How You Can Really Win With Your Small Or Home Based Business
Ok, you've thought it over, and you know you want a better life for yourself. You've decided to build a home based business or small company so you can live life the way you want. Maybe you even know what kind of business you want to build. So far, so good. What's next?The path to success isn't easy, but it is simple. It only gets confusing when we try to make it complicated. First, you need to understand that you're not running a sprint. You're doing a marathon so that your income will stay solid and support you over the rest of your life. With that said, here is how you win your marathon prize. Just remember to W I N!hen we hear ourselves and others say ‘My organisation won’t change’ or ‘In my organisation….’ It is a myth that we are ‘in’ an organisation – we ‘are’ the organisation. Every conversation, decision and joke shared by the water cooler contributes to our notion of the organisation. The organisation, and every belief and assumption about it, is co-created by every relationship people have with it. Think about this for a moment – this is not a play on words, intended merely to encourage people to think more about their role conduct in the organisation. The perspective that we ‘are’ the organisation extends well beyond this co-created relationship. IThe organisation’s or yours?

Modern organisations provide the context through which much of our work is conducted and structures and systems are established to achieve organisational objectives. From the moment the employee enters an organisation, his/her activities are defined and bounded by their job. The job, with all its expectations, limits and assumptions becomes the medium through which the employee experiences that organisation. Their behaviour and expectations are influenced by the explicit and implicit expectations of that role and act as a barometer of how they are doing, both inside and outside of the organisation. A whole structure of authority, reporting lines, sanctions and incentives exist to ensure the organisation collectively achieves its goals and individuals conform towards this collective pursuit. The individual’s relationship with all company stakeholders is bounded by the limits of their role in the organisation. This extends beyond the organisation as society evaluates our worth through ‘what we do’ in terms of economic or material exchange.

Whilst individual differences exist in interpreting an organisational role, the parameters of the role will be used as a yardstick whenever either party to the agreement violates the contract. Whatever our commitment to an organisation and our alignment with its values and direction, both parties to the contract know that the contract can be terminated. Thus, to a large extent, responsibility begins and ends with our role.

Despite some alignment between individual and organisational objectives, radically different perspectives exist from the outset. From the perspective of the employer, the individual is a human resource – to the individual, the organisation provides a context through which they realise their livelihood, career, income and identity. Negotiations – both contractually and psychologically – continue, to ensure both parties are reasonably happy with the exchange. When expectations are insufficiently aligned, the contract is usually terminated – in real terms or other forms of psychological withdrawal, indifference or sabotage.

More recently, a major aspect of the psychological contract includes the issue of work-life balance and the organisational response has been to introduce a number of work-life balance initiatives e.g. Flexible working, child-care options, job-sharing etc. Do these initiatives provide a means for individuals to create fulfilled lives or is the system itself fundamentally flawed? If the system of exchange is fundamentally flawed, why is this and what is the solution?

The whole system of social and economic exchange at the level of the individual is based on separation and fragmentation. This is apparent when we hear ourselves and others say ‘My organisation won’t change’ or ‘In my organisation….’ It is a myth that we are ‘in’ an organisation – we ‘are’ the organisation. Every conversation, decision and joke shared by the water cooler contributes to our notion of the organisation. The organisation, and every belief and assumption about it, is co-created by every relationship people have with it. Think about this for a moment – this is not a play on words, intended merely to encourage people to think more about their role conduct in the organisation. The perspective that we ‘are’ the organisation extends well beyond this co-created relationship. It

lines, sanctions and incentives exist to ensure the organisation collectively achieves its goals and individuals conform towards this collective pursuit. The individual’s relationship with all company stakeholders is bounded by the limits of their role in the organisation. This extends beyond the organisation as society evaluates our worth through ‘what we do’ in terms of economic or material exchange.

Whilst individual differences exist in interpreting an organisational role, the parameters of the role will be used as a yardstick whenever either party to the agreement violates the contract. Whatever our commitment to an organisation and our alignment with its values and direction, both parties to the contract know that the contract can be terminated. Thus, to a large extent, responsibility begins and ends with our role.

Despite some alignment between individual and organisational objectives, radically different perspectives exist from the outset. From the perspective of the employer, the individual is a human resource – to the individual, the organisation provides a context through which they realise their livelihood, career, income and identity. Negotiations – both contractually and psychologically – continue, to ensure both parties are reasonably happy with the exchange. When expectations are insufficiently aligned, the contract is usually terminated – in real terms or other forms of psychological withdrawal, indifference or sabotage.

More recently, a major aspect of the psychological contract includes the issue of work-life balance and the organisational response has been to introduce a number of work-life balance initiatives e.g. Flexible working, child-care options, job-sharing etc. Do these initiatives provide a means for individuals to create fulfilled lives or is the system itself fundamentally flawed? If the system of exchange is fundamentally flawed, why is this and what is the solution?

