Archive for All Posts

Dehumanization of Work

October 3, 2009 / / No comments

10/1/09  Hi Lisa,

Thank you so much for your gracious comments. It’s wonderful that our minds can interplay notwithstanding our constraints and commitments-you within an intellectual orchard, and me within a psychological sarcophagus.

 Lisa, you ask if I would like to see the discussion move up a little. I believe I would find it easier on the eye, if you don’t mind. I keep trying to post directly but the site simply won’t let me in. I will attempt again on the weekend. I also have a new e-mail address I’ll forward to you when time permits.

I’ve been doing a lot of demolition and re-construction on my Mythology of Organization. The wrecking ball has been my so-called ‘theory of thralldom.’

In closing, I thought you might enjoy a quote from Freire:

“People are fulfilled only to the extent they create their world, and create it with their transforming labor. If for a person to be in the world of work is to be totally dependent, insecure and totally threatened-if their work does not belong to them-the person cannot be fulfilled. Work that is not free ceases to be a fulfilling pursuit and becomes an effective means of dehumanization” (Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p.126).

Bye for now,

Carman

Category: All Posts, Design, Partnership /

Bullying in Dominator Systems

October 3, 2009 / / No comments

Hi Lisa,  I am happy to hear that you have experienced Partnership relationships where thralldom was not an active force. I would like to include myself in that relationship. Succinctly, I would say that “partnership” is more probable where one is not subject to the will of another. Even slaves experienced a kind of partnership, according to Patterson, in that they ‘had strong social ties among themselves though their relationships not recognized as legitimate or binding.’

However, as you observe, it is not enough to highlight elements of domination in our existing models of organization; it is also incumbent upon us to ‘explore some psycho-social-spiritual bridges to Partnership ways of being.’

I think I may have located one such a “bridge.” However, rather than rush to ‘prescription,’ I would like to devote more time to ‘description.’ Using raw materials from Patterson’s analysis of slavery, and incorporating the straight-edge of your critique, I would like to continue constructing a Theory of Organizational Thralldom that can speak to some of the more trenchant and troubling issues of organizational behavior. I want to demonstrate that asymmetrical power relations, characterized by domination and submission, activate the principle and practice of thralldom.

Let’s illustrate one such issue: psychological abuse, colloquially called “bullying.” To bully is to intimidate through blustering, domineering, or threatening behavior: workers who were bullied into accepting a poor contract (http://www.thefreedictionary.com). Bullied Persons are routinely forced into submission through fear. Now, most texts I’ve consulted approach this ubiquitous phenomenon through the perspective of the powerless. They typically treat the abused worker to psychology-How to understand the abuser, What are the characteristics of the abuser? How to personally cope, and so on. Because the systemic relationship remains untouched-and unchallenged-power continues to be weighted in favor of the abuser.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) website observes: “On June 1, 2004, Quebec became the first North American jurisdiction to include protection against psychological harassment of employees in its Act respecting Labour Standards.

Bullying, known as psychological harassment is defined as:

“Any vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affect an employee’s dignity or psychological integrity and that results in a harmful work environment for the employee. A single serious incidence of such behaviour that has a lasting harmful effect on an employee may also constitute psychological harassment” (http://www.cupe.bc.ca/stopbullying).

Two things stand out in the above:

1) Quebec is the first “North American” jurisdiction to legislate against the practice, and

2) “Protection.” There’s that word again.

In his discussion of injustice Patterson quotes an American ex-slave who recounts: “the most barbarous thing I saw with these eyes-I lay on my bed and study about it now-I had a sister, my older sister, she was fooling with the clock and broke it, and my old master taken her and tied a rope around her neck-just enough to keep it from choking her-and tied her up in the back yard and whipped her I don’t know how long. There stood mother, there stood father, and there stood all the children and none could come to her rescue.”

I have personally witnessed the verbal equivalent of such physical abuse as colleagues stood by and did nothing to stop a psychological assault. Patterson rightly asks, How could persons be made to accept such natural injustice? Not simply the victim but more particularly, “those who stood by and accepted it.”

Patterson isolates two dimensions: 1) denying the slave’s humanity, his independent social existence 2) the master’s authority was derived from his control over symbolic instruments, which effectively persuaded both slave and others that the master was the only mediator between the living community to which he belonged and the living death that his slave experienced.

