Outsourced: I to We

The motion picture, Outsourced (Pine, Hamilton, Dharker, & Jeffcoat, 2009), contains some excellent examples of the Bordas’ “Nine Principles of Multicultural Leadership” (Bordas, 2007, p.17).  In order to better understand some of the cultural differences encountered in the movie, Kwintessential.com provides a great primer prior to watching the movie ("India - Language, Culture, Customs and Etiquette", 2014).  Another good source is the book Kiss, bow, or shake hands: The bestselling guide to doing business in more than 60 countries (Morrison, & Conaway, 2006).

At one point in the film, Josh Hamilton’s character, Todd Anderson, comes to the realization that he should stop operating the Indian call-center like an American office and asks the employees “what would make a more positive work experience” (Pine, Hamilton, Dharker, & Jeffcoat, 2009).  This scene both exemplifies (in spirit) and then immediately contradicts (with good intentions) Bordas’ second principle of Multicultural Leadership: “I to We” (Bordas, 2007, p.18).  For the first time, Anderson’s thoughts begin to transform from individualism to a collective identity.  However, shortly thereafter as an incentive, Anderson offers company products as a reward for improving individual employee MPI numbers.  This is where he contradicts his altruistic intentions.  Here, we see Anderson unknowingly introducing a western concept of inter-office competition for individualistic gains.  According to Bordas, individualism and competition tend to fashion “a society in which people have a greater orientation toward their individual needs and desires than to the collective good” (p.23).  Kwintessential.com notes that Indian’s “typically define themselves by the groups to which they belong rather than by their status as individuals.  […] This group orientation stems from the close personal ties Indians maintain with their family, including the extended family” (2014).

Cited

Bordas, J. (2007). Salsa, soul, and spirit: Leadership for a multicultural age. San Francisco:            Berrett-Koehler.

India - Language, Culture, Customs and Etiquette. (2014, January 1). Retrieved December 9,       2014, from http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/india-country-   profile.html

Morrison, T., & Conaway, W. (2006). Kiss, bow, or shake hands: The bestselling guide to doing    business in more than 60 countries (2nd ed.). Avon, Mass.: Adams Media.

Pine, L., Hamilton, J., Dharker, A., & Jeffcoat, J. (2009). Outsourced. Toronto: Distributed in       Canada by Cinemavault.

Payne's Framework Under Fire

Ruby Payne’s rubric for assessing resources; the Krabill/Payne Resource Quotient (2004), is interesting.  However, I feel that employing multiple scoring items in each cell will cause problems for many people as some, but not all items in each cell will apply.  Therefore, people will need to choose which cell most applies to them.  If this is the case, then how does one weigh each item?  As an example, numbers 3 & 4 under the Integrity Resource read: 

3. Decisions are moral, ethical, and legal;   Avoids difficult issues;   Is responsible for self but blames others.
4. Decisions are moral, ethical, and legal; Tough issues are addressed;   Accepts responsibility for self and is accountable to others.

Here, we see that in each column, there are two items that differ.  Suppose someone feels that they “avoid difficult issues”, but also “accept responsibility for self and [are] accountable to others”.  Which is more accurate?  Which is weighted more in the assessment?  The answer may be that they are both equally accurate. 

To correct this issue, I would suggest changing only one item in each column in order to alleviate confusion.  Once the issues with the rubric have been corrected, I feel that Payne’s work may have some utility.  An additional section that the author may wish to include could instruct businesses as to how a program such as this would be implemented and sustained in an organization.

Paul Gorski’s paper, “Peddling Poverty for Profit: Elements of Oppression in Ruby Payne’s Framework” (2008) was an eye-opener.  Gorski pointed out something that I missed when reading Payne’s work: That Payne was self-published.  This is very interesting as any claims in her work may not have been examined. 

I found many of his Gorski’s points to be well thought-out and would be interested to hear Payne’s rebuttal.  Gorski noted that Payne’s research was performed through casual observations and had no statistical relevancy.  I would like to hear Payne address where and how she obtained the data she employed in her study.

Cited

Payne, R. (2004, January 1). The Role of Economic Diversity in Employee Retention, Promotion, and Training. Retrieved December 3, 2014.

Gorski, P. (2008, January 1). Peddling Poverty for Profit: Elements of Oppression in Ruby Payne’s Framework. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10665680701761854

Relations of Power: The Pursuit of Happyness

Michael Foucault’s concept of power is interesting.  In Brenda Allen’s book, “Difference Matters”, she relays Foucault’s term, “Relations of power” (Allen, 2011, p.25).  This implies that power is derived through and defined by interpersonal networks.  Foucault further wrote that, “We define our relationships and how we should behave in relation to each other in terms of power differences and similarities” (p.25).  

  

Gabriele Muccino’s film, “The Pursuit of Happyness” was inspired by the life story of Christopher Gardner, a homeless single father whose intelligence, likability, and perseverance lead him to become a CEO at a prominent financial institution.  It was also these attributes that were the foundation of Gardner’s network that he builds throughout the movie.  This network becomes his “relations of power” which, ultimately, leads to his success story.  This powerful movie has many great quotes, of which one of my favorites is: “You got a dream, you gotta protect it.  People can't do something themselves, they wanna tell you that you can't do it.  You want something?  Go get it.  Period” (Muccino, “The Pursuit of Happyness”).

Cited

Allen, B. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.). Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press.

The Pursuit of Happyness [Motion picture on DVD]. (2006). USA: Overbrook Entertainment.

Persepolis - The Search for Cultural Identity

In the movie Persepolis, a young Iranian girl manes Marji tells her life’s story about growing up in a very cosmopolitan family in Iran during the Islamic Revolution.  I feel that her story depicted her inner struggle to define her cultural identity.  Luckily, Marji’s family was very intellectual and allowed her to explore her own path in life.  While many of her fellow countrymen were being conditioned and programmed by a ruthless dictatorship, Marji found her own voice (unfortunately, this also got her into trouble several times throughout the film). 

