The minefields (bargaining mode) of my previous tech job.

Okay, so today I am going to talk about my previous job I had as an ERP Developer. I discussed much of the internal factors on why I quit the job on the article "Internal Problems with my existing current job". Basically, when I decide whether to quit the job, 70% weights in the internal factors and 30% the external factors. In summary, the internal environment of the organization had mental networks that just lived under the influence of customers and became the "persona" of the customer. Pushing my views for an environment that emphasized 1. An attention on requirements at the cost of adjusting the perception of customer needs 2. A development team that pushes less releases due to the focus of quality: Would have lead to => A system that is more efficient and reliable. In the end, requirements were not communicated well due to emotional influence and nothing was done to the development team to focus on quality as there was no trace of patience from management on all the years I've been there. In a matter of fact, they took my push as an inconsistent input from their mental networks and described it as a negative energy.

One of the things is that this was my first job in the software development work. Of course, I would have made a lot of mistakes. But to tell you the truth, of all things, to fight against mental networks that were not beneficial, I do not regret it at all and I hope I see the end to this where they thank me of what I did. I think that will not be so hard to do as much as the countless times they talk to their clients. But so far, of all my communications, they only showed how engraved they were with their old mental networks.

You may sound that I am crazy talking about stuff like that. But being transparent was the only way to find an environment that can suit me better in the future. Doing otherwise would have lead me to a vicious cycle finding jobs with their old patterns, with working environments that they would not suit me. I glad I made that choice as there is a lot of space in this environment with communities to think otherwise than what others would have told you its impossible.

I will explain the minefields (external factors) that shattered the "bargaining mode" of the "mental networks about my current working environment" (See types of pain to understand). I started to be in "bargaining mode" from the time I saw that the internal factors for working on this company was not worth at all. It just added the rest pieces of the puzzle with the last actions I saw. I had a high level confidence with low margin of error at that point. When I tried to look at the external factors, it was an instant blow for my mental networks. Saying this now, it gave me new insights :). I could also see how "they protected their mental networks". Now looking at the organization from its past, I can make the following conclusion: Their internal factors were protected by adjusting the external factors to the employee. It was a subconscious defensive mechanism.

Wow, I have an epiphany right now. This working environment and the family relationships I had in the past is a god send for me to bring new conclusions to the table about how all those dynamics work. Without mistakes, we cannot learn nature! Let me explain the universal concept theory of protecting mental networks in a working environment:

In an organization that tries to protect its mental networks

A. When an employee blindly follows the internal factors of an organization

1. Employer will use external tools to keep the employee by increasing salary
2. Make him have more freedom to choose what to do (but is it really freedom when you are locked by following internal factors?)
3. Give him more perks and amenities.
4. Make him be a bigger "role model" within the company organization
5. To be loose if the employee violates a rule.
6. They value an employee so much when he works with the old mental networks of an organization that they will want him to take some time off so they can be more dull in order to not contest the mental networks he blindly follows.
7. The purpose is to keep the employee loyal (he is too valuable). In order to do that, 1 to 6 create a fabricated illusion (emotional facts becoming facts) of added value. At one point, the employee will realize that the mental network followed is out dated. He will be in bargaining mode. But alas, those emotional facts that became as facts will protect it from going further on breaking out of the mental network.

B. When an employee does not follow the internal factors of an organization (regardless if that will bring positive outcomes long term wise)

1. Employer will use external tools to have a fix salary for the employee
2. Remove him from his usual responsibilities to less important ones
3. Give him less freedom to be in discussions (but do you think he has less freedom than the people that live within old mental networks?)
4. Make him be a low tier model within the company organization
5. Cut amenities and be strict on every rule no matter what within the contract.
6. The purpose is to change the attitude and behavior of the employee to the existing mental networks or make him voluntarily quit his job so employer do not pay benefits, etc. This gives the illusion to the individual that the only way to attain "something" is to follow a "particular" action or in other words, to lock him into old mental networks. This kind of works often to change the mindset of entities to follow instead to violate mental networks, as seen by experiments on animals. I have not really investigated the mechanisms of this, although patterns show that it happens.

