Archive for Lisa Christie

Humanizing Systems — from Carman de voer

February 22, 2009 / / No comments

Hi Lisa,  Thank you for enriching and expanding the Organization as Theocracy metaphor. I especially enjoy the way you integrate the concepts into your own educational and industrial experience. I am excited by the potential praxis of reflection and action we’ve ignited which demonstrates the power of thought to “negate accepted limits and open the way to a new future,” to quote Richard Shaull.

Lisa, you may always ask me whatever you like.  Refreshingly, and unlike Theory X organizations, we are not consigned to a ‘culture of silence’. As regards theological studies—No. I have no background in theology or religious studies. I threaded my essay from strands of thought furnished by Max Weber. I inclined to inquire into the origins of psychic prisons. I do, however, read a range of secular and sacred material, which leads me to conclude that the greatest literature is the literature of leadership.

To illustrate: When Vaclav Havel speaks about humanizing systems that ‘serve the individual rather than vice versa.’ I see a parallel in the New Testament (‘dissident intellectual’ Jesus washing the feet of his rabbis in training—apostles—and directing them to do likewise to ‘one another’). It’s curious that such a potentially powerful educative act can transmogrify into the caricature annually enacted by the Vatican.

Thank you for discussing ‘absolute hierarchies’ Lisa. I tend to think of my theocracy metaphor as a continuum of organizations—exhibiting an array of colors from white to grey to black—depending upon the unique profile or idiosyncratic nature of the ‘entity’ (i.e., mission, vision, values). Economic and survival stressors can, I believe, expose the organization’s location on the continuum. The touchstone would be the extent to which the system serves the individual rather than vice versa—to invoke Havel. We might put it this way: ‘If an organization was arrested for consistently treating employees humanely, would there be enough evidence to convict it?’

 Your question, “what does it look like to take a more hemispherically balanced approach to organizations?” transits us from organization as Instrument of Domination to Organization as Brain. I’m excited about that. By the way Lisa, your comment “traditional bureaucratic organizations were substantially shaped by a theory x worldview.  This stymies the highest aspirations of many leaders who are effectively driving with the parking brake on…” is brilliant! Beautiful analogy too.

Bye for now!

Carman

p.s.  I saw a seal swimming close to Lion’s Gate Bridge yesterday. I stopped, looked at it, and said, “I see you!…” Indifferent to my presence, it gracefully disappeared into the water.

Category: All Posts, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Values /

Reply to Organization as Theocracy

February 21, 2009 / / One comment

Carman, What a creative essay! It sounds like you have a background in religious studies or theology. May I ask if that is true? 

The organization as theocracy metaphor is a potentially useful one in that it’s been multiply observed ( I hope my readers will forgive me for not looking up the references) that our understanding of the Divine (or Sacred) order shapes our understanding of the ideal social order.  As you mention, although Western culture has its deep roots in a more organic worldview, it has been strongly shaped by Protestant ideas and ethics. 

For example, conservative theologians interpret the maleness of Jesus to affirm God as male, and therefore, as an endorsement of male dominance (patriarchy) in the human social sphere.  Alice Miller, author of For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and the Roots of Violence, observed that in pre-World War II Germany, children were raised to be reflexively obedient to the father. This was understood to socialize them to be obedient members of the larger societal hierarchy, and therefore, in correct relationship to God. 

Throughout history, political leaders have often claimed divine endorsement.  In secular culture, God may not be imagined to be at the top of the social pyramid, but those at the top may still be seen as God-like.  I have heard the religious metaphor used within organizations. For example, in one institution, it was said that the president and founder reported to the board, and the president’s spouse, who was also involved in the business, directly reported to God. In another, a colleague would remark dryly, “I’m on a mission from Ray…” (the CEO). 

There’s a sense in which our understanding of power per se is derived from our understanding of divine power. (It follows that a shift in worldview can also shift our understanding of the nature of power…).

What I’m hearing you say in your essay, is that, in a sense, that absolute social hierarchies, create or reinforce the objectification of others.  An absolute social hierarchy would be one in which one person is understood to be superior (rather than differently gifted, knowledgeable or skilled) than another. A theocracy is an absolute social hierarchy, with some members considered closer to God (or an absolute standard of Godliness as interpreted/embodied by the human at the head of the divine hiearchy).  We also know that  absolute hierarchies have historically led to the exploitation and abuse of those considered “less than fully human.” I would include lots of examples here, but they are all grim, and I am aiming for a lighter tone! 