Perhaps we can expand on the above dimensions later? I trust that as we cast our mental seine wide we will capture some really big ideational fish.

Bye for now,

Carman

I love listening to the University of Wyoming classical station in the morning. Saturday mornings are especially exquisite. I wonder how many seals I’ll see on the seawall today. Hey, that alliteration sounds a lot like ‘the big black bug bled blue blood.’

Reference:

Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study, Harvard University Press, 1982

Category: All Posts, Culture, Partnership, Power, Trust, Values /

(Reply) Freedom is Slavery

October 3, 2009 / / No comments

9/23/09 

Carman, Hello,
I apologize for the delay in posting and responding. I’ve been on a writing vacation for the past two weeks (continuing this week).

You’ve begun a powerful analysis of the dominator paradigm, and I am looking forward to reading how you further develop your tree of knowledge! It’s useful, I think, to expand our awareness of underlying structures and assumptions. (Even to the psycho-spiritual level).

You assert that thralldom “is the active force underlying virtually all relationships.” This is true by definition in dominator systems. On the other hand, I have experienced Partnership relationships where this is not the case. (And of course, my purpose in this blog is to both highlight elements of domination in our existing models of organization and to explore and describe some psycho-social-spiritual bridges to Partnership ways of being).

Thank you for sharing here!

Warm regards,
Lisa
P.S. We have a beautiful day here in Southern California on the cusp of Summer and Fall…

Category: All Posts, Partnership /

Freedom is Slavery

September 23, 2009 / / 5 comments

While the following may shock the sensibilities of some, I want to emphasize that I am doing sociology, not ideology. That is, I am not exalting one political system above another or indicting either management or labor. Rather, I am attempting to understand the themes of domination, exploitation, and dehumanization-recurring issues on this site. Hopefully, with your help as intellectual mid-wife, we can attempt to surface entrenched assumptions which I believe catalyze most human-to-human interaction.I learned something about the word “leadership”: “laeden” is to go upward and “schaeppen” is to create a thing of value. Evidently, the word “shop” derives from the suffix. We buy things of value in shops. However, like the Dutch word “boss,” “leader” essentially means “master.” You allude to leadership as a creative act in your question, “What steps can leaders take to create an environment of trust and safety to support open and constructive communication?” Both words connote the right to command and the duty to exact obedience.

For the past few weeks I’ve been attempting to give my vague notions about leadership more concretion-to surface and challenge my assumptions about leadership. The exercise is both fatiguing and exhilarating. I’ve also taken a deep mental plunge into Orlando Patterson’s book “Slavery and Social Death, A Comparative Study.” I am attempting to integrate Patterson’s insights into my own experience. The fruit of this synthesis is what I term

THEORY OF THRALLDOM
(Bondage, Slavery)

I DISTINGUISH:

-PRINCIPAL OF THRALLDOM
-PRACTICE OF THRALLDOM

As a principle, thralldom is the condition of being entirely subject to another’s will.

As a practice, thralldom is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others.

I submit that the principle of thralldom is the active force underlying virtually all relationships. It is the bedrock of all social interaction. Thralldom is complete control over someone who is subject to that one’s will. The controller is subject, the controlled is object. The controller is a person; the controlled is a non-person-a thing.
Thralldom has two dimensions about which you have spoken at length Lisa: 1) domination 2) dehumanization.
The Tree will illustrate how I see thralldom as a ubiquitous phenomenon:
Leaves and Fruit: labels, language, media, scholastic systems, products and services, which simultaneously obscure and express the reality of thralldom.

Branches: interpersonal and organizational expressions of thralldom (e.g., organization as machine, organism, instrument of domination, political system, psychic prison).

Trunk: thralldom [slavery] as social fact [reality]

Root System: propensity to dominate, legitimacy of the State and its military apparatus, ideology, tradition, forgotten history.

Thralldom is:

Mediated: by money
Modified: by the character of the organization
Mitigated: by labor relations and human rights legislation.

Based on the above, “freedom” would be the degree of “protection” within an experience of exploitation.

While the conditions of slavery vary from relationship to relationship the dimensions of domination and dehumanization remain constant.

