The Downside of Group Decision-Making

I had not thought much about it prior to this week, but I recently realized that group participation in decision-making is not always optimal.  In the journal article, Educating Managers for Decision Making & Leadership, Victor Vroom noted that, “[p]articipation slows down the decision making process.  The elapsed time required to make the decision generally increases with the amount of participation” (2003, p. 969).  Vroom also noted that, “group meetings, particularly those seeking consensus among divergent views, can “use up” endless hours, leaving proportionally less time available for implementing decisions or meeting the other requirements of one’s job” (1969).

I have seen this phenomenon in practice during projects where time was a critical factor.  This analysis paralysis placed a great deal of stress on the team and caused tensions to rise when the project leader became dismissive, angry, and authoritarian.  While the project leader may not have acted in the best interest to team cohesiveness, ultimately, he was correct to take the decision away from the team.  Maybe he could have been more tactful in his approach or not presented the problem to the entire team.  Vroom’s time-driven matrix (2003, pp. 968-978) or another such model may have been useful in determining which approach to take. 

Cited

Vroom, V.H. (1969). “Industrial social psychology”. Handbook of social psychology. (vol. 5, pp. 196-268) Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Vroom, V.H. (2003). “Situational factors in leadership”. (pp. 969-978). In Chowdry, S (Ed.). Organizations. Financial Times/Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Concentration and Retention

I recently read Burley-Allen’s Silence and found the section on Concentration and Retention interesting (1995, p.123-124).  I was especially attracted to the four items to keep in mind when talking about a subject and want your audience to retain it (p.124).  

1. When you are speaking and making only one point, people probably need to hear it only once.
2. If you make two or three point, listeners will more than likely need to have it repeated.  They won’t remember your point without repetition.
3. If you are making four to five points, you’ll need to repeat the information along with another sensory tool, such as having the listener write it down, summarizing what was said out loud, using pictures or graphs to reinforce what was said, or having the listener walk through what you are talking about.
4. Beyond six points, you’ll need to use two or more of the above sensory tools. (p.124)

As I think about these items, I feel as though they hold some truth.  I completely agree with Item one (one point: no need to repeat).  I get annoyed when someone talks about something simple, then rephrases several times.  That’s when I tend to tune out.  Items three and four also hold true for me.  If I am learning about a complicated process, I like to hear it, then see it, then do it.

Do these points resonate with you as well?  Do you have an anecdote that proves or disproves the four items?

Cited

Burley-Allen, M. (1995). Listening: The forgotten skill - A self-teaching guide (2nd ed., pp. 5-6, 14, 35). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Listening in Lincoln: An Overview of Selected Listening Encounters in the Motion Picture, Lincoln

The most basic of all human needs is the need to understand and be understood. The best way to understand people is to listen to them. 

- Nichols, The struggle to be human, 1980.

The following essay is not an account of historical fact.  Rather, it is based upon the motion picture, Lincoln (Spielberg, 2012) as it was directed and released for public consumption.  This is not to say that the events herein did not occur, but to recognize the possibility of artistic license that may have been employed in the film’s production.

This paper concentrates on several interactions between characters in the film and how levels of listening and barriers to listening affect them on personal, political, and social grounds.  The paper concludes by assessing the lead character’s capacity for the group process of listening.

Listening to groups and political constituents

The movie opens with Lincoln listening to two African American troops.  One of them, while clearly grateful for Lincoln’s efforts, notes that he believed that progress would be slow to reach true equality.  That is, equality in pay, in the ability to hold officer rank in the military, and to vote.  When Lincoln attempts to change the topic, the soldier continued, undaunted, to push across his point that unless true equality were the endgame, former slaves would never be viewed as truly equal.

It might be said that the character of Mr. Lincoln was employing both empathetic and selective listening.  While it was clear to the viewer that the President empathized with the former slaves, he did not respond in such a manner.  His attempt to change the topic may have come across as selective listening to the soldiers.  Steven Covey noted that people listening at this level are “hearing only parts of the conversation” (1989, p. 252).