Leaving Work

After working for more than 2 years of my job as an ERP Developer, I wanted to have some deep thought about the problems of the current working environment I used to work. Hence, this blog. I wanted to ask Philosophical questions and you the reader are part of the experience of it. In my past working environment, I used to be in charge of taking requirements and discussing with management the final deliverable. However, I wanted to change some stuff in the organization after 2 years and they did not let me do that. Instead, I got cut off from ties with management and on any active discussions. I now only worked with my co-worker supervisor for "almost" all things. I still retained my job position due to having "satisfactory competitive skills" and a lot of "capital knowledge". That lead me to ask my co-worker supervisor to take 3 months off after not taking any vacation within the past 2 years. Did I regret it? Not really. The thing is after I came back to work, management told me they already terminated me and they would like to have me back if I still complied to them with their mental networks.

1. It seems that they were very strict with their contract rules that they do not understand the "invisible contract" that I "asked" my co-worker supervisor to take myself 3 months off.
2. This co-worker supervisor was very embedded with the mental networks of the organization. Management gave him freedom to do whatever he wants. Even when he let me take 3 months off, company did not gave him the freedom to do that and instead they terminated me.
3. They do not understand that the "concept" of possession comes based on what is practiced the most. Management told me that if I have to do something, I have to ask them for it. I have to ask people that I do not communicate much anymore (management) and do not understand my needs as much as my co-worker supervisor that works in the same room as me.

In any case, if I asked management to take 3 months off, they would have not let me do that because:
1. The reason is very obvious, yet sensitive: I do not like the mental networks of the organization and I want to think about it. Explaining to it will give them a form of inconsistent input, a thing that I tried already many times in different forms and ways which lead me to have less ties to the organization. Why would I explain that when I already did it more boldly "with my actions" before? Its better to not give any reason.
2. They told me in advance to not take vacation: On the second year of my job, they told me in advance that I should not take any vacation, as we will be very busy. Ironically, the opposite was said to the person who was very loyal to the organization. They told me I will be busy because there was something critical that we must do. It was all a bluff in the end as it was not so critical as the other critical things we already had in the past. It was a mechanism that was triggered when I did not follow the internal factors of the organization. If they could not let me take 2 weeks vacations by the end of the 2nd year, would they have let me have 3 months vacations? Even if they said they could "right now", it is just to save face and to not admit the mental networks they had in the "past".
3. Let us assume they would really allowed me to take 3 months off vacation. If they really did, they would not have terminated me and shred my vacation paycheck when I came back. In other words, they just wanted to "control" what is right or not based of their "old mental networks" instead of the views of my co-worker employee that was just embedded to "those mental networks", but not deeply engraved to it.

In conclusion

I am very thankful that I experienced all these stuff in front of me. I could see the 2 modes of being loyal and not loyal in parallel. I was referred to watch a movie called "Brave New World" (actually, they told me to read the book, but I watched the movie). While watching it, I could not grasp the context that they were teaching people "old mental networks", but they actually did. Just the "old mental networks" I experienced in my working environment are more "specific" instead of "general" as the movie "Brave New World" does. "Brave New World" is an interesting movie and I think it influenced me to write this article in a "framework" instead of listing just the "facts" out.

 To the company I have worked for, they may have earned
1. Not paying my vacation paycheck.
2. Have to deal with any benefits after terminating an employee without good due reason.
3. Retaining an environment that keeps old mental networks more "alive". A network that while currently being "alive" can retain profit by keeping the customers loyal.

However, what they will lose is
1. An environment that avoids the constant pain living with old mental networks. A network that will disrupt the whole Eco-system that we live in, where new revolutions, agents of change, need to be put forth, in times where the whole system collapses (but we can also be more pro active about it), as Thomas Kuhn has described.

If a mental network is potent, there is no need to barricade the stages a mental network exits from our identity. There is no need to add fabricated facts and forms of actions to push people in the right direction.  Instead, only reasoning is required to check if we are on the right direction or not. Trying to abusively barricading the stages of a mental network shows there is a very deep root problem on the cultural working environment and with the people behind it.