For example:

• discipline: punishments and rewards
• subjection and submission: (inferior) status
• performance: duties performed under duress
• treatment: as objects, human tools, instruments
• perception: as commodities

If you like, I will expand on my research, which we can discuss and debate to our hearts content-time permitting of course.

Bye for now,

Carman (My new e-mail address is not yet established–please bear with)

Reference:

Leadership: http://www.learning org.com/98.04/0257.html

Category: All Posts, Ethics, Leadership / Tags:

Illuminating implicit assumptions about organizations

September 13, 2009 / / 2 comments

Hi Lisa, It’s so good to be back. Internet interruption, following a move to another apartment, has afforded me ample opportunity to consider your question: “What steps can leaders take to create an environment of trust and safety to support open and constructive communication?”

I consider your question to be “pragmatic” in that it concerns practical matters. However, what if the question were re-worded thus: “What steps can “workers” take to create an environment of trust and safety…” Your question, I suggest, insightfully acknowledges that in many modern organizations “all the thinking is done by the managers and designers [leaders], leaving all the “doing” to the employees.” Images of Organization, p.23. Parenthesis mine.

In the next few days I would like to proffer an “ontological” framework-wherein we question what exists and how it is defined and grouped within a hierarchy of meaning. Let’s call it a heuristic device because it will elaborate a conceptual framework for inquiry. I believe leaders and led might benefit by observing the shoreline of social fact when the tide of traditional thinking is out.

While not side-stepping your excellent question Lisa, I would like to propose some of my own: How many learning programs are devoted to the behavior of leaders and managers-i.e., introspection, development, character, dialogue, and ethics? Rather, are not most books and programs instrumental in that they focus on the ‘management’ of employee behavior?
Over the last few weeks I have been researching a social phenomenon that I hope will integrate everything you and I have discussed, while avoiding the metaphor trap. The trees that dominate Stanley Park furnish an excellent metaphor for my proposed radical approach to “leadership.”

Let’s examine leadership’s:

Root System: ideology, tradition, forgotten history, and human propensity to dominate.

Trunk: the reality that integrates all organizations.

Branches: interpersonal and organizational expressions of the social reality.

Leaves: labels, teaching systems, ideologies, sense of honor and decorum, which obscure and color the reality.

How does that sound?

Bye for now,

Carman

The leaves are performing their autumnal pirouette of death as the plummet to the ground. A beautiful ballet!

Category: All Posts /

Given the high cost of denial, how can we encourage open communication?

September 3, 2009 / / One comment

Carman,  Thank you for offering the example of Orwell’s Oceania, as perhaps the ultimate example of a Dominator organization. Oceania is perhaps a pure example of a direction that human organizations can take when their core value is power (money and power-over) and there are no other strong mitigating values or externally or situationally imposed limitations.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about the role of “doublethink” and “newspeak” which are both reflected in the well documented phenomenon in which organizations say one thing and do another.

This gap between public communications and action can arise for several reasons:
1) Lack of self-awareness on the part of the leader (we are not always aware of our true motives);
2) Belief in an ideal but a lack of awareness of the true costs;
3) Cynicism.

Whatever the cause, doublespeak and newthink involve both conscious or unconscious denial and projection. This gap between what is said an what is done, leads to skepticism, a lack of investment on the part of organizational members, and ultimately poor performance.

One example, would be one in which organizational leaders and corporate policy discuss the importance of product quality or customer service, while acting in ways that reduce that capacity. The pressure to reconcile the public face and actual practice tends to flow downhill to the front lines (often the least powerful members of the organization). If a person at the front lines was to express the perception that the “organization isn’t really committed to quality (or customer service – whatever it might be), there is a good chance that that person would be considered perverse, negative – perhaps a poor performer.  “After all, it is obviously company policy that we serve our customers… and we’ve asked others in the department and they don’t share your view…”

The way a company approaches public statements regarding ethics and how it ensures that the organization complies with ethical policies is particularly sensitive. In one situation I observed, team members all privately identified ethical violations in their immediate environment, but most publically stated that they did not know of any violations. The reasons they gave for not reporting the violations were: 1) Fear of possible negative consequences, and 2) the belief that the company did not really want to know.

In this kind of environment, there is a deep lack of trust, and problems can become more difficult to identify and fix…

So, leaders who want to develop healthy, flexible organizations in which members believe and are invested have a stake in creating an environment in which organizational members can share their experiences and perspectives without fear of negative consequences.