In my experience — at least in the high technology industry –knowledge-based organizations often can’t be described as theory x organizations. At the same time, I don’t see many knowledge-based organizations as fully expressing a theory y orientation. I think this is because traditional bureaucratic organizatons were substantially shaped by a theory x worldview.  This stymies the highest aspirations of many leaders who are effectively driving with the parking brake on…

Your post also ties in the strategies of rational control. The left brain gives rise to and is analogous to the structures of the control in the bureaucratic organization. It is also that part of us which seems to make objects of “things” so as to manipulate them. The right brain takes the world in as a gestalt, without sealing the self off from it.  It is holistic and inclusive.  http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/03/22/experience-of-right-and-left-hemispheres-of-the-brain/

As humans, we have both capacities for experiencing our selves as separate and as continous with the world. However, Western culture emphasizes the former and subordinates the latter. If we were to use our brains in a more balanced way, we might expect to be more creative and innovative, individually and collectively.  I’m wondering, what does it look like to take a more hemispherically balanced approach to organizations?

http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2009/02/21/organization-as-theocracy-metaphor-from-carman-de-voer/

Category: All Posts, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy /

What prevents us from regarding others as whole human beings?

February 17, 2009 / / 2 comments

Carman, I am so enjoying our dialogue and appreciate your posts here. The small details you add about your experience paints a picture of someone who already lives the experience of Partnership.  I am looking forward to reading your post on “Organization as Theocracy.” These guiding metaphors really shape our realities, don’t they?  Have a good week! Lisa

From Carman de voer:

Hi Lisa,  Your compliment is both gracious and generous. It is such a privilege to share this sacred space.  I love our ‘creative communion,’ if I may put it that way.

As I expected, your response to my post ignited a paroxysm of contemplation into which I was baptized while walking the Sea Wall today—(as an employee of the provincial government I am granted an extra day off every second weekend).

Actually, I experienced a wonderful synergy between the Sea Wall and your implied question, ‘What is it that prompts us to regard other people as objects?’ Or, to re-frame the question, ‘What is it that prevents us from regarding others as whole human beings?’

I expect to explore these issues when I hop off the hamster wheel this weekend (unfortunately, however, I will still be in the Iron Cage, according to Weber 🙂

When return I hope to create a new metaphor: “Organization as Theocracy”. As a ‘template of transmogrification’ I hope it will speak to the subject/object dichotomy ubiquitous in modern organizations.

Bye for now!

http://www.freewebs.com/mythologyoforganization/index.htm

Category: All Posts, Organization, Philosophy /

Response to “Towards the Re-Humanization of Work”

February 15, 2009 / / One comment

Carman, You are a prolific writer and thinker!  You make several points in your post that all deserve some reflection and response. 

Yes, the Cave metaphor seems to “work” for world views/paradigms in general, and it can, therefore, certainly be applied to the worldview which shapes traditional organizations.  And, a — perhaps the — guiding metaphor of that worldview is world (and hence organization) as machine.  And you rightly point out that that philosophy and the social structures which stem from it are frequently dehumanizing, and therefore degrading.  Philosophically, this is the natural outcome of treating people as objects rather than subjects in themselves.  

I appreciate Morgan’s use of the prison analogy, in that there is a real sense in which we tend to be limited by our own perspectives and patterns of thought and by the social structures we create based on those perspectives.  It is potentially instructive to observe the parallels between prisons and traditional organizations. Prisons are, after all, traditional organizations, in which most of the organizational members are not free volunteers.  (Perhaps in the same way that you and Morgan are suggesting is the case with organizational members who may have very limited options for employment, families to feed, etc.)  Therefore, the dynamics of absolute hierarchy and pervasive ethic of control are seen in a clear and harsh light.     

That said, every metaphor has it’s limitations. In my view, the prison metaphor risks reinforcing the sense of disempowerment that Dominator systems (Systems based on absolute hierarchy and command and control cultures) cultivate.  Fortunately, most of us are not in prisons to which others hold the keys. Rather, we have the power of perspective and some measure of creative freedom to shape our circumstances, including our organizations.  (Yes, in some cases our measure of creative freedom is small, and change is slow…)  I personally like the hamster wheel analogy, because it offers the possibility of jumping off!

