Archive for 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 /

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 /

Organization as brain, intelligent creative energy

January 7, 2009 / / One comment

Carman, regarding: your post: http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2009/01/07/metaphors-of-organization-organization-as-brain/ I completely agree.

This is a good example of how our metaphors can limit our thinking. The mind-body dichotomy, in which mind is usually seen as separate from and superior to the body, has been a fundamental cultural metaphor. Related metaphors include: God-World, spirit-flesh, and the misogynist male-female dichotomy in which men were considered rational and transcendent, and women more “bodily” and immanent. According to this pattern (or guiding metaphors), the World, the organization, the body … are all viewed as machines, controlled by an intelligent external force. These ideas were also applied to social organization.

Although the machine analogy has some uses, the metaphor is based on the faulty assumption that the world (including our bodies) are machine like. To the degree that we operate with this assumption, we behave in ways that actually suppress organizational intelligence and creativity. (For an example of how perception can create reality, see Jane Elliott’s social experiment http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/07/08/how-perspective-draws-out-or-diminishes-human-potential/)

In addition to the one you mentioned, a great source on the intelligent body is Dr. Candace Pert’s, Your Body is Your Subconscious Mind. It also supports somatic approaches to psychology.

I like your proposal to consider the entire organization as “brain”; it is more realistic and as a guiding assumption would tend to lead us towards behaving in ways that cultivate organizational intelligence and creativity.  Or a related analogy might be “body-mind.” 

I wonder what it would do for us to consider organizations as creative, intelligent energy?  Might it lead us to open up to these qualities, to the creative intelligent energy of others? (Thinking about it, this is a process view of organizations …)

Lisa
Some related posts:

The brain as a metaphor for organization


http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/05/09/organization-as-organism-machine/

Category: All Posts, Collaboration, Communication, Creativity, Organization, Philosophy, Science /

Metaphors of Organization: Organization as Brain …

January 7, 2009 / / One comment
Carman writes: Perhaps we could begin with “Brain.” While many are inclined to see the brain as somehow separate from and higher than the rest of the body, Morgan proposes that “intelligence” is, in fact, distributed throughout the entire body—such as the legs hands, feet.

In short, there is no master, centralized intelligence. The brain, says Morgan, “is linked to quasi-independent processes linked to a minimal set of key rules making the whole system appear to have an integrated, purposeful, well-coordinated intelligence.”

This makes sense to me. The intelligence of a symphony orchestra for example, is not confined to the conductor but is rather “distributed” throughout the system. I suggest that society has overstated the role of the brain and understated the integrated functioning of the rest of the body. The separation of “brain” (manager) and “hand” (worker) is a popular practice in organizations. Viewing the entire organization as “brain” however, might be more productive (and realistic).

Your thoughts?

 

Category: All Posts, Communication, Culture, Organization, Philosophy, Science /

Metaphors of Organization

January 6, 2009 / / One comment

Carman in Vancouver, BC writes, “I’m very interested in Gareth Morgan’s metaphors of organization: 1) machine 2) organism 3) brain 5) culture 6) political system 6)  psychic prison 7) instrument of domination 8) Flux and Tranformation.  Each metaphor has enormous explanatory utility and each is worth discussing in some detail, if you like.”

That sounds very interesting! Let’s use this thread to discuss further.  Which metaphor would you like to explore first?

Lisa

Category: All Posts, Organization, Philosophy /

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: , ,

The power of perspective

November 2, 2008 / / No comments

In Cultivating Strength (see http://www.creativeleadercoach.com/2008/10/10/cultivating-strength/ ), we discussed how speaking our truth and postive thoughts and words literally make us stronger. In this post, we will talk a bit about a way of understanding the world, so that we can more easily see why this might be true.

The science of psychoneuroimmunology, which studies the intimate relationship of our minds and bodies, shows us that our subjective states have physical correlates. And other posts in this blog have discussed how our perspectives, thoughts and feelings help shape our social, and ultimately environmental realities, in both gross and subtle ways.