The whole system of social and economic exchange at the level of the individual is based on separation and fragmentation. This is apparent when we hear ourselves and others say ‘My organisation won’t change’ or ‘In my organisation….’ It is a myth that we are ‘in’ an organisation – we ‘are’ the organisation. Every conversation, decision and joke shared by the water cooler contributes to our notion of the organisation. The organisation, and every belief and assumption about it, is co-created by every relationship people have with it. Think about this for a moment – this is not a play on words, intended merely to encourage people to think more about their role conduct in the organisation. The perspective that we ‘are’ the organisation extends well beyond this co-created relationship. I

both parties to the contract know that the contract can be terminated. Thus, to a large extent, responsibility begins and ends with our role.

Despite some alignment between individual and organisational objectives, radically different perspectives exist from the outset. From the perspective of the employer, the individual is a human resource – to the individual, the organisation provides a context through which they realise their livelihood, career, income and identity. Negotiations – both contractually and psychologically – continue, to ensure both parties are reasonably happy with the exchange. When expectations are insufficiently aligned, the contract is usually terminated – in real terms or other forms of psychological withdrawal, indifference or sabotage.

More recently, a major aspect of the psychological contract includes the issue of work-life balance and the organisational response has been to introduce a number of work-life balance initiatives e.g. Flexible working, child-care options, job-sharing etc. Do these initiatives provide a means for individuals to create fulfilled lives or is the system itself fundamentally flawed? If the system of exchange is fundamentally flawed, why is this and what is the solution?

The whole system of social and economic exchange at the level of the individual is based on separation and fragmentation. This is apparent when we hear ourselves and others say ‘My organisation won’t change’ or ‘In my organisation….’ It is a myth that we are ‘in’ an organisation – we ‘are’ the organisation. Every conversation, decision and joke shared by the water cooler contributes to our notion of the organisation. The organisation, and every belief and assumption about it, is co-created by every relationship people have with it. Think about this for a moment – this is not a play on words, intended merely to encourage people to think more about their role conduct in the organisation. The perspective that we ‘are’ the organisation extends well beyond this co-created relationship. I

terms or other forms of psychological withdrawal, indifference or sabotage.

More recently, a major aspect of the psychological contract includes the issue of work-life balance and the organisational response has been to introduce a number of work-life balance initiatives e.g. Flexible working, child-care options, job-sharing etc. Do these initiatives provide a means for individuals to create fulfilled lives or is the system itself fundamentally flawed? If the system of exchange is fundamentally flawed, why is this and what is the solution?

The whole system of social and economic exchange at the level of the individual is based on separation and fragmentation. This is apparent when we hear ourselves and others say ‘My organisation won’t change’ or ‘In my organisation….’ It is a myth that we are ‘in’ an organisation – we ‘are’ the organisation. Every conversation, decision and joke shared by the water cooler contributes to our notion of the organisation. The organisation, and every belief and assumption about it, is co-created by every relationship people have with it. Think about this for a moment – this is not a play on words, intended merely to encourage people to think more about their role conduct in the organisation. The perspective that we ‘are’ the organisation extends well beyond this co-created relationship. I

hen we hear ourselves and others say ‘My organisation won’t change’ or ‘In my organisation….’ It is a myth that we are ‘in’ an organisation – we ‘are’ the organisation. Every conversation, decision and joke shared by the water cooler contributes to our notion of the organisation. The organisation, and every belief and assumption about it, is co-created by every relationship people have with it. Think about this for a moment – this is not a play on words, intended merely to encourage people to think more about their role conduct in the organisation. The perspective that we ‘are’ the organisation extends well beyond this co-created relationship. It extends to all of our relationships – our families, friends, fellow citizens, communities and environment. Whilst we continue to view ourselves ‘in’ certain institutions like family, marriage, society and the environment, we subtly relinquish responsibility for our role in co-creating our lives, organisations, community and world.

In the context of work, such separation means we relinquish responsibility for our contribution to the social construction called ‘work’ and ‘organisation’. A radical shift to viewing ourselves as synergistically and intimately connected to everything means we cannot hide behind the roles we have been assigned. We don’t hold a role – we are the role and in defining ourselves within its hold, we contribute and perpetuate its parameters – for ourselves and others.

The question posed at the beginning of this article said ‘Whose responsibility is it to provide the context for work-life integration?’ The answer to this lies within ourselves – not ‘out there’ in the organisation, society or the world. Integrating different aspects of our lives provides the key to living more meaningfully, with everything we do imbued with the values important to us a human beings. From this perspective, work-life balance strategies or greater time management practices are the red herring in the work-life balance debate. These are based on an outdated system perpetuating separation and fragmentation. If you want to change the world, begin with yourself since the perception of what is ‘out there’ is merely a reflection of what is within.