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?
It's no secret that at the Fed we grapple with this very idea. We are trying to celebrate our differences and diversity of thought and are encouraging open discussion and dialogue to enhance collaborative learning, a core value of our organization. Still some fear retribution that they fail to engage. When one does engage, they say what they expect the other wants to hear, especially if management is involved. Others feel, "I've given my input, yet it goes unconsidered." I believe collaborative learning (constructed knowledge) leads to creative problem solving. I find though that like Schein says in his book, we have to first "unfreeze" whatever hinders the staff members from fully participating and engaging. This means doing away with the norms in action, not just by saying we are making changes to be a more inclusive organization. People are moved by what they actually see happening, rather than what we say we believe. A lot of cultures are built and reinforced over many, many years and the belief system that grows from this history is not easily penetrated.
ReplyDelete