This is common sense: We know, for example, that stress can physically damage our bodies, and we usually easily notice when a person is joyful, anxious, loving, or angry. And, of course, our actions arise from the complex interrelationships of our thoughts and feelings.

Yet, culturally, we are generally taught (when we are taught such things), that mind and body are two entirely different spheres. In philosophical terms, this is called mind-body dualism. However, another, altogether different view has arisen from both our common sense experience and new sciences, such as psychoneuroimmunology. The psycho-social or process view observes that subjective and objective states might be thought of as two sides of the same coin. For this reason, the term “body-mind” is increasingly frequently used to refer to ourselves as unified beings, having both subjective and objective dimensions.

Cultivating Strength described how negative thoughts and feelings can weaken us. We know that unmanaged stress can have negative consequences for our physical, mental, emotional, social, financial .. health, and depending on our actions, for the health of the environment. Thankfully! conversely, postive thoughts and emotions can be healing. (For example, see professor Norman Cousins’ Anatomy of an Illness).

Our perspectives, which guide our perceptions, and hence thoughts and emotions are extraordinarily powerful with respect to the physical, social and environmental realities that we co-create. Yet, because our perspectives, or the way we view things, tend to be implicit — both in a physical and psychological sense prior to our actual thoughts — we are often not consciously aware of them and how they are creating our circumstances.

Therefore, it’s useful to exhume?! our perspectives to better understand how they are shaping our lives, and to decide whether we want to keep them as is, or whether other perspectives might help us create the kinds of lives (and organizations) we want.

To be continued!

Category: All Posts, Change, Coaching, Leadership, Philosophy, Science /

The Wheel of Creative Freedom is Powered by Positive Perceptions

September 21, 2008 / / No comments

If you’ve been following this blog, you know that we’ve been discussing tools or principles for creating our “wheel of creative freedom,” a virtuous cycle to replace the vicious cycle that master coach Rhonda Britten calls the “wheel of fear.”

So far, our review of experiments — the brown-eyed and blue-eyed children experiment, and the Stanford Prison experiment — illustrate the power of perception: 1) How perception gives rise to interpersonal dynamics; 2) How these dynamics tend to become even more stable over time once translated into rules/processes, roles and environments; and 3) How these dynamics (especially as they become increasingly structured) powerfully shape our perception of ourselves and others, and give rise to realities which seem to support the original perception.

In the first experiment, the learned perception that brown-eyed children were superior to blue-eyed children created conditions in which the academic performance of the brown-eyed children improved and the performance of the blue-eyed children declined. In the second experiment, the more the guards tried to control the prisoners, the more prisoners rebelled; this in turn justified the guards position that the prisoners needed to be controlled at all costs and the prisoner’s perceptions that conditions were deplorable, justifying rebellion…

The dynamic by which our perceptions creates reality is neither postive or negative in itself — it’s simply how we select and create (really, negotiate) one reality out of the many possibilities available to us.

In general, we might notice that negative perceptions tend to invoke negative realities and positive perceptions tend to invoke positive realities. In fact, we might observe that negative perceptions tend to fuel our wheels of fear and positive perceptions tend to power our wheel of creative freedom.

It may be useful to note that we are not talking about solipsism — the theory that the self is the only existent thing — which would imply that we are the omnipotent creators of our own realities. Rather, in each experiment, we can see how the resulting realities were shaped by the interaction (or dance) of the participants. Because participants have the power to change their perceptions and behavior, they have the power to shift the system (the sum total of the interrelationships) to a greater or lesser extent; however, they don’t have direct power over the perceptions and choices of the other participants. The power we are discussing is not absolute, but as both experiments illustrate, it is considerable.

In upcoming posts, we will consider in more depth, how our perceptions of ourselves, as leaders, shapes our possibilities, including the possibilities of our organizations. We’ll be going deep with this one, so if you want to come along, wear your miner’s hat! 😉

Category: All Posts, Leadership, Organization, Philosophy /
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee