Along the same tangent which I took in my previous post, I was wondering if we can construct a model for capitalism in general, based on Hatch and Shein's models of cultural assumptions and values. I am beginning to wonder whether the capitalist model itself has many of the underlying assumptions that Enron embraced, including the social darwinian model which justifies in/out systems of values ("rank and yank"). For example, the prevailing capitalist thought is that people will be successful based on their own achievements - in other words, you get whatever part of the pie you deserve and want. Therefore, wherever you are in the economic ladder is appropriate for you. The "reality" which must be constructed in order for this to work is that 1) there is an unlimited supply of wealth and 2) everybody has equal opportunity and access.
In order for this model to hold, two things must be true (really true - not perceived to be so) - 1) there must be an unlimited supply of wealth and 2) ppl must have equal access/opportunity.
The second point has been proven false repeatedly. Studies of educational systems, where achievement gaps based on socio-economic factors including ethnicity and language determine one's ability to acquire credentials to move up, and a criminal justice system heavily biased toward a white wealthy population completely disprove that "truth" (assumption).
Furthermore, the supply of wealth is finite, allowing only so many people to continue to accrue it. As long as the wealthy are getting richer (money begets money), the poor can only become poorer. Unfortunately, the result of this is the fact that the United States ranks 49th in the world in terms of economic equality. That's right, our great nation is right up there with Sierra Leone and Uganda in terms of wealth distribution. Furthermore, those nations have a much greater (by more than 500%) shadow economy, which allows people in poverty to acquire means "off the records," thus increasing their personal income. The shadow economy in the US is extraordinarily low.
Do you think that the underlying assumptions behind capitalism are similar to those in the Enron movie? If we take the corporate culture and place it in the macroculture of America, where capitalism is part of our inherent belief structure, what can be said?
Friday, December 2, 2011
Oppression and hierarchy
Last night, we talked a a bit about oppression and hierarchy as it relates to corporate culture. Paulo Freire was brought up. We asked, who is oppressed? If a group is not aware of their own oppression, are they then oppressed? By extension, does lack of awareness mean that it is ethical to continue certain systems of behavior provided the oppressed is not aware of his/her own oppression? I would argue that it is not ethical.
If we use an example of people with less intellectual capability (mild retardation), I am thinking that everyone would probably be on board, although history shows that this was not always the case. Such ppl would not be aware of their own abuse or exploitation; therefore, it is our responsibility to ensure that they are not exploited or oppressed. So it is also unacceptable to exploit children. So why is it acceptable to oppress a group of people (blue collar workers, for example, or the "rank and file" on a corporate ladder) by training them to enact only obedience in order to justify the success and wealth of those above them? Why do we make the excuse that they are not oppressed, only living out the life which is suited for them?
If we use an example of people with less intellectual capability (mild retardation), I am thinking that everyone would probably be on board, although history shows that this was not always the case. Such ppl would not be aware of their own abuse or exploitation; therefore, it is our responsibility to ensure that they are not exploited or oppressed. So it is also unacceptable to exploit children. So why is it acceptable to oppress a group of people (blue collar workers, for example, or the "rank and file" on a corporate ladder) by training them to enact only obedience in order to justify the success and wealth of those above them? Why do we make the excuse that they are not oppressed, only living out the life which is suited for them?
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Social Darwinism in the business model
I found it fascinating tonight to see that the Enron Chairman based his business model and philosophy on Richard Dawkin's book The Selfish Gene. This led to the assumptions that those who get ahead are more fit (and therefore more worthy) than those who do not, and it lends justification to the values which say that whatever you do to get ahead is fine, no matter the cost.
This is the first concrete example that I am aware of which shows the movement illustrated in the Hatch article as the movement between symbol (the book) and assumption (that those who get ahead are naturally more deserving and fit). She calls this process interpretation, which makes sense considering that the process by which the contents of the book (the concept of social Darwinism) can only be internalized through interpretation, and then becomes an application when it manifests itself as values within the corporation.
Have you come across any other examples of the processes which are illustrated by the Hatch model for Cultural Dynamics?
This is the first concrete example that I am aware of which shows the movement illustrated in the Hatch article as the movement between symbol (the book) and assumption (that those who get ahead are naturally more deserving and fit). She calls this process interpretation, which makes sense considering that the process by which the contents of the book (the concept of social Darwinism) can only be internalized through interpretation, and then becomes an application when it manifests itself as values within the corporation.
Have you come across any other examples of the processes which are illustrated by the Hatch model for Cultural Dynamics?
Thursday, October 20, 2011
"Bad" and "good" meetings
In our new reading (Organizational Learning and Culture by Edgar Shein), Shein discusses some of his personal experiences when he was a consultant as he came up against culture in the organizations he was working with. On page 10 in his "Cambridge-at-home" example, he mentions that his consensus building technique used during their meetings was lauded by some and hailed as poor practice and just plain "bad" by others. He asks why this would be so.