One point in the movie where Lincoln’s listening capacity and skills showed promise was during a session with his war department where the group was discussing the possible bombardment of Wilmington.  After using a “listening first” approach, Lincoln used an anecdote from his days as a lawyer to show the group that sometimes the ends (freeing the slaves) justify the means: declaring that the Constitution gave him war powers and that he could confiscate southern slaves as property (which, he did not believe that they were) in order to fulfill his wishes for freeing them.

“Listening first” means listening before casting judgment or interjecting one’s own agenda into a conversation.  Robert Greenleaf noted that, “Only a true natural servant [referring to servant-leadership] automatically responds to any problem by listening first […] this disposition causes him to be seen as a servant first” (1991, p.8).  An effective leader is often viewed “not as a guru, but as a facilitator able to bring about the combined wisdom of the group” (1978, p.1).

Another scene in the film shows a couple from Jefferson City, Missouri petitioning the President to return a toll booth to their family.  Rather than address the concern at hand, Lincoln used the opportunity to ask what the couple thought about the proposed thirteenth amendment in order to get a view from his constituency; once again changing the topic of conversation in order to satisfy his own preoccupations.

Here, we find Mr. Lincoln distracted and preoccupied with other matters.  Don Frick noted that “[k]nowing when not to listen is nearly as important as learning how to listen” (2011, p.20).  It might have been better for the President to set aside a better time to address members of his constituency when his full attention could have been given to the matter instead of during a time where the he may not have been able to pay undivided attention to the speaker.

Listening to family

President Lincoln’s interactions with his family also present us with opportunities to analyze the character’s interpersonal listening skills.  In the early part of the film, we find Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, make known to her husband that she believed her carriage accident was an attempted assassination directed at her husband.  Rather than listen to his wife’s concerns, Lincoln attempted to change the subject, asking her about the planning of the grand reception.

It would seem that we have begun to uncover Mr. Lincoln’s modus operandi for when a conversation either becomes uncomfortable or when he does not wish to discuss a subject.  Mr. Lincoln often employs a deflection technique that may have been derived from his time serving as a lawyer.  Another technique that Mr. Lincoln uses on occasion is dismissing the thoughts and concerns of those speaking to him.  As an example, when Mrs. Lincoln attempted to talk to her husband about the passing of one of their sons that occurred a few years earlier, and about the increasing frequency of her headaches, Mr. Lincoln was sympathetic but dismissive.  He noted that it was too difficult to stir-up the memory of their son and what could have been.

Both deflection and dismissiveness are barriers to listening and reduce listening capacity.  Barriers to listening include, “distracted, impatient listening; interrupting […]; and acting defensively, judgmentally, or with strong emotional undertones” (Frick, 2011, p.20); all of which are exemplified in a scene where Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln fail to listen effectively during an argument over whether or not to allow their son Robert to enlist in the military.  On one hand, the President contested that their son would not be in harm’s way as City Point was not near the front lines of the war.  On the other hand, the First Lady contested that she believed that they would lose Robert to the war as had so many other families at the time and that if that were to occur, she would never be able to forgive her husband for allowing it to happen.  Mr. Lincoln attempted to express the difficulty of his position; that Robert would not forgive them if not allowed to enlist.  The emotional disagreement quickly escalated and difficulties from the past, including the death of one of their children resurfaced.  Mrs. Lincoln told her husband that she felt he would threaten her with being placed in an asylum as he did when she could not recuperate emotionally from the loss of their child years ago.  Mr. Lincoln, in turn, accused her of not being emotionally available to Thomas during the period of time after the loss of William.

When another person pushes our hot button with a word, phrase, or topic, our mind goes through certain filters: past experiences, beliefs, or biases connected to what the other is saying.  As a defensive measure, we often tune out the talker, plan rebuttals, or formulate questions to confuse the talker. (Burley-Allen, 1995, p.95)

Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln continued to exchange arguments while barely hearing what each other had to say.  It could be argued that the conversation might have gone more amicably had the couple employed empathy and generative listening in order to truly hear each other out.

