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.

This Town - meh.

I feel a bit cynical, but I believe that Leibovich’s true motivation for writing Two Parties and a Funeral—Plus Plenty of Valet Parking! —in America’s Gilded Capital was to profit financially and professionally.  The novel, as I read it, borders on narcissism.  However, let’s say for all intent and purposes that the author’s intentions were pure.  I would imagine that the ethical norms and calculations that might inform Leibovich’s purpose in writing the book include those seemingly innate, possibly conditioned norms that include what I like to call the sniff test.   If an issue reeks of ethical and moral inconsistency, then it doesn’t pass the sniff test. 

The book is filled with instances where egotistical politicians and pseudo-politicians compromise their moral and ethical integrity for political, financial, or professional gains.  However, in Western culture, fame and notoriety often outweigh one’s offences.  I believe that the author made an excellent point when he noted that “The life cycle of public disgrace has been condensed to where the actual offense gets washed away, leaving just a neutral sheen of notoriety” (Leibovich, 2014). 

Leibovich’s role as a journalist makes itself known throughout the novel as he attempts to “out” the truth about Washington politics leaving the reader to decide which individuals and political groups were morally “good” or “bad”…with some obvious and intentional attempts to sway that decision (journalists - nothing new here).  Thomas Wall noted when speaking about moral values and the theory of value, that “A morally good person is someone who routinely does what is right for the right reason.  The “right reason” means “with the proper motive, intention, attitude, and feeling” (Wall, 2008, p.68).  Therefore, it would stand to reason that “a morally bad person is someone who routinely performs immoral actions for the wrong reasons” (p.68).  Using this line of thinking, it would seem that most of the author’s examples (most of Washington) are morally reprehensible individuals…then why do we as constituents perpetuate the cycle?  We routinely elect and reelect morally corrupt individuals…we vote for politicians based on race, religion, family values and the like; not whether or not the individual can lead our country ethically on a morally sound footing. 

Cited

Leibovich, M. (2014). This town: Two parties and a funeral – plus plenty of valet parking! – in America’s gilded capital. New York, NY: Penguin Group

Wall, T.F. (2008). Thinking critically about moral problems. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.     

Trustworthiness in the White House

In Chapter 11 (no moral/ethical bankruptcy pun intended) of Mark Leibovich’s novel, This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral--Plus, Plenty of Valet Parking!--in America's Gilded Capital, President Barack Obama’s highly publicized policy of banning lobbyists from the White House comes under fire once again in Leibovich’s typical sarcastic, yet entertaining tone (2014, p.261).  Obama’s pledge as a candidate for the presidency was that he would not allow lobbyists to hold any sway of the dealings of the White House.  However, it has since become common knowledge that his closed-door policy toward the lobbyist community has transformed into a revolving door.  With a quick glance at the presidential approval ratings, one can easily see the President’s loss of credibility amongst the American people.  “Credibility is mostly about the consistency between words and deeds.  People listen to the words and look at the deeds.  Then they measure the congruence.  A judgement of “credible” is handed down when the two are consonant” (Kouzes & Posner, 2011, p.33).  The breach of ethical standards here boils-down to the trustworthiness of a public official.  Some may say that other members of the President’s cabinet also had a hand in permitting lobbyists to permeate White House transactions.  Nevertheless, the leader should set the precedence and retaliate against those who would undermine his policy.  “The more seriously you treat your own commitments, the more seriously others will treat them; if you take your promises lightly, others will also” (p.80). 

Cited

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2011). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it (2nd ed., p. 33). San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Leibovich, M. (2014). This town: Two parties and a funeral--plus, plenty of valet parking!--in America's gilded capital (1st ed., pp. 261-293). New York, NY: Penguin Group, LLC.

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.