This chapter really kind of tied it all together for me. I have been trying to get the last three paradoxes to crystallize, and for some reason they still seemed too...complex...contradictory....to visualize. However, I think I can now grasp some of the practical implications of the paradoxes in a more meaningful way.
In the context that interests me (schools and school systems), I can see the paradox of scarcity. This framing pattern goes on between schools, districts, and even departments within a single school. The discordance which can lead to group cohesion (p 190) is visible along the administrator vs. teacher lines. In extremely dysfunctional schools (where I am sad to say that I have worked), this leads to endless conflict between the two groups, with administrators blaming teachers for their unscrupulous use of resources and teachers blaming administrators for not supplying the resources necessary to meet the basic needs of their classrooms.
Smith and Berg pay homage to Howard Shein at the bottom of p. 191 when they mention conflicts in values and goals. Within a school (where it is assumed by outsiders that the goals are the same for teachers and administrators), these value conflicts persist. Commonly, I see it as a result of attempting to reconcile outside demands and priorities with the needs of students and personal meanings associated with their respective positions. This can also be explosive, since what results has the potential of becoming a culture war between the two camps. Sadly, who pays for this is the students.
Smith and Berg portray these external conflicts as being neutral - we can't say that any one group is more right or wrong to adhere to their values or decide what boundaries to give up or stand firm to. I am very interested in the practical applications of these paradoxes, now that they seem to be pointing toward practical applications (for awhile there I was questioning the relevance). I may be reading the rest of the book out of personal interest now, instead of out of respect for the subject.
Do you have any practical applications of the paradoxes? Can you imagine how they can be used or referenced if you were trying to resolve conflict within an organization?
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Intelligent Decision Making
I found this section (chapter 9) valuable on many levels. For one, I started imaging how a board would effectively make decisions within an emerging non-profit - for example, which projects to create and which funders to involve and what evaluative tools to use, etc. I was seeing some of the working teams which I have been on which have been hasty to enact decision making processes and have then failed in implementation. "It is psychologically easier to adopt a quick solution strategy rather then to be patient, listen and search for collaborative solutions" (p. 161). I had never read or thought about the connection between decision making and implementation in this way before; and this definitely allowed me to think about how that connection plays out in the achievement of the goals (or the failure of implementation). Have you seen this happen in your workplace or in another setting?
I am fascinated by the concepts of group polarization and the Ringi Technique used for decision making. Group polarization could help explain extremism in many settings - critically important in understanding politics both locally and globally. This is obvious when someone who is not really religious becomes very religious within an outspoken religious group. It is also visible in cliques, when you have people enacting a stereotype to an extreme because that is the way to "fit in." Can you think of examples of group polarization? How do you think it has played out in history or is currently playing out in politics?
On the Ringi Technique, I tend to think that this could be a powerful way to avoid confrontation and to alleviate animosity when it comes to controversial issues. Also I am sure that it is not entirely anonymous, it would at least distance those members from each other who might otherwise be explosive in a group setting. However, I can also see that it might hinder the growth of the team in handling conflict. Do you see this as an avoidance strategy and if so, is it good for group development? Does it hinder the "process gain" (p. 148) which is the result of group decision making?
I am fascinated by the concepts of group polarization and the Ringi Technique used for decision making. Group polarization could help explain extremism in many settings - critically important in understanding politics both locally and globally. This is obvious when someone who is not really religious becomes very religious within an outspoken religious group. It is also visible in cliques, when you have people enacting a stereotype to an extreme because that is the way to "fit in." Can you think of examples of group polarization? How do you think it has played out in history or is currently playing out in politics?
On the Ringi Technique, I tend to think that this could be a powerful way to avoid confrontation and to alleviate animosity when it comes to controversial issues. Also I am sure that it is not entirely anonymous, it would at least distance those members from each other who might otherwise be explosive in a group setting. However, I can also see that it might hinder the growth of the team in handling conflict. Do you see this as an avoidance strategy and if so, is it good for group development? Does it hinder the "process gain" (p. 148) which is the result of group decision making?
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Paradoxes of Engaging
I was able to easily recognize two examples of the paradoxes of engaging (Smith and Berg, 1987, Chapter 6), one from our class and another from my job. During the first weeks of class, we were told to write the "Where I'm From" assignment, and, if we were comfortable with it, to post it to BlackBoard. I initially thought, well, that's fine, I will do it but probably not post it. I just couldn't imagine sharing it with a class group. Smith and Berg point out "the most natural thing to do is reveal only those things that we are sure will be accepted" (p. 112). On the day that the assignment was due, I went to blackboard and saw that all three of my team-members had posted theirs. Not only did I enjoy reading them, I realized that in order to be a part of the group, I better post mine as well. So I did. This allowed the process of trust to begin among our group members. Did you encounter any examples of Smith and Berg's paradoxes the first few weeks of class? If so, which ones?
The other example is also one of disclosure, but it comes from my work. This time, it pertains to feedback, which is the benefit of having a group to begin with. As Smith and Berg point out, positive feedback does not lead to learning. Negative feedback has the potential to lead to learning. At work, I lead professional development groups (learning communities) with teachers. It is clear when leading the groups how few people are accustomed to giving or accepting feedback which is anything less than glorious. My big challenge to is create an environment of trust and disclosure which allows the teachers to learn how to give and accept feedback which leads to learning. This means making them comfortable with vulnerability and criticism. I do something similar to the example on pages 122-125, where we share common fears and lay groundwork for trust to be built. I use modelling, protocols and sharing to carry this out. The group spends about 90% of the time talking and I listen and facilitate. This works very well with small groups, but I am not sure how to scale it up to be successful for a large group. Have you ever had to lead a large group to face and move beyond fears of disclosure and trust? How did you do it? If not, how do you imagine that you would do it?
The other example is also one of disclosure, but it comes from my work. This time, it pertains to feedback, which is the benefit of having a group to begin with. As Smith and Berg point out, positive feedback does not lead to learning. Negative feedback has the potential to lead to learning. At work, I lead professional development groups (learning communities) with teachers. It is clear when leading the groups how few people are accustomed to giving or accepting feedback which is anything less than glorious. My big challenge to is create an environment of trust and disclosure which allows the teachers to learn how to give and accept feedback which leads to learning. This means making them comfortable with vulnerability and criticism. I do something similar to the example on pages 122-125, where we share common fears and lay groundwork for trust to be built. I use modelling, protocols and sharing to carry this out. The group spends about 90% of the time talking and I listen and facilitate. This works very well with small groups, but I am not sure how to scale it up to be successful for a large group. Have you ever had to lead a large group to face and move beyond fears of disclosure and trust? How did you do it? If not, how do you imagine that you would do it?
Friday, December 2, 2011
Assumptions underlying capitalism
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?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)