Lincoln was not the only character to employ deflecting tactics in the film.  One such listening encounter occurred when Robert returned from university to attend the grand reception.  Mrs. Lincoln noticed that Robert had with him a large amount of luggage, and asked him why he had brought so much luggage for such a short stay.  It was obvious to the viewer that her son did not intend to return to school.  Rather than wait for Robert to reply, she quickly changed the topic of conversation to his weight.  She asked him to stay a few more days in order to “fatten him up”.  To this, Robert began to reply that he did not intend to return to college but Mary would not listen to what he had to say and shifted the topic of conversation once again to his weight. Robert, understanding that his mother was not listening, appeased her and agreed to stay for a few extra nights without expressing his thoughts on returning to school.

Several times throughout the film, Robert tried to speak with his parents about enlisting in the military and each time they either made themselves unavailable or would change the topic of conversation.  It was evident that the Lincolns were adamant about keeping their son out of the war.  Another such case occurred when Robert attempted to speak with his father about enlisting in the military, Lincoln diverted his attention to his attire in an attempt to once again delay the conversation.  However, we later learn that the President did listen to Robert but did not let-on as such.

Conclusion

What was the director’s intent?  Was it intended that Lincoln employed a methodology of conversational deflection in order to buy time to make better decisions?  If this were the case, while not conducive to sustaining and maintaining long-term relationships, the tactic proved to work again and again for the President throughout the movie.  Frick noted that, “acting quickly without understanding the problem or opportunity can result in wasted time and effort, or even disaster” (Frick, 2011, p.26).

Throughout the film, Lincoln’s capacity for listening seemed limited at best.  By removing barriers to listening such as deflection, and distracted listening, the characters in the film might have realized better, more meaningful group and interpersonal listening interactions.

References

Burley-Allen, M. (1995). Listening: The forgotten skill - A self-teaching guide (2nd ed., p. 59). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. (p.252). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Frick, D.M. (2011). Forward. K. Keith, Greenleaf and servant-leader listening. (pp. 20, 26). Westfield, Indiana: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Greenleaf, R. (1996). On becoming a servant-leader (pp. 69-70) (D. Frick & L. Spears, Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Greenleaf, R. (1978). Receptive listening manual. (p.1). Rye, New York: Wainwright House.

Greenleaf, R. (1991). The servant as leader. (p.8). Indianapolis, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication (p.41). Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Nichols, R.G. (1980, February 17). The struggle to be human. Lecture presented at First Annual Convention of the International Listening Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

Spielberg, S. (Director). (2012). Lincoln [Motion picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

Restless Listeners

Don Frick wrote in Greenleaf & Servant Leader Listening that,

Restless listeners may be responding to a fact of physiology.  Experts tell us that most people speak at the rate of up to 150 words per minute, but we think at a rate of 600 to 800 words per minute.  This creates a “listening gap” that we fill by thinking about what we will say next, planning the evening’s dinner, or remembering last year’s vacation” (p.8). 

I feel as though I fall into the restless listener profile (especially since I moved to the South!). Listening to a slow speaker…or one that struggles to find the words…is like pulling teeth to me.  I’m usually good for about a minute before I begin drifting off and thinking about a million other things that I would rather be doing or worse, try to finish their sentence.  I also read that people also struggle with comprehending fast speakers (sorry, but if I have a lot to say about a boring topic…I’d like to get it out so we can move on to something better...:) ).  How does one get past this?  Ask them to repeat themselves so that I can work on my patience? Ha ha.    