I appreciate your bringing in Eleanor Roosevelt and her question, “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home — so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any map of the world.”  Riane Eisler would also add that most of us learn about power relationships and human rights in our first and most intimate relationships – that of our families.

As you write, “The Fifth Discipline calls for ‘a new organization … that is more consistent with human nature.”  It recognizes human rights. In the language of philosophy, this new organization would not see some members as “subjects” and others as “objects” but treat all members as subjects in their own right.

So, there’s a natural circling around to our inquiry on the nature of this transformation at a personal leadership and social/organizational level, perhaps beginning with psychological dynamics in the context of social relationships (and the larger environment).

We could, for example, inquire into the dynamics that can lead us to imagine other people as objects. As one professor at the California Institute of Integral Studies, asks his classes, to stimulate reflection, “What’s up with that?”  🙂

http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2009/02/15/towards-the-humanization-of-work-from-carman-de-voer/

Category: All Posts, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy, Psychology /

The Ideal Leader

February 11, 2009 / / 2 comments

Carman, Thank you for another exceptional post. Yes, all the thinkers you mention shape the lens through which we perceive our environment and the implicit assumptions we have about leadership and organizations. I  look forward to continuing this invigorating conversation, as our time allows. Have a great day! – Lisa

Hi Lisa, Proceeding on the assumption that a sub-theme of the cave allegory is the search for the ideal leader I would like to explore two dimensions of the cave allegory:

• The prisoners: who are bound to the floor and unable to turn their heads to see what goes on behind them.

• The puppeteers: who above and behind them are casting the shadows on the wall in which the prisoners are perceiving “reality”

The cave is diagrammed at the following site:

http://normanrschultz.org/Courses/graphics/Platocave.JPG

Your blog’s Mission Statement says:

“According to Montuori, the bureaucratic structure and the modern management style, still used by many organizations, is an historical creation, developed and adapted by men for a particular purpose and environment. As a historical creation, it reflects the assumptions its creators held about about the nature of the world, and us as human beings.” Too true!

 I see both leaders and led chained to the floor of the cave. Behind them are pupeteers Democritus and Leucippus, and Aristotle  who posited that –the Natural world can be understood as mechanical interaction, Rene Descartes—the separation of mind and body, Isaac Newton—who understood the universe as a celestial machine, and more recently, Adam Smith (mass production) Charles Babbage (line of authority) and Frederick Taylor (Management).
 
 I believe Taylor’s Scientific Management has been most influential in shaping our conception of “leadership” (which is, in itself a metaphor).
 
 As we know, Taylor posited:

• Separation of task conception and execution
• shifting responsibility for organization of work to management
• scientific methods for efficiency and precision
• training
• matching job and person

Perhaps we can discuss the above when we find some time Lisa.

Category: All Posts, Leadership, Organization, Philosophy /

Psychic Prisons – Metaphor of Plato’s Cave (from Carman de voer)

February 9, 2009 / / 2 comments

More compelling contributions from Carman de voer! 

Hi Lisa,  With predictable perspicacity you observe that we cannot “un-ring the bell” –we may be “drawn back into comfortable, habitual ways of thinking and being.” Your comments afford a splendid segue into the Organization as Psychic Prison metaphor.

Morgan says, “all theories of organization and management are based on implicit images or metaphors that lead us to see, understand, and manage in distinctive yet partial ways,” (p.4) One such metaphor is the psychic prison–Plato’s Cave.

Plato’s Cave

In many respects, Plato’s allegory reminds me of a movie theatre. The following site reproduces the extended metaphor:

http://www.fdl.uwc.edu/faculty/rrigteri/Allegory.htm

I notice that the cave allegory contains some of the following elements:

• Cave people are chained so that they cannot move
• They can see only the cave wall in front of them
• The fire behind them throws shadows of people and objects onto the wall
• The cave dwellers equate the shadows with reality
• The shadow reality of the cave is the only reality they know
• One of the cave dwellers leaves the cave, experiences another world, and returns to the cave to explain the new perspective
• The cave dwellers resist and ridicule the revelation.

To echo your observation, “favored ways of thinking can be so strong that even the disruption is often transformed into a view consistent with the reality of the cave” (Morgan, p.219).

Perhaps we could integrate the allegory into our experience of organizations Lisa?

Reference

Morgan, Gareth (1997). Images of Organization. Sage Publications.