I think that this is a clearly cultural phenomenon. Many people are educated into a paradigm where classrooms, meetings, schedules, and the "way things are" must be carried out in a specific and ordered manner. This is similar to having a positivist framework (everything has a positive answer, there is a reality which is "correct" and knowledge is the act of uncovering what is "real" and "true") rather than a constructivist framework which accepts that knowledge is individualistic, constructed through interpretation and subject to evolution. That is the more philosophical way to see this.
Or it might simply be that those individuals have been taught (in Pavolvian fashion) to associate "meetings" with certain sets of structure - such as an agenda, a single leader and a passive audience. They are most likely far out of their comfort zone being asked to participate actively, share in the construction of knowledge, or have to grapple with problems that have no clear cut answers.
In any case, in education it has become essential to understand how people come to acquire this type of thinking, because the push is toward creative problem solving and socially constructed knowledge (which is what we consider critical thinking) and away from positivism. So, my question (and there is most likely no defined answer - ha ha) is this: what are some ways to effectively teach adults to be comfortable in environments where socially constructed knowledge is the norm and where meetings are built on consensus through active participation? What are some of the obstacles? What are some of the consequences of the presence of both paradigms?
I think that this is a clearly cultural phenomenon. Many people are educated into a paradigm where classrooms, meetings, schedules, and the "way things are" must be carried out in a specific and ordered manner. This is similar to having a positivist framework (everything has a positive answer, there is a reality which is "correct" and knowledge is the act of uncovering what is "real" and "true") rather than a constructivist framework which accepts that knowledge is individualistic, constructed through interpretation and subject to evolution. That is the more philosophical way to see this.
Or it might simply be that those individuals have been taught (in Pavolvian fashion) to associate "meetings" with certain sets of structure - such as an agenda, a single leader and a passive audience. They are most likely far out of their comfort zone being asked to participate actively, share in the construction of knowledge, or have to grapple with problems that have no clear cut answers.
In any case, in education it has become essential to understand how people come to acquire this type of thinking, because the push is toward creative problem solving and socially constructed knowledge (which is what we consider critical thinking) and away from positivism. So, my question (and there is most likely no defined answer - ha ha) is this: what are some ways to effectively teach adults to be comfortable in environments where socially constructed knowledge is the norm and where meetings are built on consensus through active participation? What are some of the obstacles? What are some of the consequences of the presence of both paradigms?
Sunday, October 9, 2011
On Language and Culture
Now that we are tackling culture, I am interested in understanding the linkages between language and culture within an organization. In our IBM studies, we found that when Gerstner took the helm at IBM, he radically redefined the organization's culture in order to effect the changes which he wanted to take place within the organization. One avenue which he used to do this was to do away with some of the esoteric language which had previously been used and introduce a common language which was accessible to everyone. In the interviews which we conducted, we heard repeatedly how in the years after the Lotus acquisition, language within IBM changed from "client" to "customer" from "company" to "firm," etc. This shift in language was an important part of the cultural change process.
Furthermore, in my "spare time" I have been reading a book by Guy Deutscher, a linguist, called Through the Language Glass (2010, Metropolitan Books, New York, NY). In it, he explores the idea that our understandings are implicitly linked in fundamental ways to our language and its subsequent restrictions. He implies that the important aspects of culture and language are "those where culture masquerades as human nature" (p. 9). Since human nature is something which we have discussed in class, I was wondering what aspects of culture influence the way that we behave within an organization which previously would have been labelled "human nature?" Can you identify some aspects of behavior within an organization which you would have previously thought were merely part of human nature but which, upon a second glance, were actually learned as part of the tacit knowledge in the organization?
Or, if you prefer, how does the language in an organization define and steer the growth of organizational culture?
Furthermore, in my "spare time" I have been reading a book by Guy Deutscher, a linguist, called Through the Language Glass (2010, Metropolitan Books, New York, NY). In it, he explores the idea that our understandings are implicitly linked in fundamental ways to our language and its subsequent restrictions. He implies that the important aspects of culture and language are "those where culture masquerades as human nature" (p. 9). Since human nature is something which we have discussed in class, I was wondering what aspects of culture influence the way that we behave within an organization which previously would have been labelled "human nature?" Can you identify some aspects of behavior within an organization which you would have previously thought were merely part of human nature but which, upon a second glance, were actually learned as part of the tacit knowledge in the organization?
Or, if you prefer, how does the language in an organization define and steer the growth of organizational culture?