How I feel about this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktYwuw9Mnjo

Cited

Frick, D.M. (2011). Greenleaf and servant-leader listening. (p.3). Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

A Fortuitous Encounter in Listening

But more than Vasudeva could teach him, he was taught by the river.  Incessantly, he learned from it.  Most of all he learned from it to listen, to pay close attention with a quiet heart, with a waiting, opened soul, without passion, without a wish, without judgement, without an opinion

- Herman Hesse, Siddhartha, 1922.

The following paper is written informally, in the first person, as it is a personal account of self-reflection.  The first part of this paper is a brief recollection and background information for the reader about an encounter with a person that would lead me to a new and exciting career.  Next, I write about how listening enhances and increases the probability of fortuitous encounters.  Finally, I attempt to lay out an action plan that will hopefully bring about better listening habits in both myself and the reader.

Background

I feel that it is important to begin by presenting the reader with a bit of background information that should hopefully provide a context that will allow for a greater understanding of the issue of which I write about.  In March of 2009, after having recently received a degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Information Technology from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, I had begun my search for employment in the technology sector.  Unfamiliar with many of the position titles that my degree had prepared me for, I began to seek out advice from people who were already working in fields that I was excited about.  To accomplish this, among other things, I joined a few groups on LinkedIn.com that were related to my career interests and began asking questions.  It was through one of these forums that I met Rob.  Rob noted that he worked for a technology firm that was based not far from my home in Hampton Roads, Virginia.  He told me that I was welcome to stop by his office during lunch time to talk about the industry.  Needless to say, I jumped at the offer.

True to his word, Rob gave me a primer on the sector of the technology industry that he worked in.  He introduced me to several of his colleagues and took me on a tour of the office.  During our conversation, I found out that, like me, Rob had served in the U.S. Navy.  Rob had also attended school at my Alma matter.  He took me back to his office and asked me about my educational background and aspirations.  After a long conversation, Rob noted that while the company normally hired only certified engineers, he felt confident that my background would be a good fit.  Imagine my surprise when he set up a meeting for the following week with his leadership team and asked me to email him my resume.

The meeting seemed to go rather smoothly and another week passed.  Rob called me during the weekend and asked me if I wouldn’t mind going to lunch with him and some other members of his staff.  After the lunch, he told me that he and the leadership team had called the division office in Albuquerque, New Mexico and were given the green light to hire me.  My fortunate and fortuitous encounter with Rob had landed me a position with a Fortune 500 company!
Fortuitous Encounters

Davis & Spears noted that, “We have all experienced “fortuitous encounters” – those moments where a person, place, or thing causes our lives to change in a more positive direction” (p. 1, 2013).  My fortuitous encounter with Rob not only helped me with my career, it changed my life.  Almost overnight, I went from a poor college student to a career-minded, successful member of society.

Fortuitous encounters are not only stumbled upon by chance, they can also be sought out.  “The ability to experience fortuitous encounters is key to learning and growth.  Davis & Spears wrote that, “the more fortuitous encounters that someone has, the better the odds that the person is successful and happy” (p. 2, 2013).  It is also more probable that people are more satisfied and fulfilled when experiencing such encounters frequently (p.viii).    

We seek out fortuitous encounters by listening and sometimes, by being listened to.  In my case, Rob was receptive to my inquiries and proved to be a great listener.  I had to ask myself, could I have done the same if I were in a similar position?  What does it mean to be a great listener?  How could I become a better listener?

Enhancing Listening Capacity

Like many other subjects we study, we should first assess our baseline in order to create a point of reference to measure aptitude, change, and effectiveness. “[…W]hen each of us becomes aware of and accepts our current listening capacity […], that awareness point can then become a benchmark or base for improving our listening” (Horseman & Hazel, 2013, p.9).  Benchmarking, in the case of measuring listening effectiveness and capacity may be accomplished in many ways.  One effective methodology that does not require a lab or expensive recording equipment is to simply ask another person to observe and report on your listening skills.  Another method is self-assessment.  Ask yourself questions such as, do I interrupt people?  If the other person is having difficulty explaining something, do I attempt to state what I believe they are thinking?  Do I attempt to solve the speaker’s problem while they are still speaking?  These questions and many more can give us an idea of what kind of listener we truly are.  Greenleaf once noted that, “[U]nless someone else has observed and reported on our communication habits, we probably don’t know whether we listen [well] or not” (1996, p.69-70).  There are many other articles, books, and online resources that will aid you in your baseline assessment.