P.S. While writing this entry KUWY played Ravel’s Minuet Antique. During the piece I became like Icarus hovering between heaven and the sea. Rapturous! Thank you for creating this Lyceum Lisa– a wonderful ‘place’ of refreshment and renewal.

From Additional examples of radical transformation & on bells staying rung, 2009/02/08 at 7:59 AM

Category: All Posts, Organization, Vision /

Perspective & transformation

February 7, 2009 / / No comments

Carman, Your example of the transformation of Scrooge in the Christmas Carol, illustrates how third parties can stimulate transformation by helping a leader see the current situation and dynamic more clearly, and consider new perspectives and possiblities.

This whole area of the process of transformation is intriguing. By definition, it involves some kind of diversity — an encounter with a different perspective through dialogue or “cognitive diversity.” For me, cognitive diversity, in practice, means accessing our holistic, creative, “right brain” as well as our analytical, sequential “left brain.”  Transformative spiritual experience, creativity, imagination and vision, seem to strongly involve “right brain” processes. (A neuropsychologist would, no doubt, point out that this is a gross oversimplification).  

The process of coaching involves both aspects — the holding of the mirror, to help a person see more clearly what is otherwise too close to see — to see lens with which we see the world, so to speak,  and the facilitation of imagination, to experience a new perspective.  

When we are able to see the lens with which we see the world, we have already experienced a cognitive shift in that we have separated who we are (the observer) from a particular perspective, and we have freed ourselves to more readily explore perspectives that are healthier, more effective, etc.

The act of imagination, envisioning other possiblities, is extraordinarily powerful and taps a vast intelligence. Because in the West, we so strongly identify with our rational egos and our analytical, sequential thought processes, that we overlook the genius within each of us — that intelligence that creates entire worlds in our dreams, for example. It’s not always completely rational, but it contains all the connections that are not always visible to our sequential thought processes.  

In discussing spiritual transformation, William James makes the point that when we’ve exhausted our usual resources, when our rational-analytical processes fail us, we then, often in despair, throw ourselves open to other possibilities, and experience a shift and illumination. And Zen koans operate on a similar principle: the left brain lets go and there is a shift in perspective. 

Transformative leadership need not, in my opinion, involve complete illumination, but I think the inherent humility of recognizing that “we are not our thoughts and perspectives” and our consequential ability to imagine new possibilities — to dip into our own creative potentials, is key to personal and organizational transformation. 

Carman, I enjoy your notes about the environment, there. It sounds beautiful. It’s been raining heavily here; we need it!  Best wishes, Lisa

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Creativity, Diversity, Education, Leadership, Organization, Psychology, Spirituality, Vision /

Additional examples of radical transformation & on bells staying rung

February 7, 2009 / / 2 comments

Wow, Carman, your discussion of sudden and radical transformation throws open some doors that would be interesting to follow!

Yes you draw an apt and fruitful comparison between transformation per se and spiritual transformation. In addition to the Christian concept and experience of metanoia that you discuss, this kind of spiritually transformative experience is found in other religious contexts and outside of them, as well, suggesting that it is a universal human experience.  Some examples are: the themes of birth-death-rebirth or descent and emergence in the Mysteries, shamanic experiences of dismemberment and reconfiguration as a “new person”; Eastern enlightenment experiences, and also the sponatneous “cosmic consciousness” described by Burke. Also, there are rites of passage in many cultures that lead to new roles and ways of being in the world. No doubt I am omitting many other important examples.

This kind of reordering or “re-membering” is sometimes understood to be literally healing, and also reflects an improved and more “appropriate” (for the lack of a better word in the moment) relationship the context or larger whole.  This process or whole “event” is compellingly interesting in itself.

From what I understand, these kinds of radical transformation are not always “sticky” in that it can be easy to revert to former ways of thinking and being. However, as much as we are drawn back into comfortable, habitual ways of thinking and being, one cannot entirely “unring” the bell.  And, thus we create a vision or carve out a space for a new way of being, and we can begin to create new habits in that space. I’m reminded of the famous face/vase illusion. After seeing the new perspective, we can still revert to our original perspective; however, having seen it’s complement, we can more easily find it again.

http://www.uic.edu/com/eye/LearningAboutVision/EyeSite/OpticalIllustions/FaceVase.shtml 

Would you agree?