The power differential between managers and individual contributors, itself, tends to reduce upward feedback. “Newspeak” further reduces trust.

What steps can leaders take to create an environment of trust and safety to support open and constructive communication?

Category: All Posts, Communication, Culture, Ethics, Trust, Values /

Analyzing Orwell’s Oceania (as a Dominator Organization)

August 28, 2009 / / No comments

Hi Lisa,Thank you for your illuminating pool of insights on the “dominator system” and “dominator paradigm.” I reflected on your comments all week-especially while walking to work over Vancouver’s Cambie Street Bridge.
Fear and punishment seem to be the dominant emotions fostered by dominator systems.

Orwell’s Oceania-a caricature of the ultimate exploitative and oppressive system-exemplifies the extreme end of organizational pathology. I thought it might be instructive to construct a profile of Oceania-its mission, vision, values and structure. As the example of the Chloe Factories (1999) shows, many organizations may not be too far from Oceania.
Organization of Oceania

Thesis: Organizations exhibit a propensity to malignant narcissism and radical mental manipulation.

Key Concepts:

§ Ingsoc-the prevailing philosophy.

§ Newspeak-the official written language of the Party

§ Doublethink-the officially induced trance state

§ Crimestop-party-protective stupidity

§ Goodthinkful-thinking in Party-approved ways

§ Blackwhite-unconditional obedience and unstinting abhorrence of enemies

 

The Psychological Profile of the Party

Organizational Vision

“A boot stamping upon a human face forever!”
Organizational Mission
1) “To conquer the whole surface of the earth”

2) “To extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

 

Organizational Objectives

• Preserve hierarchical structure

• Preserve oligarchic privilege and power

• Protect the image of Big Brother as omnipotent and infallible

 
Organizational Climate

§ Dominated by fear and fanatical hatred of the “enemy”

Organizational [Psychopathic] Personality

§ Engrossed in its own image and impression management

§ Obsessed with the veneration and infallibility of Big Brother

§ Consumed with control

§ Contemptuous of the physiological, emotional, and spiritual needs of the people

§ Cruel

 
Organizational Program:

§ Eradicate all human qualities such as love, friendship, joy of living, laughter, curiosity, courage, and integrity

§ Execraete declared “enemies”

§ Torture and eliminate “dissidents”

§ Train children to place loyalty to the Party above human relationships

 

 Organizational Philosophy (Ingsoc):

 § Ingsoc has as its aim the preservation of power at all costs and even wages war simply to preserve its hierarchical structure-to the extent of bombing its own citizens.

§ All intelligent citizens are conditioned through fear to accept its worldview.

 

Organizational Technologies

§ Telescreen: utilized to monitor, control and discipline citizens; Members live from birth to death under the watchful eye of the Thought Police.

 

Organizational Culture

§ Crimestop [inability and unwillingness to think uncomplimentary things about the Party]. Crimestop is “protective stupidity,” in that it shields the Party from scrutiny. It is stopping a thought before it gets started, that is, at the threshold of consciousness.

Manifestations of Crimestop:

• the power of not grasping analogies
• failing to perceive logical errors
• misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc
• being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction

§ Goodthinkful– habitually thinking and acting in Party-approved ways

§ Newspeak– is the official written language of Oceania. Though no one speaks Newspeak in 1984, it is steadily becoming the lingua franca of the New Order. Newspeak is not a medium of communication, per se, but, rather, a vocabulary intended to narrow the range of consciousness and to make thoughtcrime [any thought diverging from the official philosophy] impossible. Its purpose is not to facilitate communication but to enforce submission, as is the case with jargon in present organizations.

Newspeak is the language of the lie. Newspeak is carefully crafted to focus the range of thought, to enforce a uniformity of opinion, and to render ‘unorthodoxy’ thought impossible. It is at once the manifestation and cause of evil (Peck, 1983, p.242).

All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, and mental attitudes of Oceania are designed to sustain the mystique of the Party. Newspeak is the language of manipulation and deceit. Its purpose is to subvert intellectual engagement and to perpetuate the Party’s myth of omniscience.

