This is the concept of employee ownership, which includes both profit-sharing and stock ownership based upon an informed workforce that has been allowed and encouraged to make sound decisions in the best interests of both company and employees. Making the decision to buy a new piece of equipment to keep the company competitive, for example, might be tough when it comes at the expense of quarterly profit-sharing. But a workforce with a vested interest in their long-term job security will undoubtedly make it with ease when they know they're responsible and have both the facts and the big picture. Establishing employee ownership in a company isn't easy; it takes a legal structure and a process of education that can take years to mature. Yet statistics indicate that employee-owned companies are both more productive and more satisfying places to work. We need a revolution about this issue. Where is the Chamber of Commerce on this idea, or the Greater Tucson Economic Development Council? Why aren't we promoting employee-ownership, including education and resources, so that it becomes the norm rather than the exception? Imagine the hope and responsibility that could be unleashed if "ordinary people" had the opportunity to become owners of capital. Part of the problem in the information age is that so many jobs require education that once did not, and many others are service jobs that are often termed "menial." Yet high-tech, high-paying jobs are neither available nor suitable for everyone. Employee-ownership could change the nature of many so-called menial jobs. It could also change productivity and grow businesses. For example, the employees in Starbucks coffeehouses don't feel their jobs are menial; they place a high priority on customer service. They're also rewarded with stock. 2. NEIGHBORHOOD/ COMMUNITY/COOPERATIVE APPROACHES: The City of Tucson has just been through an exercise of obtaining input about what it might mean to live in a "sustainable" community. Stronger neighborhoods were among the emerging themes identified by citizens. The question remains: How do we create them and how can we do so while also reducing poverty? I think it means putting real teeth, meaning both commitment and money, into a community development approach that would begin with a substantive leadership training program for people from various sectors, including neighborhoods, business, education and community service agencies. This does not mean some small effort to train neighborhood leaders, nor doing that in isolation. It means a first-class program, which doesn't necessarily mean expensive or inordinately long, but perhaps with several levels of achievement that would involve all sectors. Most of all it means leaders who understand what Belasco and Stayer suggest, that real leadership means 1) determining focus and direction, 2) removing the obstacles, 3) developing ownership, and 4) stimulating self-directed action. This means leaders become coaches, facilitators and resource providers. This means they're excellent listeners who know how to employ the participative skills that develop a group from its initial stage of high dependence to maturity, where leadership changes hands easily among the members. This means they know how to inspire and develop people, and it means leaders who know how to get their egos out of the way so others can bloom. We need lots of leaders in Tucson thinking and acting this way if we're going to successfully reduce poverty. With a leadership training program based on these kinds of attitudes and skills, there would be fertile ground for many cooperative approaches in neighborhoods or communities. What, for example, about baby-sitting co-ops? Why not co-op housing? Why not community gardens? Why not more Habitat-for-Humanity type programs that involve sweat equity and low- or no-interest loans? Why not neighborhood businesses? Why not car or transportation co-ops? European countries have led the way with the latter, perhaps because their town and village density and high-priced gas encourages car-sharing; we have equally good reasons for doing so, however. Cars are expensive, public transportation is limited, and it's difficult to solve poverty without at least some mobility. Another cooperative venture that should be encouraged is a concept called "Local Employment Trading System" (L.E.T.S.). This is a trade and barter system that allows people to exchange services and products through a central clearinghouse. For example, if I bake bread and need a car tune-up, conceivably I could pay for the labor on the car job by providing baked goods to the system while the other person provides the car service and gets cash only for the parts. The person who does the tune-up need not be the buyer of bread because the system works on overall credits and debits. The system is supplemental to the cash economy, not a substitute; it can strengthen the local economy, and in some systems merchants participate as well as individuals. It helps everyone stretch real dollars while they obtain things that may seem beyond them--a massage, for example--or to provide services that may not be rewarded by the cash economy. There are many trade and barter systems in Europe and a few in the U.S. Just such a system existed previously in Tucson, and a new one is just getting started. Some well-placed seed money to that non-profit would help make this idea a viable "business" concept, nourishing its growth. Implementing community-based, cooperative solutions that genuinely impact poverty will not happen overnight. But the rate could be accelerated with some simple policy guidelines, some substantial funds to seed things and the "right" leadership skills shared by a critical mass, all bent on involving the poor in their own problem-solving and assumption of responsibility. Tax incentives wouldn't hurt, either. With such basics in place, we might witness a flowering of new enterprise and cooperative mechanisms that rekindle hope and pride in people. We might give birth to safe, economically viable neighborhoods. 3. APPOINT AN INTER-DISCIPLINARY TASK FORCE of local mavericks, including spokespersons for the poor, and other experts to consider both root causes and further fresh approaches. No, we don't need one more study per se, and we don't need any more citizen-action groups recommending changes that are never implemented. Yet there are people in this community who might shed genuine light on poverty if they could be brought together for a short time. Such a group should especially be charged with developing a comprehensive picture of the causes of poverty that would be used in the leadership training program. We have in this community, for example, an expert on the deeper issues underlying the monetary system in general and trade and barter systems in particular (Tom Greco), and a political science professor who is an expert on the plight of the unemployed (John Schwarz). We also have someone here who is an expert on community transformation, and another who is an expert on family business. The idea behind an inter-disciplinary task force is to quickly yet comprehensively get a handle on root causes rather than the usual symptoms. The idea is also to open our eyes in new ways. The leadership status quo in Tucson is blind to the root causes of poverty, but some advocates of the poor wear their own set of blinders. When diverse disciplines and creative thinkers are brought together, however, the cross-fertilization and the struggle to understand another's viewpoint can produce breakthroughs, if not quantum leaps. It's time for such struggle to characterize our thinking about this all-important issue, for the poor and rich and the in-between are all in the dark. We all suffer from our ignorance, whether directly or indirectly. Someone once said, "Poverty is violence." It robs the human spirit of dignity and hope; it produces crime, abuse and addictions. People go hungry; they may use resources poorly; the community as a whole is weakened. For all of our sakes we need to dig deeper; we need to learn from each other; we need to stretch both our thinking and our hearts. But we need facilitated, skilled and effective attention to such a task force, not mere study sessions by City Council.
The alarming and growing gap between the "haves and have
nots" is something that wasn't supposed to happen in America.
Its causes are complex and deep-seated. Reversing this trend will
take years of dedicated commitment and united action. I submit
that the solutions, however, must begin with the decision to unearth
that complexity along with some genuine humility. We must begin
with the admission that old ways and answers no longer work. We
must admit, as Belasco and Stayer did, that we are the problem.
Alice H. Mack is a Tucson-based organization consultant, trainer and author with special expertise in the area of fundamental institutional change. Her website is http://www.connexionsunltd.com. |
 |
Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Books | Cinema | Back Page | Archives
|
 |
© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth |
|
The authors describe how they operated for years in the old "command
and control" framework. This is the idea that "leaders"
have all (or most) of the answers and that it's their responsibility
to solve and "fix" problems, including people. The result
is dependent employees who don't care about doing a superior job;
nor do they take personal responsibility. They're robbed of that
opportunity by leaders who seem to have all the answers, who rush
in to speak, act or do, so that people are denied the chance to
become more mature. Along the way, such employees get blamed for
"not caring" or for not performing, which is perfectly
true. Why should they when they're treated like children?