Now that we have established a benchmark, what are some methodologies that we can use to improve our listening capacity and skills?  While there are numerous methods we can use to develop enhanced listening skills, this paper shall focus on three approaches that somewhat blend together but may prove constructive: Listening first and judging later; Empathetic listening; and Unfiltering to maximize listening comprehension.

Listen First, Judge Later

When we listen first, we reserve judgement and advising until we have heard all that the speaker has to say.  “By being more present (more attentive […]) with another person, we in turn may also stimulate and affirm a more attentive presence within the other person, creating the potential for enhanced mutual awareness and learning” (Horseman & Hazel, 2013, p.9).  When someone speaks to a truly attentive listener and not someone who is attempting to solve their problems or judge them, they are likely to be more candid with the listener (Burley-Allen, 1995, p.5; Greenleaf, 1996, p.70).  “A request for listening is usually not a request for giving advice.  [sic] It is a request to be listened to nonjudgmentally, from the heart” (Burley-Allen, 1995, p. 6).  In my encounter with Rob in his office during our first meeting, he asked me open ended questions and did not attempt to solve an issue by asking if I had any specific skill sets, nor did he make any suggestions until I had asked him.

Empathetic Listening 

To listen with empathy is to attempt to “seek first to understand, then to be understood” (Covey, 2014) and to emotionally and sympathetically connect with the speaker.  When listening empathetically, “[t]he listener sets in motion a positive, mutually rewarding process by demonstrating interest in both the talker and what the talker says.  The talker feels more accepted and gives more valid information [sic]” (Burley-Allen, 1995, p.6).  According to Burley-Allen’s Three Levels of Listening, it might be said that Rob is a “Level 1” listener.  Level 1 listening is empathetic listening.
At this level, listeners refrain from judging the talker and place themselves in the other’s position, attempting to see things from his or her point of view.  Some characteristics of this level include being aware and in the present moment; acknowledging and responding; not letting oneself be distracted; paying attention to the speaker’s total communication, including body language; being empathetic to the speaker’s feelings and thoughts; and suspending one’s own thoughts and feelings to give attention solely to listening.  (1995, p.14)

Here, along with themes of empathy, we see aspects of our first approach, Listen First, Judge Later.  The final line of the aforementioned quote refers to placing our own thoughts and feelings on hold.  To take it a step further, we should look at unfiltering our perceptions of the speaker so as to hear him or her as they intended and not through a veil of our self-imposed speaker attributes.

Unfiltering

To listen and to truly hear someone, we must learn to perceive them in an unfiltered state.  Jiddu Krishnamurti noted that the images we have of a person in our mind are often derived through filters such as previous encounters with the person, religion, culture, and prejudice to name a few.  These screens alter how we hear their message (1974).  How then are we able to hear the speakers true intended communication if we are listening through an image that we have built in our minds?  Listening with an open mind can be a difficult practice.  Awareness of one’s own prejudices and cultural bias as well as being agreeable to the influence of another can go a long way toward eventual open-mindedness.

Parting Thoughts

Logically, by improving our listening skills, we increase the probability of fortuitous encounters.  There is more to listening than a mere passive sensory capability based on physical reception of auditory waves that are sent to the brain for interpretation.  Listening is “an attitude toward other people and what they are attempting to express.  It begins with attention, both the outward manifestation and the inward alertness” (Greenleaf, 1996, p. 70).  The practices prescribed in this paper are designed to bring about a more positive and fruitful listening experience and thereby increasing the likelihood of future fortuitous encounters.  By establishing a baseline, listening first and judging later, listening empathetically, and unfiltering, we are able to maximize comprehension as well as listening capacity.