§ Blackwhite– has two contradictory meanings. On the one hand it means that if the Party says black is white, then it is white. When applied to opponents, it means utter inability to believe any utterance. In either case, blackwhite is the ultimate test of loyalty to the Party. One must not simply know that black is white, when the Party declares it to be so, but, rather, one must thoroughly believe that black is white. This kind of mental elasticity is made possible through doublethink.

§ Doublethink– is the ability to hold two contradictory opinions simultaneously. It is consciously induced unconsciousness (orthodoxy). Put another way, it is the ability “to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully-constructed lies.”
Anatomy of Doublethink:

• to tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them
• to forget any fact that has become inconvenient
• to deny the existence of objective reality while taking to account the reality which one denies

 Organizational Structure

• Ministry of Truth (promulgates propaganda)

• Ministry of Peace (perpetuates war)

• Ministry of Love (promotes torture)

• Ministry of Plenty (perpetuates starvation)

 

An excerpt from Organizational Behaviour In A Global Context, p.411:

The Choe Factories-Power Relations in the Workplace

“In the spring of 1999, the Choe factories, located in New York City, shut down operations due to wage claims from workers. The Choe factories operated as a contractor producing garments under an exclusive agreement for Donna Karan International. the workforce was comprised of 70 Chinese and Latina women. Workers were unionized under the Union of Needletrades Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE).

Research carried out by the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) found the organization, DKI, and the union representing the workers in violation of numerous international human rights. p.411

Over 12 years the workers were subjected to restrictions on movement and bathroom use, monitoring with surveillance cameras, unpaid overtime, and abusive supervision.

Constant surveillance meant that, if workers were to raise their head from their work, supervisors would immediately reprimand them by speakerphone, “No talking, work.” No one was permitted phone calls, even in emergencies, and phone activity was monitored by management. Lilia was not permitted to go to the bathroom (which was often padlocked) unless she had finished her piecework. Even drinking water was unavailable when the fountains on-site did not work.”

Bye for now,

Carman

Category: All Posts, Culture, Organization /

Creating healthy organizations

August 20, 2009 / / 2 comments

Carman,
In re-reading your post, http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2009/06/22/our-house-from-carman-de-voer/ I continue to notice new levels of richness and meaning.

Freire describes some of the core insights of Partnership: “Any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence” (Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p.66).

Yes, as Freire describes, domination is system of relations, including our relation to self. We are divided beings in as much as we internalize the voice(s) of dominant, controlling others. As young children, we tend to absorb parental and cultural moods, attitudes, and perspectives. It is, therefore, so often true that children of dominating parents (or of a hostile culture) struggle with self-criticism and self-doubt. In the Dominator paradigm, this is the position of feeling “less than” others. In this psychological literature, this is sometimes called “shame.”

Psychology also describes “projection” as a psychological defense mechanism. One way of copying with our “disowned […] feeling, wishes, needs and drives […] is to attribute them to others” (Bradsahw, 109). We may also gain some temporary relief from the pain of internalized oppression through identification with the oppressor (Bradshaw 106). When we identify with dominator (our externalized notions of power, prestige), we may experience ourselves as feeling “better than.” In this state, we may project undesireable characteristics onto others and “do unto others as has been done unto us.” It is, therefore, a truism that, in the absence of healing, people who have been abused, often become abusers themselves.

In a dominator system (such as is predominant in our culture), there is a tendency to either feel less than or greater than others, and whether one feels inferior or inferior can vary depending on time and circumstance.

Judgement appears to be the mechanism by which this occurs. Therefore, it is not surprising that it is common to fear the judgement of others — particularly those we perceive to have some level of power over our lives.

One dynamic for maintaining the “upper hand” in a dominator relationship is silencing, in which one does not permit others the privilege of speaking their truths. This dynamic may be internalized as self-silencing.

Codependency has been defined in a variety of ways. One pertinent definition is, “A pattern of coping which develops because of prolonged exposure to and practice of dysfunctional family rules that make difficult the open expression of thought” (http://www.winning-teams.com/codependent.html).

