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