The Islamic Party came into power and began systematically exterminating any opposition.  Sadly, even the women began to adopt the hegemonic ideals of female oppression.  Eventually, Marji’s parents sent her abroad to study in Vienna.  She had difficulty integrating into European culture, but never lost herself.  Ultimately, not being able to successfully assimilate into western the ethos, Marji returned to her home country where the years of war and oppression had changed both the landscape and the people that she once knew.  Marji felt like a strange in Austria…and now in her home country.

Xiao-Dong Dai wrote in his paper, Intercultural Personhood and Identity Negotiation, that identity is often dichotomized into both individual identity and collective identity.  “Cultural identity belongs to […] the collective identity.  It is the identification with a perceived acceptance into a group that has shared systems of symbols and meanings as well as norms/rules for conduct” (2009, p. 1).  Marji had great difficulty coming to terms with her own cultural identity, sometimes straying off of her path.  However, her faith and family were always her true north and guided her back to a path of open-mindedness.

Seeking Happiness

I have grown to appreciate the wisdom in Victor Frankl’s novel, Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning, when he writes, “Happiness must ensue.  It cannot be pursued.  It is the very pursuit of happiness that thwarts happiness.  The more one makes happiness the aim, the more he misses the aim” (Frankl, 1948, p.90).  It seems to me that many people, myself included, go about seeking happiness in their daily lives.  However, happiness itself cannot be obtained in and of itself.  It is derived as a secondary effect from having served a greater purpose (i.e. self-transcendence, selflessness, spirituality, love).  

Cited

Frankl, V. E. (2000). Man's search for ultimate meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Pub.

A few years back I had the privilege of travelling to Honduras for a business trip.  I have travelled to many places in my life; most of them developed European countries.  I knew that Honduras was a poor country, but what I expected to see paled in comparison to what I actually witnessed.  The conditions of human life in this country were terrible.  There was an extreme division of classes (upper and lower).  The rich, mostly government employees and drug cartels, lived in guarded compounds with pools and beautiful houses, and the poor lived in huts with old billboards and corrugated tin for roofs. 

What amazed me though, was the prideful and hardworking nature of the Honduran people.  Clean drinking water was scarce and many houses had dirt floors, yet those that inhabited them were very clean and kempt in appearance.  I rarely saw beggars.  Most people were busy working their trades to selling goods by the roadside.  There was a story that I read in Shann Ray’s book, American Masculine, where a boy is pulled between two world perspectives.  His mother was able to find the good in the world and his father saw the world as a dark place, “and people darker still”.  This seemed to cause a duality of perception in the boy…a struggle to see the light in the dark.  

In Honduras, I didn't see sadness, as I would have expected.  Rather, I saw a people who thrived in the love of God and their families. This trip was a wake-up call to my consciousness.  My first-world problems now seem trivial in comparison to those of the average Honduran.  

Thoughts on Existentialism, Imagination, Sense-making and Hardiness

Kobasa and Maddi (as cited in Corsini, 1977) conceptualize life as a “series of decisions” made by an individual. Existentialism, as a philosophical approach, seems to me to be quite individualistic in nature. Existentialists believe that “their lives and the meaning therein are of their own making and that the architect of the good life is future-oriented-decision making” (Wong, 2012).

Similarly, the role of imagination in the creation of meaning is likewise individualistic in nature, but could also hold true of an organizational collective. The ability or inability to imagine alternative possibilities and outcomes to situations and decisions directly correlates to an individual’s ability to make rational decisions. It stands to reason that an individual is more imaginative than others would have the ability to foresee a greater number of solutions to a particular problem. However, it is also reasonable that an overactive imagination could lead to either a poorly formed decision or simply paralysis by analysis where no decision is ever made.

Many psychologists view existentialism as a divergence from Freudianism where beliefs, emotional states, and physical engagements in the here and now are often expressed as unresolved past conflicts.

I however, find it difficult to separate the tenants of Freudianism from those of existentialism. It seems to me that many authors, psychologists, and philosophers would have you “take sides” with respect to which theory best represents reality. However, as I understand it, this would mean that existential decision making is purely reactionary and that past experience has not sway over individual choice. Instead, decisions are shaped by future goals, and how one interprets the best path to their achievement.

Hardiness, the aptitude to withstand challenging circumstances, varies from person to person depending on the events that have shaped them along their path through life. According to Maddi, Khoshaba, & Pammenter (1999), hardy people tend to choose future-oriented decision making vice choosing repetitive historical-based decision making. “Hardiness [is] a set of attitudes or beliefs about yourself in interaction with the world around you that provide the courage and motivation to do the hard work of turning stressful changes from potential disasters into opportunities” (1999).

The motion picture God on Trial (Redhead, Rodgers, Mensah, & Emmony, 2008) was an exploration in the variance of human sensemaking. The film took into account individual perceptions of reality and levels of hardiness.

Each character struggled with his own rationalization of why God would allow the atrocities of the holocaust to have occurred. Some believed that God had broken His covenant with the Jewish people. Some cited passages from the Torah such as the captivity in Babylon and the Roman occupation, and believed that “suffering is part of God’s plan […] bad things have happened before” (Redhead, Rodgers, Mensah, 2008). Some believed that God was testing their faith. Some believed they were being punished for their sins; and some believed that to question God’s motives at all was blasphemy.

The character, Ezra displayed hardiness in the face of adversity when he spoke of having to remove his mother’s jewelry after she had been killed by the Nazis. He kept his faith and persevered. Another example of hardiness could be found in the blockhouse leader who, though not a Jew, aided the Nazi effort by keeping order in the blockhouse in order to survive.

In the end, the Jews found God guilty of breach of contract citing biblical history and verse to make sense of their situation.

This scene highlighted what is arguably the more telling paradox at the heart of the God-and-suffering issue. For perhaps the harder question is not the philosophical or logical one of how to reconcile a God of love with a suffering world, but rather the existential or personal question of why so many people persist with faith despite their own experience of suffering. (Thacker, 2008)

Cited

Corsini, R. J. (1977). Current personality theories. Itasca, Ill.: F.E. Peacock Publishers.

Maddi, S., Khoshaba, D., & Pammenter, A. (1999). The hardy organization: Success by turning change to advantage. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51(2), 117-124.

Redhead, M., Rodgers, J., Mensah, A. (Producers), & Emmony, A. d. (Director). (2008). God on trial [Motion picture]. United Kingdom: Hat Trick Productions.