This same dynamic has been described in organizations. In the 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness, Stephen R. Covey describes the dynamics of codependency in organizations and how its negative effect on organizational effectiveness (17). For an excerpt, see:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XM8lWue6vQUC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=leadership+codependency&source=bl&ots=9i5CVzn618&sig=YVd9e402EUHfsY4Vbi7GjwRLxzY&hl=en&ei=vO2JSrycEoPusQOj1ajPDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=leadership%20codependency&f=false

Author John Gardner writes, “Most ailing organizations have developed a functional blindness to their own defects. They are not suffering because they cannot resolve their problems, but because they cannot see their problems.” The perspective of each individuals and organization (which is ultimately shaped by its members) seems natural and normal; therefore, real alternatives may not be readily seen, or when seen, may seem counter-intuitive. Seeing alternatives, including personal and organizational health, is an imaginative act.

If we can label a core problem of contemporary organizations to be co-dependence, then, what might the literature of psychology and recovery have to teach us with respect to creating healthier, more flexible, collaborative, and creative environments?

Also, what is the relationship between a Partnership relationship and perspective (based on mutual thriving), coaching and the psychological-social paradigm of recovery?

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Collaboration, Communication, Creativity, Culture, Innovation, Leadership, Learning, Organization, Partnership, Psychology, Values / Tags: , , ,

Tranformation vs. Change; Nelson Mandela as a Transformational Leader

August 17, 2009 / / 2 comments

Hi Lisa,Once again, your exquisite examination of the dimensions of leadership brought me to the mouth of the cave [psychic prison] and enabled me to more fully comprehend the shadows on the wall [organizations].

Because it is a recurring theme in your treatment, I would like to discuss “transformation.” Transformation, in my opinion, is not simply about change. Managers can and do effect change. Epimetheus exemplifies management as change agent-within the parameters ordained by the Olympian Establishment. Transformation, on the other hand, suggests to me a fundamental or complete change to the very character of someone or something. Prometheus, I hold, was a transformational leader. (I don’t deny that change can be profound-I’ll use the terms “transmogrify” (grotesque change) and “transform” (developmental change) to distinguish the phenomena.

In an attempt to close the gap between the oppressed and the oppressor, Nelson Mandela stole the fire from the South African Establishment. Mandela’s experience exemplifies transformational leadership, whose gain for the people brought pain upon himself. I will encapsulate an excerpt from Organizational Behaviour in a Global Context, p.495

Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress

For most of the past 200 years, South Africa was ruled by a white minority government, although blacks have made up over 75 per cent of the populace. Whites

• owned most of the property,
• ran most of the businesses,
• controlled most of the country’s natural resources,
• did not have th right to vote, and
• often worked for little or no wages.

Nelson Mandela reacted to the oppression of white-minority rule by:

• organizing a non-violent organization- the African National Congress (ANC),
• provoking demonstrations and strikes.
• promoting acts of sabotage to pressure the South African government to change-in response to the killing and injury of blacks in Sharpeville where previous riots had resulted in several whites being killed.

“Nelson Mandela was arrested in 1962, and he spent the next 27 years in prison. While in prison, Mandela continued to promote civil unrest and majority rule, for which he gained international recognition. He was offered but turned down a conditional release from prison in 1985, which was offered to him only because of the enormous pressure put on South African President F.W. de Klerk to release Mandela unconditionally. Finally, bowing to this pressure, the South African government was forced to “unban” the ANC and unconditionally released Nelson Mandela from prison. Eventually, Mandela persuaded de Klerk to sign a document outlining multiparty elections. Mandela won the 1994 national election and became the first truly democratically elected leader of South Africa.”

To return to the myth of Prometheus, the Olympian Administration feared the loss of the fire. Perhaps they resented any act that would bring their dependent creation “closer to the gods.” They did not want to share their privileged position-their sense of elevation above and separation from their subordinates.

In terms of our analysis, the Promethean fire can symbolize reason as an energy, a capacity to recognize “the unreality of many ideas that man holds and to penetrate to the reality veiled by the layers and layers of deception and ideologies” to quote Fromm. Thank you for emanating such energy today Lisa.

Bye for now,

Carman

The seawall beckons-“like a siren she calls to me”-to quote U2. In God’s Country.

Category: All Posts, Change, Culture, Diversity, Ethics, Leadership, Vision /

Leadership vs. Control by Guilt and Fear

August 14, 2009 / / 3 comments

In a recent post, Carman de Voer noted the distinction between leadership and management. These two different functions often converge within a particular role, but tend to draw upon different kinds of power. Management is associated with control, which is a highly reputable value and principle in most organizations. The process of management itself has been described as a feedback loop: managers “plan, organize and control” the work of the organization.

