Archive for Partnership

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 /

Towards the Re-Humanization of Work

February 15, 2009 / / One comment

Hi Lisa, Two elements that strike me about the Cave allegory are:

1) Dehumanization
2) Degradation

Interestingly, The Free Dictionary links dehumanization with mechanization:

1. To deprive of human qualities such as individuality, compassion, or civility: slaves who had been dehumanized by their abysmal condition.

2. To render mechanical and routine.

Given the resurgence of Scientific Management with its systematic reduction of the human being to the status of automaton I would agree with Morgan’s characterization of most organizations:

“it may seem more appropriate to talk about organizations as prisons rather than as psychic prisons, since the exploitation and domination of people is often grounded as much in control over the material basis of life as in control over ideas, thoughts, and feelings” (p.248)

I believe Morgan referring to a state of bondage or control from which people cannot easily escape—especially with families to feed. However, I would characterize most organizations as both psychic and literal prisons. We routinely hear about “minimum” wage, and union and legal “protection.”

It thereupon occurred to me that a pre-occupation of the Ideal Cave Leader would be human rights and freedom. Interestingly, The Fifth Discipline calls for “a new organization…that is more consistent with human nature” (p.351). The implication being most organizations are not “consistent with human nature.”

In Plato’s allegory the Leader strives to enlighten and emancipate those immured in the Cave. As the aegis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) I believe Eleanor Roosevelt exemplifies Plato’s Ideal Leader.

Article 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Article 26 (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Mrs. Roosevelt declared: 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.

Yet they are the world of the individual person: the neighborhood s/he lives in; the school or college s/he attends; the factory, farm or office where s/he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. (pronominal changes mine)

How beautiful! However, it seems to me that many of the chained prisoners are more captivated by the shadows cast by puppeteers like Frederick Taylor (“You are not supposed to think. There are other people paid for thinking around here.”—Morgan p. 25) since they “are in the habit of conferring honors among themselves” (to quote Socrates) and derive material benefit within such self-sealing environments.

What do you see when you peer into the “Cave” Lisa?

Bye for now!

References

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. Second Edition. Sage Publications. London.

Senge, Peter. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: the art and practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday: New York.

From The Ideal Leader, 2009/02/15 at 5:58 AM

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

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 /

Vision and Limits: Creating a Space for Learning and Innovation

January 17, 2009 / / One comment

Carman writes: Hi Lisa,  I’ll try to paraphrase your questions:

1. Is emergent (bottom-up) organization compatible with goals and direction (top-down)?

2. When is the imposition of limits appropriate?

Morgan explains that “the intelligence of the human brain is not predetermined, predesigned, or  preplanned. Indeed, it is not centrally driven in any way. It is a decentralized emergent phenomenon. Intelligence evolves.” (p.94)

Morgan calls vision, norms, values or limits “cybernetic reference points.” Though they guide behavior and prevent complete randomness they also create a valuable space “in which learning and innovation can occur.”

To return to the example of the trainees:

Managers seem to have slain the goose to get the golden egg (forgive the worn-out analogy). Conversely, by referring to the philosophy (vision and values) of the organization they might have avoided short-term thinking (and the tyranny of targets!) and encouraged the emergence of new behaviours.

For example, might trainees eventually have fostered more effective ways of serving clients (and accomplishing goals)? Might such behaviour have enabled new insights and learning for managers? In short, could managers have learned from learners?

Tomorrow we can discuss single-loop versus double-loop learning if you like Lisa. Once we have beggared the brain metaphor perhaps you would like to select the Morgan metaphor that especially interests you.

Well, I’m off to the Stanley Park seawall, which I love to walk each weekend. Sometimes I see seals and sometimes they see me. Heavy fog in Vancouver today. Reminds me of a Conan Doyle novel. Sweet symphony from KUWY (on computer) without and Starbucks coffee within–the Lark is ascending!

Bye for now!

Carman,  It’s such a treat to read your posts!  Yes, I look forward to your thoughts on single-loop and double-loop learning.  Are you familiar with Robert Hargrove’s triple-loop learning model?  It heavily inspired my (current) transformative-holistic learning model: 

http://creativeleadercoach.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/model.gif

Your day sounds very pleasant! We’ve had a taste of summer-like weather here the past few days in Southern California, and it makes me look forward to the long, warm days, again.

Talk soon, Lisa

Category: All Posts, Change, Creativity, Culture, Design, Innovation, Organization, Partnership, Teams, Vision /

Unleashing Collaborative Power in the Workplace

January 17, 2009 / / 2 comments

If you are interested in how Partnership approaches to leadership can unleash collaborative power in the workplace, I encourage you to check out Cynthia King’s Creating Partnerships: Unleashing Collaborative Power in the Workplace (2005).   

See more at: http://www.creating-partnerships.com/

Category: All Posts, Change, Collaboration, Culture, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Teams /

Defining the space of managerial freedom to avoid noxicants

January 16, 2009 / / One comment

More from Carman de voer:

Great questions Lisa, Perhaps I could begin to address them through a practical illustration:

I recently heard about a professional bureaucracy that is experiencing high turnover of its trainees—which, in such an organization, is surprising given the time, money and personnel allocated to training.  Furthermore, neophytes exhibit enormous enthusiasm and commitment.

In terms of the brain metaphor (cybernetics) the organization could pursue the following:

Ask questions:

1) What is it about our culture that contributes to high turnover? What do trainees tell us (via exit interviews)? How might the workload exceed the limitations of trainees? What kind of treatment do trainees receive once on the job? Is it civil or uncivil? In other words, surface noxiants.

Avoid noxiants: (set limits on undesirable behavior):

2)  Don’t browbeat. Don’t overload (with information). Don’t exceed the capabilities of trainees. Don’t impose unreasonable deadlines. Don’t proscribe social [professional] interaction with co-workers.

Morgan says: “Cybernetics shows us that effective management depends as much on the selection of the limits that are to be placed on behaviour as on the active pursuit of desired goals” (p.99)

I would like to further delve into your questions tomorrow Lisa (I’m off to work now).

Bye for now!

Category: All Posts, Culture, Design, Partnership, Science /

Power of Authenticity

January 3, 2009 / / 2 comments

Recently, I completed a course in Spirited Facilitation, which applies leading-edge principles and practices to group facilitation. Spirited Facilitation was developed by coach and trainer, Karen Capello, based on the inspired learning model (see www.inspiredlearning.org/model.php). I look forward to sharing more of this model with you in the future entries.

One of the key elements of the spirited facilitation model is learning to connect at will to the feeling of being fully alive, which is also when we are most fully our selves. Ms. Capello calls this state of being, our “essence energy.” Coach Rhonda Britten calls it, “our essential nature.” It is our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual state of being, when we are being self-actualizing, when we are living according to our highest purpose. It feels pretty good!

Each of us would describe this state of being differently. For example, for me, it would be something like, “inspired, insightful, co-creativity.” I am happiest and most inspired when I am finding new perspectives and making useful connections — especially in interesting conversations with others, and creating something new that adds to the quaity of our experience. For others, this peak experience may be “calm radiance” or something very different.

Whatever it may be, Ms. Britten points out that claiming (or reclaiming) our essential nature is key to to jumping off our “wheel of fear.” In an earlier post, I shared a story about witnessing a demonstration by hypnotherapist Monica Justice, in which she demonstrated that speaking the truth makes us physically stronger  (http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/10/10/cultivating-strengthcultivating-strength/)

Could it be that we gain strength — perhaps connect to our personal power — by being and expressing our authentic selves? For me, these are provocative questions which raise some big issues, which, of course, we will discuss here 🙂

Category: All Posts, Coaching, Diversity, Leadership, Partnership, Psychology /

Success is a verb

December 18, 2008 / / No comments

In Western culture, we tend to be inclined to believe in and aim towards static and desireable future. In myths and fairy tailes, our heroes’ and heroines’ journies end in a static, experientially eternal state of bliss or pain. This is also a theme of monotheistic religions, which have shaped our worldview over the past several thousand years: life is often viewed as a journey to an eternity which is often painted as either homogenously wonderful or awful.

Such stories often shape our deepest and oldest beliefs and expectations of life. For example, I’ve known never-married women and men who believe that, if they find and marry the right person, that their lives will be happy and fulfilled ever after. Similarly, many Americans dream of a good retirement in which we will be passed all of the travails of our lives, and live our golden years in health, safety and fulfillment. Heaven is a place where we can lean back, wipe our brow, and finally exclaim, “We made it!”

As a result, we may be tempted to live for and in the future — for “someday.”

Intellectually, however, we know that it is never “someday”; it is always today. When we reach the top of the mountain, there is a new vista, and from that vista we set new goals. Life, in other words, is an ongoing process.  Myths and fairy tales are only able to maintain the illusion of future permanence by drawing a curtain at the end of the tale. If they continued to follow the characters through the remainder of their lives, we would find that life is characterized by change. When a biological organism stops changing, we can be sure that it is dead. Similarly, in the bigger picture, our cosmos also continues to change and evolve.

Along the same lines, we might observe that life isn’t composed of two parts, non-eternity and eternity: Logically, infinity plus 100 years (a nice, long human lifespan) still equals infinity. Therefore, to the degree that we acknowledge eternity, we might notice that eternity doesn’t start “later”; rather, here we are ….

It is human nature (and no doubt the nature of life in general) to move towards greater fulfillment. Studies have shown that the happiest people are those who feel they are making progress towards a goal. Imagining and living in the present, towards a desireable future is a necessary and fulfilling part of life.

However, our old, deep rooted belief in “ever after” can lead us, instead, to live “for the future,” effectively postponing our lives and preventing us from living fully in the present.

One manifestation of living for the future is an over-reliance on “left-brain” intellectual busyness and/or will power. Aside from draining the joy and vitality from life, this posture makes us less effective in the present. For example, we may become less aware of opportunities in the here and now, and also less creative.

Therefore, I submit that it would be a lot more fruitful if we began to think of success as a verb. Certainly there are goals to achieve, but if we think of success as a process, we open up more possibilities for effectiveness, creativity and enjoyment in the now. And, if as leaders, we can create environments in which success is a verb, we will increase intrinsic motivation (which we know is far superior than extrinsic motivation) for  ourselves and others.

Our cultural belief in “ever after” is an example of a subterranean belief — a belief that tends to exist and operate below that level of our conscious awareness. These beliefs can either support us in living towards our desireable future or they may block us. Because, as a coach, I’m interested in helping people achieve their fulfilling success, we will talk in much greater depth in this blog about these subterranian beliefs and how they shape our present (including how they can keep us on our “wheel of fear”).

For today, we might ask consider the question, what is our idea of success? Is it a static place defined by certain accomplishments or acquisitions, at which we hope to someday arrive (only to notice that that line and place keeps moving)? Or is it an attitude of living fully in the present, while continually moving in the direction of our heart’s desire?

Reflection

* Imagine success as a destination in the future. What emotions does that concept bring up for you? How present do you feel in your body? How present are you to your immediate surroundings and possibilities?

* Now imagine success as an orientation, a way of being in the present towards fulfilling goals. How would you live differently? How would your quality of life differ?

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Creativity, Culture, Leadership, Partnership, Philosophy, Rewards, Vision / Tags: , ,

To your fulfilling success

December 14, 2008 / / No comments

One of my mentor-coaches, Lou D’Alo www.powerupcoaching.com signs his emails with the phrase, “To your fulfilling success.” I really appreciate this phrase, because it expresses a Partnership approach to success that encompasses both our qualititative experience — happiness and fulfillment  — and our quantitiative results. It feels richer and more complete.

An activity or state of being is especially fulfilling when we are living according to our inspired purpose, which encompasses our special gifts — those activities that give us joy. 

Whereas the term success has come to mean a kind of material and social status, a kind of cultural goal, or “should,” the expression “your fulfilling success” involves thriving in your own particular way — living the life and making the contribution that only you can make. When this becomes our way of life, and when we support others in living their own fulfilling success, we are living in Partnership.

In this blog, we will be continuing to explore concepts and ideas that support your fulfilling success.

Questions for Exploration
* What does the term “success” feel like to you?  How do you envision it?
* How does the term “fulfilling success” feel like to you?  What does it look like for you?
* What are the differences between the two for you?
* What possibilities or concerns arise for you as you contemplate the difference?

Category: All Posts, Coaching, Culture, Diversity, Partnership, Rewards, Values, Vision /

Cultivating strength

October 10, 2008 / / One comment

Especially given the turmoil in the markets in recent days, it seems to be good timing to return to the subject of how we can leap off the “hamster wheel of fear” — a self-perpetuating negative cycle — and onto our wheel of creative freedom.  Recently, I had the privilege to watch a presentation by certified hypnotherapist, Monica Justus, CHt.  Ms. Justus invited a volunteer from the audience, a local business owner with a technical background whom I would consider a skeptical person, and demonstrated the effect of thoughts and words on our physical and mental strength.

For the demonstration, she asked him to extend his arm straight out to the side, which he did. She then asked him his name, which he answered truthfully. She pressed down strongly on his extended arm, but it remained strong and in place, demonstrating strength. She then asked him to respond to the question in a way that was not true.  Strikingly, his arm weakened, and she was easily able to push it down.  I’ve since used this demonstration in a training situation — it works.

It appears that when we speak our truth, we are, in fact, stronger.

Ms. Justus went on to test the effect of positive and negative words and concepts. The words “love” and “peace” tested “strong.” The word “war” caused his arm to go weak.

We spend most of our days thinking and communicating with others. What is the quality of our thoughts? Do we think self-defeating and fearful thoughts that weaken us, or do we look for the positive in ourselves and our situation? Do we see problems or opportunities? 

And, are we living and speaking our truth or supressing our true thoughts out of fear?  (On this note, I don’t advocate reckless, controlling, or inconsiderate speech. However, if your situation does not safely permit you to express your perspective, it may be worthwhile to consider how you might alter your situation).

Choosing what makes us stronger, including our truth, and a constructive perspective is a key to shifting off the wheel of fear, and onto our wheel of creative freedom.  More on this later!

Category: All Posts, Coaching, Collaboration, Communication, Creativity, Culture, Leadership, Partnership, Vision /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee