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.