We have come to learn that the only relatively simple systems are subject to control in this sense; the interactions between the elements of more complex systems result in unpredictable outcomes. For this reason, particularly where the intelligence, creativity and committed contributions of organizational members are important to organizational outcomes, we have seen a shift from an emphasis on management to an emphasis on leadership.

Whereas management tends to rely on external rewards and punishments, leadership, particularly transformative leadership, seeks to align the self-actualization of organizational members with the self-actualization of the organization (the achievement of the organization’s mission and vision).

However, because leaders and managers, are still accountable for the contributions of their people, and their own jobs and careers are at stake, they usually feel some urgency around results.

The word “urgency” points to both importance and fear or anxiety. Another common term, which is used in conjunction with urgency is “edge.” (It might be useful to notice that intense focus and forward motion driven by vision and purpose, absent fear, has a very different tone).

Leaders then, very often experience some level of fear or anxiety — conscious or unacknowledged — and, the most common reaction to fear is to try to control others.

It’s useful to pause for a moment to consider: how do we, ourselves, attempt to exert control? What are the options? I once attended a workshop on power dynamics in which participants paired up on either side of a line. Each side was given the instruction that to win, they needed to get the other person to come over to their side of the line. Participants utilized a variety of strategies — including pleading, promising, guilting and dragging each other across.

In Spiritual Selling, sales and marketing expert, Joe Nunziata, describes the often unconscious strategies that people use to control others, and how these strategies are often employed in the workplace:

“Guilt [and shame] is the weapon of choice used by parents to control their children. […] In most cases, parents are not using guilt on a conscious level. They have absorbed guilt […] for generations and passed it on to their children. Innately parents know they can use this guilt to manipulate and control their children. Once the power of guilt is realized, it is then used in all areas of life. People begin to recognize the power of guilt in other situations. It can be applied to relationships, employees, coworkers, friends, and family. […]

“The desire to control and manipulate is driven by fear. The ego believes it will be safe if it can control people and the environment. This is why so-called control freaks are always micromanaging all aspects of work and the people involved with a project. There is an inherent fear that losing complete control of the situation will have disastrous results. […]”

“These same guilt and manipulation techniques are used in the business world. A sales manager may use the exact same process to motivate his or her people. Making salespeople feel they are not doing a good job can trigger similar feelings of guilt and shame. The intent is that they will start to feel bad and then have the desire to work harder. [Those who have read this blog for some time will recognize this dynamic as “The Wheel of Fear.”] The effectiveness of this approach depends on the makeup of the indiviudal. If similar techniques were used effectively by our parents they will transfer into the business world as well. You will be susceptible to the feelings of guilt you experienced as a child. […] Guilt and fear have long been viewed as the only way to motivate performance. Although the world has changed and some organizations are embracing more postiive techniques, a large majority are still trapped in this model. It is important to realize how powerful these unconscious traits are and how difficult they are to break…” (46-49).

Of course, external rewards, such as salary increases, bonuses, promotion, political capital, etc. are the “carrot” of this “carrot-and-stick” approach.

Hence, the organization tends to take on the characteristics of the family — too often, a dysfunctional one.

Transformational leadership, on the other hand, taps into a substantially different power dynamic in which the leader speaks to team members’ intrinsic motivations, to align the self-actualization of each team member with the self-actualization of the team or organization. In my opinion, coaching is a key component of transformational leadership. It cultivates the intelligent, creative energy of team members towards the achievement of overarching, meaningful goals. While recognizing distinctions in roles, it respects all organizational members, and builds the health and capability of the system…

What is the difference between healthy and unhealthy organizations?
How can we cultivate ever more healthy organizations?

References
Christie, L. “Getting Off Your Wheel of Fear” http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/05/30/getting-off-your-wheel-fear/

Ibid. “Leaping Off the Hampster Wheel of Fear” http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/06/15/leaping-off-the-hamster-wheel-of-fear/

De Voer, C. “Promethius and Transformative Leadership.”

Promethius and transformative leadership

Nunziata, J. Spiritual Selling. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley, 2007.

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Collaboration, Creativity, Culture, Innovation, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Psychology, Rewards, Spirituality, Teams /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee