Groupsync is built on the idea that any organization has only a finite amount of energy available to it to generate its results in the marketplace. Most firms experience a loss from some to most of that available energy to internal friction and confusion. Groupsync is about the ability of the group to come into alignment with one another as a group and to direct the major portion of its available energy out into the marketplace.
Another cornerstone of this approach is that individual people need to come into alignment and balance in their personal energy and its use. Each individual human being is like an iceberg, about 15% rational and above the surface, subject to the winds of change. We talk to these people and their heads nod in agreement with the plausibility of our plan, we think they understand and will take action. But in fact, 85% of their being is made up of irrationality which is defined by their habits and patterns of belief and which will continue on in the direction of the deeper currents controlling their life changes.
It's easy to understand why the traditional model of organization and management doesn't work with the modern worker. The modern worker has an extensive education; they need to in order to handle whichever slice of specialty they are assigned within the organization. Groups come together as an economic entity, in order to accomplish anything of economic significance the group needs to blend specialists in fields as diverse as marketing, engineering, systems analysis, cost accounting, process design, quality, sales, management, financial analysis, manufacturing, customer service, programming, inventory control and often outside consultants. This group of highly talented specialists needs to come together as a team and work within a system that allows them all to synchronize their efforts.
The traditional organization model is a hierarchic structure where the power to control the energy of the group is concentrated in the hands of a few members of the organization who hold equity in the company or who have accumulated the most experience and "Paid their dues."
This is what I call a "Push" environment, where the holders of power attempt to get things to happen in the organization using a rational push of delegation and authority to get things done. Usually, the pushed work is assigned under an implied threat that if one worker won't do it, they can find another one who will. This attitude among business people is very prevalent and leads to an attitude that the purpose of business is to exploit workers and assets to turn a profit. They think the key to success in business is to hold equity and to push and exploit the workforce as just another commodity available for exploitation. This is the typical approach to capital and equipment use, if the percentage return on capital is higher than the percentage to borrow, then that's good and we call it leverage. If the process can be mechanized, then the result is predictable and controllable then that's good and we call it automation. In fact, both of these methods carry a downside risk due to the impact of changing conditions, which these strategies suffer under.
This is the key reason not to treat your people like a commodity for exploitation. In a push environment, adversarial relationships begin to develop and the available energy of the organization is used up in internal conflict and confusion. Some unidentified portion of your workforce has a rather magical ability to design ways that commodities within the business can yield higher returns. Some labor is a commodity, these are the people who would rather just be told what to do and how to do it and they will go home happy. Other workers have hidden management talent that no one would suspect. The only way we can discover who these workers are is to create an environment where we can objectively measure each workers return on management (ROM).
ROM means that a worker can design the use of labor, capital or equipment is such a way as to increase the resulting output of the business use of that commodity. All pressure for change on an organization comes from competitive issues. Which good heads within the organization can come up with fertile ideas for change can only be determined by actual experience and measurement. The baseline for strategy of creating this kind of organization is to take advantage of all the brainpower and intelligence available to the organization. The older model of a group of people being controlled by those with the experience or equity goes out the window with the realization that many of the designers in the business have superior ability to handle the challenges and changes that the business is facing. A traditional business owner might need a small team of specialists in the areas of marketing, selling and database design to work together to create an efficient customer interface for the business. These might all be areas where the owner couldn't even imagine, much less control the activities or changes that would be required for the business.