Thacker, J. (2008). God on Trial. bethinking.org. Retrieved July 7, 2014, from http://www.bethinking.org/suffering/god-on-trial

Wong, P. T. (2012). The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Literary Review: The Rule of Benedict & Wherever You Go, There You Are

From a previous discussion in the Leadership and History session, we discussed The Rule of Benedict (Benedict, 1998).  I thought it was interesting that the Rule of Benedict was based on an earlier work, the Rule of the Master and that by “seeing and seeing again”, Benedict decided to “prune out” all matters that did not deal with what it means to live in a monastery.  This brings to mind our Leadership and Art seminar and the concept of seeing negative space. 

As I read The Rule of Benedict (Benedict, 1998), I had a little trouble trying to put the text in non-6^th century language in order to extrapolate and apply it to organizational leadership.  However, I was able to cobble together some modest similarities between leading a monastery and modern corporate governance.

Chapter three, “Of Calling the Brethren for Counsel” (Benedict 1998), stands out most as it defines the decision making process in a monastery.  The first paragraph states,

Whenever weighty matters are to be transacted in the monastery let the Abbot call together the whole community, and make known the matter which is to be considered.  Having heard the brethren's views, let him weigh the matter with himself and do what he thinketh best.  It is for this reason, however, we said that all should be called for counsel, because the Lord often revealeth to the younger what is best.  Let the brethren, however, give their advice with humble submission, and let them not presume stubbornly to defend what seemeth right to them, for it must depend rather on the Abbot's will, so that all obey him in what he considereth best.  But as it becometh disciples to obey their master, so also it becometh the master to dispose all things with prudence and justice.  Therefore, let all follow the Rule as their guide in everything, and let no one rashly depart from it.  (Benedict & Fry, 1907)

Here, following the Vroom-Yetton decision model (1973), I believe that the style of decision making that the author suggests most closely resembles the Consultative Type 2 (GII) style where,

[The]  Leader shares problem to relevant followers as a group and seeks their ideas and suggestions and makes decision alone.  Here followers meet each other, and through discussions they understand other alternatives.  But the leader’s decision may or may not reflect his followers' influence.  So, here followers’ involvement is at the level of helping as a group in decision-making.  (Vroom & Yetton, 1973)

Another passage that applies to organizational leadership is chapter five, “Of Obedience” (Benedict, 1998).  Here, I believe that the author is not referring to blind obedience to a superior power.  Rather, the writer is referring to the idea of monastic obedience.  Monastic obedience, according to…

[B]egins with a personal relationship, not an organizational structure.  Monastic obedience is a relationship between the monastic and the monastic leader, and then extends to the relationship with all of the monastic community in mutual obedience.  The object of monastic obedience is the seeking of God.  The monastic leader is a "director of souls”, not a work boss nor a manager nor a torturer.  Rather, all that is done by the leader with each individual is meant to help the individual move forward in the seeking of God.  When the superior commands, it is because the command is a tool for this monastic's search for God. (Ward, n.d.)

Here, as a segue to the next literary review, Ward (unintentionally) puts Benedict’s work in context.  The message of both authors appears to be that of learning to let go of the need to Burger King your life; to have everything, “Your way, Right-Away”. Instead, I believe that Benedict is suggesting that you find joy where you are. 

Jon Kabat-Zinn's book, Wherever You Go, There You Are (1994), also prescribes finding joy in the present through mindfulness meditation.  In his book, the author suggests methods of becoming more completely present in our own lives.  My favorite quote from this work is directly related to the emotional intelligence side of organizational leadership. 

Life on earth is a whole, yet it expresses itself in unique time-bound bodies, microscopic or visible, plant, or animal, extinct or living.  So there can be no one place to be.  There can be no one way to be, no one way to practice, no one way to learn, no one way to love, no one way to grow or to heal, no one way to live, no one way to feel, no one thing to know or be known.  The particulars count.  (Kabat-Zinn, 1994)

It is the acceptance of others and the appreciation of the differences in each other that make the human experience one worth seeing and seeing again.

Cited

Benedict, ., & Fry, T. (1998). The rule of St. Benedict in English. New York: Vintage Books.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. New       York: Hyperion.

Vroom, Victor H., & Yetton, Phillip W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of                Pittsburgh Press.

Ward, D. (n.d.). Reflections of a Benedictine canonist. Monastics: Life and law . Retrieved July 2, 2014,                  from http://www.osb.org/aba/law/contents.htm

Leadership & Architecture

It's funny, just the other day, I was reminded of a Leadership and Architecture session from my recent residency at Gonzaga University while at Mermaid Winery, a local urban winery in Norfolk, VA.  Wine samples here are served on a vertical spiral where you start at the top with your white wines and finish at the bottom with reds.  Staring at my wine flight I couldn't help but make the connection of the downward spiral that the night would inevitably bring.  Seeing and seeing again, I guess.

All kidding aside, it took me some time to put this session into perspective.  For example, the Johari Window exercise was interesting, but seemed to me, somehow flawed.  Maybe if we all knew each other better, and if the list of adjectives were not provided (instead, we could think of them ourselves), it would give a more accurate picture of the public/private and blind self.  What I did take away from the exercise and from a subsequent conversation with fellow students at the hotel later that night, was the idea that many of us see ourselves much differently and often less positively than others see us.  Often, our fear of criticism inhibits our creativity.

I also found the presentation of the Casa Batlló to be quite interesting.  I feel that Antoni Gaudí's employment of a skeletal metaphor in his architecture may have been alluding to that of support (Familial support as well as structural support).  In this sense, we are seeing and seeing again what the architect may have intended.

Lastly, Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater suggested to me, that architecture, art, and leadership are often subjective.  How the architect described his motivation and intent compared to how others might view it is analogous to how a leader might lead and how his followers and others might view his or her style of leadership.  Wright's intent was that the waterfall not be observed, but be engaged with as he incorporated it into the design of the structure.  I, however, had a different experience upon first viewing.  I felt that the design of the house forces you to leave the house in order to enjoy its aesthetics.  If the house were located on the opposite bank, you would have been able to view it without leaving the comfort of the house.  Forcing the occupant to leave the house allows us to reaffirm our connection to nature and gets us out of our comfort zones.  This is what is so interesting about the human perspective.  It is the sum of our experiences that shape our view of the world around us.  

Visit to Gonzaga University

I recently had the pleasure to visit the Gonzaga University campus in Spokane, Washington during my Masters of Organizational Leadership residency.

My first visit to the Pacific Northwest was outstanding.  The chance to meet the faculty and ask questions about the program was invaluable.

 

I believe that the best part of the experience was being able to meet with other graduate students to network and share our experiences.  The sessions (Leadership & Art; Leadership & History; Leadership & Architecture; Leadership & Creativity; Leadership & Film) were interesting, but I often found myself stretching to make the connection to organizational leadership.  I did, however, tend to find a connection between the sessions and the overarching theme of "seeing and seeing again". 

The Leadership and Art session was excellent.  Many of us work in highly technical (very left-brained) fields.  This session allowed us to break out of our comfort zones and into our (often poorly developed) creative sides.

I really enjoyed the instructor, Frankie White, who introduced the re-occurring intonation of “seeing and seeing again”, or pentimento as it applies in the art world.  This approach applies perspective to our normal problem solving process.  Many of us tend to solve problems the same way each time we see them, using a historical perspective as our mode of understanding an issue.  Using the creative process as a method of seeing and seeing again, we are able to augment our understanding and ability to solve complex problems. 

Overall, I believe the juice was worth the squeeze and would recommend the experience.  However, I do wish that the campus tour was a bit longer and more comprehensive.  

Globalization & Diversification

One of the dominant challenges of modern organizations is the rapid rate of globalization and its impact on workforce diversification.  The workplace is becoming more and more diverse as technology makes the world smaller and smaller.  Diversity brings with it the potential for cultural change.  Some organizations have already put in place cultural awareness training and other programs that help a previously homogeneous workforce better understand and communicate in a heterogeneous environment.

The Canadian International Development Agency’s pre-departure program (as cited in Conrad and Poole, 2005, p.389) touches on some excellent points that may be of great benefit in diversity/cultural training:

·         Communicating respect (in the language/behavior of the host society)

·         Being nonjudgmental (of others’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors)

·         Recognizing the influence of one’s own perceptions and knowledge

·         Being empathetic (trying to understand the other’s point of view and life situation)

·         Being flexible (being able to accomplish a task in a manner and time frame that is appropriate to the host culture and other’s needs)

·         Demonstrating reciprocal concern (actually listening and promoting shared communication)

·         Tolerating ambiguity, especially about cultural differences (p.389)

I feel that this list is an excellent method in which to approach both cultural change as well as life in general .

Cited:

Conrad, C., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Strategic organizational communication: in a global economy (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Critical Analysis: Organizational Silence

Critical Analysis:  Organizational Silence

By: Jody R. South

The purpose of this essay is to briefly summarize Bisel & Arterburn’s article entitled “Making Sense of Organizational Member’s Silence: A Sensemaking-Resource Model” (2012, pp. 217-226), including the authors’ intent and theory.  Further, the essay to follow shall endeavor to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article as well as my personal, subjective opinions of the material as it is presented.

Intent and Theory

The major theme of the article was the sensemaking abilities of, and reasons for, employee reluctance to provide negative feedback to their managers and supervisors. Out of a sample of 226 adult employees, “180 (79.65%) were able to recall a situation in which they refrained from providing negative feedback” (Bisel & Arterburn, 2012, p. 219). Staff defended their quietness by employing both identity and expectation as sensemaking resources (p.219). Workers reasons for not reporting negative feedback are contained in the later portions of this paper. The article closes with a recommendation for further research into the causality of organizational silence (p. 224).

            

The article is rooted in several theories and philosophical perspectives which informed the authors’ research.  Among these perspectives are the frequency and commonality of employee reluctance to report issues to supervisory personnel (Perlow & Williams, 2003), as well as theories related to the type of issues that result in employee silence (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003).  Other perspectives include the possible consequences of delivering negative information (Withey & Cooper, 1989) and the ethics of employee silence (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008).

            

A theory postulated by Morrison and Milliken (2000) regarding the subtleties that lead to employee silence and how that silence thwarts organizational change, is a guiding concept that they employ throughout the article.  A large part of this theory centers on the possibility that corporate culture and sensemaking mutually affect each other (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

            

The research performed by Bisel and Arterburn (2012) supplements the theory of Morrison and Milliken (2000) by studying how employees make sense of their decision to remain silent when presented with the opportunity to present negative feedback to management.  They then explain the procedure that they believe creates a silent culture.  The research question posed by the authors’ to those surveyed was as follows: “In what ways, do employees make sense of their decision to refrain from providing upward negative feedback to their supervisor, about their supervisor (i.e., remain silent)?”  (Bisel & Arterburn, 2012, p. 219).

Methodology

The methodology employed in the study included the subjective responses of the aforementioned sample of 226 employees, of which 180 “were able to recall a situation in which they refrained from providing negative upward feedback” (Bisel & Arterburn, 2012, p. 219).  The sample that included those employees who refrained from reporting negative information was comprised of roughly 65 percent females and 35 percent males, and an average of 40.86 years of age (p. 219).  These respondents were primarily based in one of 25 American states with the exception of a single Australian (p.219).  The experience level of the employees ranged from new employees to seasoned workers on the verge of retirement age who had zero to 45 years of experience in a supervisory role (p. 219). 

            

The methodologies employed to measure and investigate failure to report negative upward feedback included the recruitment of individuals from the researchers’ networks of professional contacts (Bisel & Arterburn, 2012, p. 219).  These workers were then instructed to solicit five of their professional contacts, and so forth, until the desired sample size was achieved (p. 219).  The individuals that agreed to participate in the study were then directed to take a survey over the Internet.  The survey included a permission form, a demographic questionnaire, an experiment, and lastly, the aforementioned research question (p.219).

            

The authors’ used a form of inductive, thematic data analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which was employed to isolate, evaluate, and note the major thematic data arrays.  Of the 180 responses to the research question, 213 reasons were cataloged (Bisel & Arterburn, 2012, p. 220).  Responses were then collected into two major sensemaking resource banks and five motivation categories (p.220).