Category: All Posts, Change, Education, Leadership, Organization, Spirituality /

Transformational Processes – Radical Transformation

February 4, 2009 / / 2 comments

What can we learn from experiences of transformation outside of the organizational context, that we might aid us in re-configuring our organizations to a more healthful relationship to their enviroments (and internally)?   Here are some compelling reflections on radical transformation, using the example of the Christian experience of metanoia, from Carman de voer.  Interesting conversation, Carman!

Hi Lisa, Your summary is superb:  “every worldview generates values and a structure of living in accordance with that view.”

Senge’s Fifth Discipline seems to locate transformation (shift of mind or perception) within a crisic framework [i.e., there is an emotionally stressful event or traumatic change in a person’s life]. Transformation also appears to involve a radical re-ordering of reality. Hence, Senge’s recourse to Christian terminology, such as “repentance” [metanoia—lit. shift of mind] (p.13) with its veiled allusion to baptism.

In the adult baptismal ceremony there is “death” (falling backward into water), “burial” (disappearing under the water) and “resurrection” (emerging cleansed and renewed from the water). Senge declares, “what a shame that a man must “die” before he wakes up” (p.161). [Emphasis mine]

Transformation thus appears to include an epiphanic event that evokes seismic shifts in the tectonic plates of our assumptions. As history shows, the “Christian” worldview—espousing the death of a pre-existing order–  did generate values and structures in accordance with that view, to quote you Lisa.

In keeping with your references to “perception” Senge says that transformation—‘metanoia’ (p.13) results in “cleansing the lens of perception, awakening from self-imposed distortions of reality” (p.161) It’s telling that Senge speaks about “awakening”–as if one has been asleep in a death-like state.

Category: All Posts, Change, Leadership, Spirituality /

Transformative, holistic learning

January 31, 2009 / / One comment

Carman, Sorry for the long delay! My executive and career coaching practice includes working with people in career transition, and, unfortunately, many people are needing this kind of support right now.

Regarding transformation, you wrote:  “It changes ‘how’ we know. Change thus appears to involve the re-perception of reality. [It…] involves the ‘deconstruction of a given world-view and its replacement by a new world view.’ […] I believe it is superfluous to talk about collective (organizational) transformation without first clarifying individual transformation.”

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly. I suspect the reason many change efforts fail is that real transformation hasn’t taken at the individual level, and for change to hold, leadership must be transformed as well (hence, of course, the term “tranformative leadership”).

And, yes, I would also agree that personal transformation involves a re-perception of reality, such that the desired changes can be seen as a natural and normal part of being in the world (or organizations).

For example, most people would agree that the value of charity — lending a hand to those who need it — is a good one. However, behaving charitably does not come naturally to everyone — otherwise, there would be less want in the world. If our perspective is that the world is a collection of separate beings in competition for scarce resources, and we feel fearful, we might publically endorse the concept of charity, but not live by it. Rather, this world view leads to a different value, which contradicts the espoused value. This creates a culture in which it is understood that we say one thing and do another.

Similarly, in organizations, it’s not uncommon for people to espouse one value and then act in a way that is contrary to the value.

So, it’s interesting to consider the dynamics of that transformation… how does it happen?

Another consideration is the system itself. In this blog, I’ve primarily emphasized change from the inside out. There is also change from the outside in. In a nutshell, every worldview generates values and a structure of living in accordance with that view. If we are able to create a change in the structure, we may find that experience, perspective and attitudes change as well. 

For example, when I entered the field of software engineering years ago, women engineers were still a rarity, and I experienced some pretty blatant discrimination. In retrospect, I’m sure I was an affirmative action hire. Still, I did an exceptional job, and so did many other women. Over the years, affirmative action created a climate where the presence of women was considered more normal, and discrimination dwindled. 

Another example is compensation or performance management systems. We may prefer to behave in one way, but the system may shape our behavior in another…

Usually, the problem with this outside-in approach is that the structure is not strong enough for the new behavior to hold long enough to cause a change in perception.  It comes back to the perspective of human beings.  

That said, ultimately, for change to be sustained, the entire system, inclusive of psychology, sociology, organizational structure, processes, performance management system, culture, etc. must shift to be in sync with that change. This is, of course, the broader topic of organizational learning. It’s the systemic nature of this transformative learning, which I attempt to capture in my transformational-holistic-learning model.

It’s another full week for me, but hope to connect again, soon.

Category: All Posts, Change, Culture, Design, Diversity, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy, Psychology, Rewards, Teams, Values /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee