One thought follows another

I was thinking today about the difficult business situation of letting someone go. It sparked off a few thoughts that I distractingly tried to pursue all at once, and then I thought, here is a good place to straighten them out.
I forget how it originated, I think it was me wondering how to approach explaining the power versus relationship matrix which hinges a lot on having an understanding of the abstract concept called power.
Power is something I've thought about long and hard because I think it is something important to understand, and once understood it becomes empowerment, because power as far as I have experienced is given usually and not taken, albeit it can be given under strong persuasion it is usually vested by someone to someone else because they believe it to be their best option.
But I don't want to go too deep. Recently Rod showed me in one of his training courses a simple 2x2x1 matrix of power versus relationships, to give one a little background. (the one refers to one dimension or namely one exchange, say an employment relationship, uncomplicated by other relationships such as personal ones) and really on the balance of things their will between two people be one relationship that defines the power structure between them all the time. One would be foolish to exploit there power in the context of their advantage, say being a rip off mechanic to a customer who is also the financial advisor at other times you are relying on to maximise your wealth. Although it does happen.
Anyway that sort of complication is what can cloud up the simple matrix whose outcomes follow:
1. Low Power-Low Relationship = Lose-Lose
2. Low Power-High Relationship = Lose-Win
3. High Power-Low Relationship = Win-Lose
4. High Power-High Relationship = Win-Win

I don't want to go into the detail here accept to say such a tool is useful for negotiation and such to access the value of a relationship and/or the headspace you are in. Although asking yourself the question: 'Is my power high?' could potentially be misleading.
In Intro to organisational behaviour, the last subject they taught was potentially one of the most interesting, infact the course material was itself really interesting but the course delivery at RMIT being student driven was usually ill-prepared, undisciplined and highly variable. But the subject matter touched briefly on some of the different forms of power to list a few:
Legitimate power, Expert power, Social power, Physical power etc.
Someone is always likely to be the sum of various components of these, I think legitimate power can sometimes be a bit of a trap, namely because it can lead to you using your authority that when derived from legitimate power (a position and title) is a limited resource, a bank account if you will with a certain amount of credit and if your subordinates don't percieve a return on the use of said authority the credit dries up. Yet most people aspire to such legitimate power, if anything from my observation its a handicap to developing Social (or informal) power. Usually legitimate power is attractive because the mechanism of giving power is more rigid, the givers of the power are inclined to do so freely in recognition of its contribution to running the organisational machine.
Anyway I was thinking about this because I was thinking of the matrix in the original context it was taught to me, a sales context (in the more broader negotiation sense not just cold transactions) and Rod pointed out (that my limited experience confirms) that most sales techniques and courses focus on the Win-Lose High Power-Low Relationship as being the ideal.
This is a great way though to churn customers and alienate your customer base, namely use up your resources the first time, then try and plunder more. A win-win mentality I was taught in Uni (and not subsequently in my sales jobs) under the moniker of "Consultative Selling" that is you determine a clients needs and then see if you can mutually benefit from the transaction. If not you would actually direct that person to a competitor, knowing that the precedent you have set with the customer will make you a preferred sales consultant in the future.
Anyway for some reason this got me thinking about the organisation I endeavor to build, I want it to be very much an intellectual commons, that is its practices and intelligences, operational procedures and so fourth are as open and accessible as wikipedia, and where do you draw the line.
I surveyed some friends of mine early on in the conceptualisation of my organisation and asked the question: 'in dealing with problem employees how would you go about it' or some such shit. Both responded it shouldn't come to that, but by and by being open and honest with them.
I do regard feedback, honest feedback as a gift, an dishonest feedback namely being encouraging when thinking otherwise as one of the worst traps an organisation can set for itself.
But I firmly believe there is also a too hard pile, of employees if you will, that simply don't have the growth potential to justify giving any more chances, getting the right poeple on the bus and the wrong people off.
It is a basic opportunity cost question, is there someone else I could sit in your seat, pay your wage and get more value out of? And in that situation I am a firm believer in laying someone off. That is taking into account the full picture (long term, short term, training costs, knowledge loss costs, payout costs etc.) and I also realise with that question the answer for anyone, always is probably yes, so some degree of realism is needed as well to keep that philosophy from becoming the misguided corporate chainsaw.
But to get to the point of the subject, I would like to be open and honest, and I think there is a lot to be said, and a lot of times I have dropped the ball on this front, of getting the stakeholders involved as soon as possible.
The destructive forms of communication are indirect and passive, because you aren't raising an issue with a person who may have the power to change it, and I think maybe too many employees get the chop or have their career growth impeded because of managers evaluating through an indirect channel (discussing employees amongst other managers/top upwards assesment) or passive (not sharing their opinion with anyone but acting on it in key decisions).
The other two are assertive and aggressive, both of these are sufficiently direct to do something with. Employees are usually more guilty of indirect or passive communication than their managers as legitimate power positions usually have some structured feedback method, and providing feedback top down is usually encouraged.
So in dealing with a troubled employee I gotta say I'd be inclined to bring them in as a stakeholder the moment I start having concerns, and then discussing the concerns with them, and asking the person for solutions. Then the onus is on them, I'd also be inclined to say opinions being facts in themselves, excuses are not necessarily as persuasive a form of communication to hear as behaviour is, the clearest and loudest form of communication there is.
And of course built around power sharing, if nothing else feedback is the most basic form of power sharing, it is saying: 'I want you to be involved in this decision'
And like that my approach changed, and it fits with my overall vision of a participative organisation without compromising my value of maintaining the best employee base as possible.
And axing an employee I guess is the logical output of someone making excuses, or more to the point communicating the wrong message in behaviour. Next I think I'll tackle recruitment.