References

Burley-Allen, M. (1995). Listening: The forgotten skill - A self-teaching guide (2nd ed., pp. 5-6, 14, 35). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Covey, S. (2014). Habit 5 Seek First to Understand Then to Be Understood. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9TvNVqj32M.

Davis, P., & Spears, L. (Eds.). (2013). Fortuitous encounters: Wisdom stories for learning and growth. (pp. viii, 1, 2). Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. (1996). On becoming a servant-leader (pp. 69-70) (D. Frick & L. Spears, Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hesse, H. (2011). Siddhartha (p. 97). Simon & Brown.

Horseman, J.H., & Hazel, M. (2013). Servant-leadership and listening: Serving and developing authenticity. (p. 9). Spokane, Washington: Gonzaga University.

Krishnamurti, J. (1974). Jiddu Krishnamurti: The art of listening. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWviUF6KdE8.

Listening vs. Hearing

I recently read a passage by Madelyn Burley-Allen that compares listening to hearing.

When we think about listening, we tend to assume it is basically the same as hearing; this is a dangerous misconception because it leads us to believe effective listening is instinctive. As a result, we make little effort to learn or develop listening skills and unknowingly neglect a vital communication function, thereby denying ourselves educational development and increased self-awareness (p.3).

While I believe her intent was to interpret “hearing” as a passive sensory capability based on physical reception of auditory waves that are sent to the brain for interpretation, I can’t help feel that the mark was missed in this paragraph.

I believe that a better employment of the term “hearing” is to depict it as a level of listening. Bear with me here…A person can LISTEN to another person, but do they always HEAR what it is that they are saying? Do they comprehend both the explicit and implicit meaning of that which they are listening to? If so, then they could be said to “hear” what the other is saying.

I couldn’t help thinking about the movie “White Men Can’t Jump” where Wesley Snipes character, Sidney Deane says to Woody Harrelson’s character, Billy Hoyle, “Look man, you can listen to Jimi [referring to the musician, Jimi Hendrix] but you can't hear him. There's a difference man. Just because you're listening to him doesn't mean you're hearing him” (Shelton, 1992). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HauMNRzhyJQ

How do you interpret hearing vs. listening?

Cited

Allen, M. (1995). Listening: The forgotten skill - A Self-Teaching Guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. p.3.

Shelton, R. (Director). (1992). White Men Can't Jump [Motion picture]. USA: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

Ethical Decision Making: Personal Business on Company Time

The paper to follow shall advocate for the employment of an ethical decision making model for the resolution of moral and ethical organizational issues.  Throughout the paper I will use an example of an ethical/moral dilemma at X-Corp, a fictional corporation.  This paper shall weigh heavily upon Cooper’s ethical decision-making model (2006) and shall incorporate a systems approach, as well as the research and theories of other subject matter experts.  The employment of Cooper’s model allows us a “greater degree of ethical autonomy [...] because we become more aware of both our own values and the external obligations under which we act” (Cooper, 2006).  I will begin with an example case study that unfolds an ethical/moral issue.  Next, I will suggest employing a model that uses a systems approach to decision-making.  I will follow by suggesting that we challenge the status quo by framing the issue of organizational freedoms and constraints as well as personal values and shared organizational values.  Lastly, this paper will suggest the employment of moral imagination in evaluating shared organizational values.

Case Study: Operating a Personal Business on Company Time

Over the course of the past year, it has become apparent that several employees have been conducting business unrelated to their current position at X-Corp.  These employees are operating personally owned businesses such as real estate investments/rental properties and consulting firms during normal X-Corp working hours.  While there has been no attempt to obscure their actions, or to defraud the company, it is viewed by their colleagues as both unprofessional and a breach of shared values and organizational ethics.  Currently, X-Corp does not have in place any policy stating that this type of activity is prohibited.  It is entirely possible that these employees do not believe that they are initiating any wrongdoing as they are productive corporate citizens.  It may be necessary to conduct a company-wide study into whether or not such activity should be allowed to continue at X-Corp.