Results

The five motivation categories and percentage of responses generated by thematic analysis included the following:

·         Predicting harm to themselves (70.42%)

·         Constructing the supervisor as responsible (13.62%)

·         Questioning their own expertise (5.63%)

·         Predicting supervisors’ deafness (5.63%)

·         Constructing timing as inopportune (4.69%) (Bisel & Arterburn, 2012, pp. 219-220)

These motivation categories were sorted into two significant sensemaking sources to explain the respondents’ resolutions to remain silent: “perceptions of their own and the others’ identities and expectations about the future as informed by hierarchy” (p. 220). 

            

According to the data, the motivations for not communicating negative information vertically indicated that most affected employees fear that voicing negative information would have an adverse effect on them personally (Bisel & Arterburn, 2012, p. 220).  Fears included anxieties about managers terminating the employee’s employment, reducing their compensation, and diminishing the likelihood of future advancement prospects (p. 220).  These fears often originated from past experiences. 

Bisel and Arterburn (2012) noted that “although this study explores workers’ retrospective accounts, case studies would offer more contexts from which to understand organizational silence” (p. 224).  They proposed an auxiliary investigation of employee silence by reviewing case studies with the purpose of furthering comprehension of the factors that propagate a culture of silence (p.224).

Critique

I believe that the scope of the article was much too large for the manner in which it was conducted and reported.  Had the hypothesis of the study had been limited to a more constrained dataset (e.g. mid-western, United States citizens in white-collar professions, etc.), the results would have been refined enough to predict motivations for employee silence with reasonable confidence.  This report further failed to characterize deeper demographic data that might have influenced employee motivations.  Demographics such as race, religion, and education have the potential to impact the study and should be considered and reported.  Demographics could have been taken into account to study relationships between numerous combinations of employer/employee associations.  As an example, it might be useful to note the interactions between Asian, males, between the ages of 20 and 25, in white collar professions to female Indian supervisors between the ages of 50 and 55.  These deep datasets seem cumbersome, but are easily achievable through the use of relational databases. 

            

I further believe that, given the latitude of study, the sample size was much too small to produce the confidence intervals required for predicting the outcome of such a large population parameter.  The confidence interval should represent “values for the population parameter for which the difference between the parameter and the observed estimate is not statistically significant at the 10% level” (Cox & Hinkley, 1974, p.214).  Therefore, if the significance of the factor exists outside of a 90 percent confidence interval, then the probability of the event occurring by chance is less than or equal to 10 percent.

The authors’ believe that the findings of the study add to the previously noted studies by Morrison and Milliken (2003).  Further, they believe that their sensemaking-resource model is a groundbreaking structure for comprehending the “cultural expectations from which workers draw to justify their silence as a reasonable course of action” (Bisel & Arterburn, 2012, p. 224).  They also foresee their model employed to enlighten senior leadership on the subject of employee silence as well as to promote and encourage the constructive vertical criticism that successful organizations necessitate (p. 224).

The findings of this study, in my opinion, were largely predictable.  Some of the most interesting information that might have been extrapolated from the data was not presented by the authors.  For instance, Bisel and Arterburn (2012) noted, en passant, that those employees who refrained from reporting negative information was comprised of roughly 65 percent females and 35 percent males (p. 219).  What does the disproportional number women to men say about female silence in the workplace?  This subject alone would have made a more compelling, and more utilitarian study.

To end on a positive note, I appreciated the methodology in which the study participants were solicited, so long as the pool of candidates remained indicative of the intended population under study.  Further, as a prerequisite to understanding the authors’ methodology for reasoning, I enjoyed reading about the dissimilarity between inductive and deductive reasoning from adscititious sources external to this report (Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett, & Thagard, 1989).

References

Bisel, R. S., & Arterburn, E. N. (2012). Making sense of organizational members’ silence: A sense-making resource model. Communication Research Reports, 29(3), 217-226.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2) (pp. 77-101).

Cox, D. R., & Hinkley, D. V. (1974). Theoretical statistics. London: Chapman and Hall.

Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., Thagard, P. R. (1989). Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Morrison, E.W., & Milliken, F.J. (2000). Organizational Silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706-725.

Miceli, M.P., Near, J.P., & Dworkin, T.M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Milliken, F.J., Morrison, E.W., & Hewlin, P.F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453-1476.

Perlow, L., & Williams, S. (2003). Is silence killing your company? Harvard Business Review, 81, 52-58.

Withey, M.J., & Cooper, W.H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521-539.

Literary review: Interpreting (the Work and the Talk of) Baseball: Perspectives on Ballpark Culture

            Interpreting (the Work and the Talk of) Baseball: Perspectives on Ballpark Culture (Trujillo, 1992) is a great example of ethnographic research.  The intent of the article was to convey that communications between major league baseball park employees generate and sustain three prevailing views of stadium culture:  “The ballpark as a site of capitalist work, as a community for symbolic family members, and as a theatre for social drama” (Trujillo, 1992, p. 350).  These interpretations are then further considered through the eyes of three groups:  romantics, functionalists, and critics.

            The author’s interpretive approaches “focus on the symbolic aspects of human and organizational life, revealing how interactants use symbols to make sense of their everyday experiences” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).  Trujillo employed this approach by concentrating on the emphasis of the subjectivity, pluralism, and dynamism of the ballpark as an organization and deemphasizing objectivity, unity, and stability.  Ethnographically, the author considered both formal and casual communication practices of ballpark employees by collecting data through both observations and interviews over a period of two years.

            Through his study, Trujillo concluded, “there are at least three senses of baseball reality: the ideology of baseball as a business, the sociality of the baseball community, and the artistry of baseball as a drama” (Trujillo, 1992, p.364).  The author, having consulted subject matter experts, noted that the aforementioned schools of thought related to baseball “have different connotations depending on the world-views of those doing the interpreting” (Trujillo, p.364).  Therefore, due to dissimilarities in the human experience, opinions will vary from one person to the next.

            

Of the three frameworks employed by Trujillo, I believe that I most identify with that of the romanticist.  The author stated, “Romanticists interpret baseball in an ideal, even idyllic, way” (Trujillo, 1992, p.364).  To romantics, baseball is not so much about the business as it is about the feeling of community, artistry, and drama of the game.

            Functionalists, noted the author, “use sport to teach us about the realities of mainstream American culture and to demonstrate how sport helps us adapt to those realities” (Trujillo, 1992, p.365).  They consider baseball a metaphor for American business, human assimilation into society, and social values (Trujillo, p.365).

            

            The framework that appealed to me in the least was that of the critic.  Trujillo noted, “Critics argue that sport is one resource through which dominant groups in America promote hegemony” (1992, p.365).  Ever the cynic, the critic contends that baseball is more of a business than it is a sport. 

            

            The author believes that researchers should “interpret their data from the world-views of the romantic, the functionalist, and the critic” (Trujillo, 1992, p.366).  These perspectives expose realities that the interpretive researcher can employ to uncover multiple dimensions of an organization. 

            It was apparent that Trujillo relied solely on qualitative data in writing his article.  Downs and Adrian (2004) noted that the influence of both qualitative and quantitative data “make better interpretations by synthesizing all the data, and they produce richer, more detailed final reports” (p.42).  They go on to state, “In addition, they are less likely to gloss over contradictions between the two types of data” (p.42).  I feel that while the author did an excellent job or relaying his message, his methodology leaned heavily on quantitative research methodology and could have employed more quantitative research.  I did not find that the article was particularly earthshattering, nor has it impacted the way that I might view an organization.  Nevertheless, it did provide me with another excellent example of the importance of ethnographic research and assessment of organizational communications.

Cited:

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann.

Downs, C. W., & Adrian, A. D. (2004). Assessing organizational communication: strategic communication audits. New York: Guilford Press.

Trujillo, N. (1992). Interpreting (the work and talk of) baseball: Perspectives on ballpark culture.             Western Journal of Communication, 56, 350-371.

Servant-Leadership: James Lovell of Apollo 13

Servant-Leadership:  James Lovell of Apollo 13

By: Jody R. South

This paper shall endeavor to analyze the leadership philosophy of James “Jim” Lovell, Jr. as portrayed by Thomas J. Hanks in the motion picture Apollo 13 (Howard & Grazer, 1995) and to compare his methodology to that of the philosophy of servant-leadership.  Furthermore, it is not the intent of the author to critique the leadership style the actual former NASA astronaut depicted in the aforementioned film.

Additionally, this paper shall consider the organization in which Lovell worked, some of the main characters that he interacted with, and the manifestation of servant-leadership as demonstrated in the plot and subplot.  Lastly, this review shall conclude by briefly examining Lovell’s developmental stage as framed by Torbert & Fisher’s developmental model of work and leadership (Fisher & Torbert, 1995).

Corporate Culture as a Catalyst for Servant-Leadership

In order to investigate the leadership practices of Hanks’ character it is important to consider the corporate culture of the institution in which he operated.  As a government agency, NASA is a very structured and organized organization with a clear division of labor as well as policies, procedures and systems that allow for a unified effort toward a common goal (Bolman and Deal, 2008, p. 15). 

NASA's missions are by no means short term projects and take many man-hours to complete their goals.  Each mission to the moon was planned for years and each member of the crew trained many hours as shown in the film.  Even though this specific mission was not successful, there was a clear goal and strategy placed behind the mission.  To add to this point, later in the film, NASA had to scrap the old mission to the Moon and instead start a new one - how to get the astronauts home.  Not an easy thing to do, as mission planning normally takes years.  However, NASA leadership demonstrated that they could remain relatively calm in the face of danger.  Ground-based mission control had to make a tough decision when they decided to close the reactant valves to the fuel cells, thereby aborting the moon landing phase of the mission.

In the film, NASA was mostly portrayed as an organization of trust.  During several instances (most notably in mission control during the initial failure and later during rescue mission planning) Gene, the Ground-Based Flight Director, had to trust key personnel and adopt their recommendations without further inquiry due to the time constraint. 

During the planning of the rescue mission, it was evident that NASA also had a culture of open communication.  All personnel expressed their concerns without regard of rank and file.  Leadership, however, was at all times in control and all voices silenced when the White team Flight Director, Gene Kranz spoke.

NASA was also portrayed as a team environment.  In an early scene, after a three hour training simulation, Mattingly noted that he would like to run through the simulator an additional time as he was not satisfied with his rate of turn and fuel burn.  Although the other astronauts noted that they needed to be well rested for another event, they operated as a team and agreed to reenter the simulation.  This showed a high degree of professionalism. 

Several events in the movie can be noted for their focus on interpersonal relationships.  NASA often functioned as an extended family for the astronauts and ground-based employees.  Like any typical family, employees of the agency were concerned with the welfare of its fellow members; and like any typical family, its members also shared frustrations and minor in-fighting as portrayed during the scenes where the flight surgeon expressed the need for crew rest in order to maintain crew health and to enable the crew to make sound decisions during critical portions of their return to Earth. 

CAPCOM 2. 13, we just got another request from the Flight Surgeon for you to get some                            sleep.  Don’t like these readings down here.

JAMES LOVELL. [Tearing off his biomeds] Let’s see how he likes this.  I am sick and                                               tired of the entire western world knowing how my kidneys are functioning!

DR. CHUCK. [after Lovell's heart rate flat lines] Flight, we just lost Lovell!

CAPCOM 2. 13, Houston. Jim, we just had a bottoming out on your biomeds.

JAMES LOVELL. I’m not wearing my biomeds.

CAPCOM 2. [after Gene Kranz shrugs it off] Ok, Jim.  Copy that.

                [Jack and Fred now tear away their own biomeds]

DR. CHUCK. [after all three crew members flat line] Flight, now I lost all three of them!

GENE KRANZ. It’s just a little medical mutiny, Doc.  I’m sure the boys are still with us.                                               Let’s cut them a little slack, ok?  (Howard & Grazer, 1995)

Here, we see that some in-fighting inevitably occurred later in the film when there was a minor rebellion when the astronauts removed their bio-sensors so that the flight surgeon would cease his requests for crew rest.  Lovell and Kranz each do their part to reduce the stress of the crew by removing unnecessary, low-priority distractions.

