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.  

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.