Systems Approach to Decision-Making

A systems approach to decision-making facilitates the examination of an issue and its interoperability within a system.  “The system involves interactions extending over time, a complex set of interrelated decision points, an array of actors with conflicting interests, […] and a number of feedback loops.  Progress in analyzing [ethical issues] can only be made with a full understanding of the systemic issues” (Wolf, 1999, p.144).  Cooper’s ethical decision-making model (Cooper, 2006) employs a systems approach that breaks a problem down into its constituent parts in order to discover its root and to effectively assess how to change the system if necessary (Werhane, 2002, p.36), it then integrates a solution, or set of solutions, into the organizational system.  “Systems thinking requires [sic] conceiving of management dilemmas as arising from within a system with interdependent elements, subsystems, and networks of relationships and patterns of interaction” (Werhane, 2002, p.33).

A systems approach is critical to comprehending, assessing, and establishing a change in shared organizational values (Werhane, 2002, p.41).  “Systemic arrangements and organization networks create roles and role responsibilities, rights, and opportunities that affect individuals and individual activities and performance” (Werhane, 2002, p.35).  While Cooper’s model for ethical decision-making was chosen as our example model in this paper, there are several other models and methodologies that are equally comprehensive.

Methodology 

Recognizing that a problem exists, the next step in logically implementing Cooper’s model is to collect any accessible data that may apply to the issue and its resolution (Cooper, 2006).  This should include employee and customer opinions collected subjectively though surveys and interviews, current and pending contracts, corporate policy and programs, and any other objective/subjective data element that may prove utility during a systematic evaluation of the issue.    

In order to clarify and identify the conflict and its specific nature, our model’s third step, we must look at any ethical, legal, professional, or moral implications that our issue may broach (Cooper, 2006).  While it is best that an interdisciplinary committee deliberate on this matter in order to acquire diverse viewpoints, one notable implication may include the question of whether or not operating a personal business on company time is viewed as ethical or moral by X-Corp personnel and its customers through the employment of the aforementioned qualitative survey.  This survey also aids in the process documentation phase of our adopted model.  Documentation of the process employed to resolve the issue will serve as a guide for future analysis of lessons learned and a data repository for tracking changing perceptions and shared organizational values should the need arise.  Subject matter experts, such as legal counsel, etc., should be sourced both internally and externally in order to “expand peripheral vision [and] identify overlooked information and circumstances” (2006).      

            

Framing the Issue: Organizational Freedoms and Constraints

Determining the best course of action will be determined by how the issue is framed.  “This is a matter of subtly [sic] discernment of what is important in the situation.  It is very much a matter of reading situations, character, and intentions.  Without fine-textured perception of this sort, moral laws and rules are useless and empty” (Johnson, 1993, p.210).  Due to the intricacy of the issue, it is advantageous to necessitate as many differing viewpoints as possible as there are many potentials in which to frame the issue.  While we are all capable of framing the issue multiple ways (Werhane, 2002, p.39), it is prudent that we attempt to frame the situation in a manner that is most advantageous to both the company and the individual constituents.  To accomplish this, we should abstain from using language that “blatantly create[s] a cast of good guys and bad guys” (Cooper, 2006).

To say that leaders should always increase freedom and relax all constraints is intellectually dishonest and totally unrealistic.  To say that constituents should always accept the constraints and never challenge the status quo is equally dishonest and unrealistic.  Count on people to strive to be free.  Also count on organizations to exert constraints.  Part of a leader’s job is to engage people in grappling with the tension between freedom and constraint (Johnson, 2003, p.176).

We must seek out a balance between organizational freedom and constraints.  To do this, we must look inside ourselves at our own personal values and those that are espoused as shared organizational values. 