Jim Lovell:  A Servant-Leader in Space

Throughout the film, Lovell, commander of the 1970 Apollo lunar mission, faced several leadership challenges, the majority of which were well orchestrated.  One such leadership challenge occurred early in the scenes of the movie when the flight surgeon grounded Ken Mattingly, the originally slated mission pilot, as it was believed that Mattingly had contracted the measles.  Jim Lovell, as the mission commander, had to make a difficult decision, continue to prepare for the mission with the back-up pilot, Jack Swiggart, or scrap the mission in hopes of a future mission.  Ultimately, the mission commander had to make the call to remove the pilot from the crew and continue to train for the launch. 

Jack’s initial failures in the simulator did not go a long way to restoring team confidence in his ability to pilot the mission.  However, Lovell defended Jack, saying “If I had a dollar for every time they killed me in this thing, I wouldn’t have to work for you” (Howard & Grazer, 1995).  Again, the Mission Commander had to make a choice.  Would they be a fully trained team in only two days’ time, or should they scrub the mission in hopes of a future mission?  In the end, it is difficult to tell if the reorganization of the crew affected mission performance in this situation as Mattingly never showed signs of contracting the virus, and the fact that the issues encountered on the mission were chiefly due to mechanical failures.  The initial mission of landing on the Moon was a failure.  It should be noted, however, that the restructured mission of returning safely to Earth was a huge success.

Lovell’s leadership style might best be described with the action logic of “The Achiever” in Torbert and Fisher’s developmental model of work and leadership (Fisher & Torbert, 1995) as evidenced by his ability to create a positive work environment while meeting both personal goals and the strategic goals of his organization.  Achievers, while an intermediate action logic along Torbert & Fisher’s continuum (1995), are highly goal oriented. 

They value effectiveness in the pursuit of goals and results much more than mere   technical efficiency and are able to recognize and allow for exceptions and contingencies.  They have a deep sense of responsibility, which can sometimes make them appear excessively duty bound, but they are keenly aware of the consequences of their actions and may go to significant lengths to avoid hurting others.  They are conscientious [and] show initiative (Thompson, 2000, P.128).

As an “Achiever”, Lovell’s ability to unite his crew under intense pressure allowed his team to operate with élan.

Conclusion

          The movie Apollo 13 has many characters that embody the philosophy of servant-leadership.

[T]he film is […] about the role communication plays in leadership, a subject both Kranz and Lovell appear to have thought through carefully.  By squelching intra-office and   intra-capsule arguments, never sharing incomplete or alarmist data, and maintaining a constant verbal -- and emotional -- lifeline between those on the ground and those off it, they maintain maximum control in a chaotic situation.  That, in turn, inspires confidence among both crews.  It's a crucial point: leaders certainly desire loyalty and passion, but if they fail to win their followers' confidence first, well, failure is not an option (Hofman, n.d).

Communication under pressure is paramount.  Lovell and his crew did an excellent job of communicating with ground-based mission control throughout the film.

           

           The ability to prioritize is another leadership quality that both Lovell and NASA were quite proficient.  When the time came to make the decision to abort the mission, it was made quickly and decisively in order to save the crew of Apollo 13.   

Lovell’s Servant-Leadership abilities were reinforced by NASA’s corporate culture of trust, open communication, and team work.  Throughout the film and throughout the mission, Lovell displayed characteristics of a servant-leader.  His leadership was exemplified in both his decision-making process, his genuine empathy, and the measures he took to not only protect his own live but those of his crew. 

 References

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. (4th edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fisher, D., and Torbert, W. R. (1995). Personal and organizational transformations. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofman, M. (n.d.). Everything I Know about Leadership, I Learned From the Movies. Inc.com. Retrieved February 13, 2014, from http://www.inc.com/magazine/20000301/17290.html

Howard, R. (Director), Grazer, B. (Producer). (1995). Apollo 13 [Motion picture]. United States of America: Universal Pictures.

Thompson, C. M. (2000). The congruent life: following the inward path to fulfilling work and inspired leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Entrepreneur.com: Leading as a Servant

Somewhere in my research for an ORGL paper this month, I ran across a great article on Entrepreneur.com. Check it out if you get a chance: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/231242#

Servant-Leadership: An Interview with Jason O’Donnell

By: Jody R. South

Servant-Leadership:  An Interview with Jason O’Donnell

Caveat: The name of the interviewee and the corporation for which he works have been changed at his request.  Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, business establishments, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.  

It is the intent of this paper to chronicle the interpretation, thoughts, and experiences of Servant-Leadership as articulated by Jason O’Donnell of Alliance Technology Corporation.  This paper shall also compare O’Donnell’s views Servant-Leadership with those of noted authors and subject matter experts.

Jason O’Donnell is a project manager for the Military Utility Assessment of emergent technologies.  O’Donnell leads a project team of eight individuals of diverse educational and professional backgrounds in the evaluation of emerging technologies for the United States Government.

Servant-Leadership

Prior to being interviewed, O’Donnell, having not been acquainted with Servant-Leadership, received a brief overview of the philosophy.  The following summation was the subject matter of the presentation.

Servant-Leadership, as defined by the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership is: 

A philosophy and set of practices that enriches the lives of individuals, builds better organizations, and ultimately creates a more just and caring world […] A servant-leader focuses primarily on the growth and well-being of people and the communities to which they belong.  While traditional leadership generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the “top of the pyramid”, Servant-Leadership is different. The servant-leader shares power, puts the needs of others first, and helps people develop and perform as highly as possible (“What is Servant-Leadership”, 2014).

While this quote succinctly sums up Servant-Leadership, it is merely conceptual in nature and not meant to encompass the whole of the philosophy.

O’Donnell, having been briefed on the tenants of Servant-Leadership, offered his own interpretation of the philosophy.  He believes that, as a general rule, most people have an innate desire to teach and to be taught (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).  However, metaphorically, O’Donnell noted that “there are those individuals that you can lead to water but you can’t make drink.  These people would rather be given a fish than learn to fish” (2014).  In circumstances such as these, he opined that leadership is not required (2014). 