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Tacit Knowledge
After Thursday's discussion in class, I am somewhat consumed with trying to sketch out what I think is going on with tacit and explicit knowledge. Of course, I was wondering, why is a focus on tacit knowledge even important in our understanding of organizational learning? I came up with a few arguments:
1) Although we all acknowledge that the whole is not made up of the sum of the parts, the collective is made up of individuals and the individual plays a critical role in the assimilation of knowledge and culture within the organization.
2) One person's tacit could be another's explicit, and vice versa. In other words, what I know that we know, you might not know we know, and what you know that we know, I might not know we know. Since a major focus in our study is making the tacit explicit, this is a key to understanding how that process can be carried out (i.e. via member contributions and collaboration).
3) If we are to assume that organizations can have collective memory, then we imply that organizations have tacit collective knowledge, and anything which we learn about individual tacit knowledge might hold true also for collective knowledge. Therefore, finding out what tacit individual knowledge is could help us build a model for studying tacit collective knowledge.
Another reason which I am working on is the fact that tacit "knowledge" might not always be accurate or true, since it is a subjective construct. Therefore, what do we do if tacit meaning structures are found to be erroneous? To what extent do erroneous tacit meaning structures play a role in collective learning (or lack thereof)?
1) Although we all acknowledge that the whole is not made up of the sum of the parts, the collective is made up of individuals and the individual plays a critical role in the assimilation of knowledge and culture within the organization.
2) One person's tacit could be another's explicit, and vice versa. In other words, what I know that we know, you might not know we know, and what you know that we know, I might not know we know. Since a major focus in our study is making the tacit explicit, this is a key to understanding how that process can be carried out (i.e. via member contributions and collaboration).
3) If we are to assume that organizations can have collective memory, then we imply that organizations have tacit collective knowledge, and anything which we learn about individual tacit knowledge might hold true also for collective knowledge. Therefore, finding out what tacit individual knowledge is could help us build a model for studying tacit collective knowledge.
Another reason which I am working on is the fact that tacit "knowledge" might not always be accurate or true, since it is a subjective construct. Therefore, what do we do if tacit meaning structures are found to be erroneous? To what extent do erroneous tacit meaning structures play a role in collective learning (or lack thereof)?
Thursday, September 1, 2011
On time, space and trust in an organization
Chapter three in the readings this week (Dixon, 1999) brought to light the use of "Hallways" within an organization in order to promote collaboration, sharing of ideas and construction of new social meaning (org learning), with the hopes that the construction of these shared spaces will create the substrate for learning to occur.
It was brought up in class that the construction of such spaces is, in a sense, artificial. I would say that intentional creation of a space is no more artificial than, say, home decorations or the layout of a classroom. It is a suggestion as to what might go on inside, not a script which requires a certain outcome. However, I was fascinated by the idea that organizations can dictate the space which its members will be occupying in the same way that they can dictate how time is used within the organization.
There are various extremes to which they can take this. A typical meeting has both an agenda (time is dictated by whomever wrote it), and seating arrangements (spatially dictated by the authoritative figure leading the meeting), while a hallway might be a constrained space (here is your coffee bar/sofa/common area) but not temporally controlled (use it as you see fit). At the other extreme are completely unconstrained parameters - perhaps when one is telecommuting or is responsible for one's own field work. The bottom line is that it implies the organization offer it's members at least some element of trust in their own use of time and space. So my question to you is, to what extent is an organization's ability to learn contingent on implicit and explicit acts of trust?
My second question is, do different people deserve (or are they able to handle the responsibility of) different amounts of trust (in the context of use of space and time) within an organization, and if so, how does this impact collective learning?
Dixon, 1999. The organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively (2nd Ed). Hampshire, England: Mc-Graw Hill Book Company 0-566-08058-3
It was brought up in class that the construction of such spaces is, in a sense, artificial. I would say that intentional creation of a space is no more artificial than, say, home decorations or the layout of a classroom. It is a suggestion as to what might go on inside, not a script which requires a certain outcome. However, I was fascinated by the idea that organizations can dictate the space which its members will be occupying in the same way that they can dictate how time is used within the organization.
There are various extremes to which they can take this. A typical meeting has both an agenda (time is dictated by whomever wrote it), and seating arrangements (spatially dictated by the authoritative figure leading the meeting), while a hallway might be a constrained space (here is your coffee bar/sofa/common area) but not temporally controlled (use it as you see fit). At the other extreme are completely unconstrained parameters - perhaps when one is telecommuting or is responsible for one's own field work. The bottom line is that it implies the organization offer it's members at least some element of trust in their own use of time and space. So my question to you is, to what extent is an organization's ability to learn contingent on implicit and explicit acts of trust?
My second question is, do different people deserve (or are they able to handle the responsibility of) different amounts of trust (in the context of use of space and time) within an organization, and if so, how does this impact collective learning?
Dixon, 1999. The organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively (2nd Ed). Hampshire, England: Mc-Graw Hill Book Company 0-566-08058-3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)