Personal Values vs. Shared Organizational Values

 In deliberating the issue, personal values should be weighed against shared organizational values when opposing moral and ethical beliefs are identified.  Cooper suggests considering the “basic moral principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice, fidelity, and veracity, and apply[ing] them to the situation (2006).  Does the issue of operating a personal business during X-Corp working hours increase employee autonomy?  Would banning or permitting the practice avoid doing harm to clients or employees?  Which choice or hybrid thereof promotes the most good?  Which decision best promotes equality, honesty, and faithfulness to X-Corp clients?  These are the questions that our panel of employees, customers, and experts should ask themselves.

Employing Moral Imagination in Evaluating Shared Organizational Values

Cooper’s model next calls for the delineation and estimation of the plausible outcomes of any decision that may be agreed upon (Cooper, 2006).  This may best be accomplished through the employment of what some call “moral imagination” (Cooper, 2006; Werhane, 2002).  “Moral imagination helps one to disengage from a particular process, evaluate that and the mindsets which it incorporates, and think more creatively within the constraints of what is morally possible” (Werhane, 2002, p.34).  Using moral imagination, it is recommended that several vignettes be created that would aid in discovering the consequences any particular decision would have on the company, its customers, and its employees.  Cooper advocates for attempting to achieve a balance between offering moral and ethical guidelines that “support each alternative and the projected consequences” (Cooper, 2006), the “ability to defend a particular […] decision if required to do so before a broad audience” (2006), distinguish the “implicit ethical principles at stake” (2006), and that pass the “test of anticipatory self-appraisal [as] a method to seek out how well a course of action fits with our own self-image” (2006).

Using moral imagination and our X-Corp example, it is feasible to foresee several outcomes of our inquiry.  One such outcome might be that the company bans the practice of operating a personal business during company time.  This would certainly appease those that deem the practice unethical.  However, it may cause problems with the employees that currently own their own businesses.  Another solution might be to allow the practice to continue on a case-by-case basis so long as policy is set in place to regulate such activity.  This may cause problems with those that find this practice unethical.  However, some opinions may be swayed with a program that incorporates entrepreneurism as a shared organizational value through training, hiring, and onboarding initiatives.  The latter choice may seem unusual in today’s business world, but may become a competitive advantage in hiring millennials and other hidden benefits.  Kouzes and Posner noted that, “[a] shared value that was once a cornerstone of the organizational foundation can become obsolete” (2003, p.191).    

Conclusion & Recommendations

This paper advocates for the conduct of a company-wide study to investigate the issue of operating a personal business during working hours.  “Allowing more freedom is becoming the norm.  But it would be foolish and irresponsible to expect organizations to abandon all constraints.  Institutions must have limits; the question is not whether there should be constraints, but how many, how much, and of what type” (Kouzes & Posner 2003, pp.176-177). 

This issue will likely not be resolved with a binary decision.  Rather, several outcomes may result.  Among those outcomes, three overarching courses of action prevail.  First, choosing to abstain from selecting a course of action would result in the continuance of current practices and unresolved organizational issues.  Second, the creation of corporate policy banning the conduct of personal business during working hours could protect the organization but affect some of its employees.  Third, entrepreneurialism should be allowed and encouraged as a part of X-Corp corporate culture.  It is likely that any decision made will incorporate the latter two courses of action, possibly in a hybridized format.  Whatever the outcome, the organization stands to benefit from resolving the issue as a community, for we are all corporate citizens that have a duty…an obligation, to protect its constituents and stakeholders in the best manner possible.  Our decision should reflect not only the thoughts of those that lead, but all who follow.

     References

Cooper, T. L. (2006). The responsible administrator (5th ed.). United States: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint.

Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press. 210-213.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003) Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 176-191.

Werhane, P. H. (2002).  Moral imagination and systems thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2), 33-41.

Wolf, S. (1999). Toward a systematic theory of informed consent in managed care, Houston Law Review (35) 144.