There is a difference between leadership and management.  A Leader sees the big picture and is strategic in nature.  Actions taken on the part of a leader are calculated.  As I    understand Servant-Leadership, a cost-benefit analysis should occur.  If a servant leader      does not see that an employee is benefiting from our interaction, then the cost of my time     is much too high to continue (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).  O’Donnell believes that while all leaders can be managers, not all managers are leaders (2014).     

Jason further noted that “when an employee no longer responds to leadership, management is required.  A manager deals with the day to day monitoring and controlling of an employee.  Managers assign tasks and assure quality” (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).

In practice, O’Donnell believes that, “Servant-Leadership might prove to be a daily challenge” (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).  However, he also considers the philosophy to be the ideal to strive for.

One of the tenants of O’Donnell’s current personal leadership philosophy is that “an open-door policy is not enough” (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).  When asked to elaborate, he noted that many managers pride themselves on their open-door policy.  These managers believe that if an employee can speak with them at any time, without an appointment, that it is enough.  However, many employees are apprehensive or even fearful of approaching their leadership in this manner.  O’Donnell suggested that leadership should mitigate the risk of an employee not articulating an issue by managing while walking around.  O’Donnell stated that he learned this philosophy from his predecessor and that it is a popular tactic that many leaders employ (2014). 

“Management by walking around involves getting out of your office and visiting your employees.  This should be done daily or at least as often as possible, but not too often” (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).  O’Donnell cautioned that this should not be confused with micro-managing. 

Management by walking around is not about criticizing or micro-managing.  It is about recognizing employees for their good work and asking questions related to their job satisfaction.  Are they getting the support they need?  Do they have the right tools for the job?  Are they feeling overwhelmed?  Are they receiving enough training?  Take notes and follow up in a timely manner (2014). 

One can easily notice the similarities between Servant-Leadership and Jason’s methods of leading.

            O’Donnell has learned that not only is Management by walking around an effective leadership tool, it is also an effective tool for measuring corporate culture.  Jason noted, “When you roam the halls of an organization, take note of the type of items that are posted on bulletin boards.  Look at people’s desks, at break room walls” (personal communication, January 15, 2014).  Knowing what is important to an organization and to its employees is valuable and can be an excellent tool for any new leader.     

O’Donnell’s method of engaging his employees seems to embody the core of servant-leadership.  Greenleaf noted, “I have a bias about this which suggests that only a true natural servant automatically responds to any problem by listening first” (2002, p.31).  Jason’s capability to “listen first” allows him to gain a better perspective of his employees’ thoughts and concerns.  This, in turn, aids in employee morale and turnover.

Greenleaf also noted that “the best test, and the most difficult to administer is: Do those served grow as persons?  Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants” (1977, pp.13-14).  O’Donnell’s analogies of horse and fish seem to exemplify the quest to answer Greenleaf’s servant-leadership query.  However, Jason takes it a step further.  He then answers the unsolicited question of what to do with those that do not wish to learn or to grow by divesting these employees to the oversight and control of a manager as opposed to a leader, thus, freeing up leadership to help other employees that wish to cultivate their talents.

O’Donnell practices “management by walking around”.  As a terminology, “management by walking [or wondering] around” seems to have originated around the same time as servant-leadership.  Like servant-leadership, O’Donnell’s methodology seems to be quite effective in practice.  However, it does not, on the surface, seem to express the nurturing spirit of servant-leadership for the leader as well as the employee.  As a philosophy for leadership, the intent of servant-leadership is to:

…nurture human wholeness and human flourishing.  A conscious moral choice to serve arises from an innate desire for wholeness for self and for others; the desire for wholeness extends to and potentially engages all aspects of personal, relational, organizational and community development and functioning (Horsman, 2013).

Here, Horsman defines servant-leadership as not only a leadership philosophy, but as a way of life and a way of living. 

In the novel, The Journey to the East, the author’s message seems to consistently address giving life meaning (Hesse, 1957).  It is no wonder that Greenleaf was inspired by Hesse to develop the philosophy of Servant-Leadership, which seems to take “management by walking around” to a new level.  

Wilber found through anthropological and developmental psychological research, that humans possess an innate aptitude to develop from “ego-centrism towards progressively more expansive and inclusive levels of socio-centrism” (Wilber, 2006).  Wilbur, like Abraham Maslow before him, believed that people have a tendency to transcend motivations throughout their growth as human beings.

Conclusion

  It is undeniable that O’Donnell displays several characteristics of a Servant-Leader.  Over the past decade, many noted authors and subject matter experts have commented on and written about Servant-Leadership.  O’Donnell exhibits many of the characteristics enumerated by Larry Spears, such as listening, empathy, awareness, foresight, and commitment to people (1995, pp.5-7).  Jason’s predilection for “management by walking around” allows him to practice several of the aforementioned structures of servant-leadership.

References

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press

Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.). New York: Paulist Press.

Hesse, H. (1957). The journey to the East. New York: Noonday Press.

Horsman, J. (Director) (2014, January 7). Foundations Of Servant-Leadership. Introduction to Servant-Leadership. Lecture conducted from Gonzaga University January 7, 2014.

Spears, L.C. (1995). Servant leadership and the Greenleaf legacy. In L.C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

What is Servant-Leadership? (2014). Retrieved January 21, 2014, from https://greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/

Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality: A startling new role for religion in the modern world. Boston, MA: Integral Books.

Meaningful Work

In "The Congruent Life", C. Michael Thompson noted that, given the choice of retirement or the opportunity to work in any field they choose, that less than two percent of people surveyed said they would retire (2000).  Gini and Sullivan also noted that "Although the majority would prefer some other job to the one they had now, the overwhelming conclusion is that work in general is sufficiently important to us that we want it to be a part of our lives" (1989).  

How would you have answered this survey?  I believe that I would have said that while I love my job, there are so many more avenues that I would like to explore within my field of expertise.       

Cited: 

Gini, A. (1989). It comes with the territory: an inquiry concerning work and the person. New York: Random House.

Thompson, C. M. (2000). The Great Divorce. The congruent life: following the inward path to fulfilling work and inspired leadership (p. 25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.