Total Quality Management and Critical Theory

Total Quality Management and TQM

Critical Studies scholars such as Apel (1977) saw the characteristic core of the philosophy of science as the alternative of modern theory of science. This does not mean that he did not think one should deny unified science; rather it is the neopositive concept of logic of unified science (Apel, 1977). De Cock (1998) said today it seems appropriate to dismiss TQM and BPR, but that this would be a mistake and that the time is now to redefine and recontextualize their meanings so that problems that are seen as hampering TQM and BPR might be dispelled (De Cock, 1998).

De Cock (1998) argued further that TQM and BPR has been used to describe many different practices and have also been used in bits and pieces so that it can be said that the company is using such programs. This makes it look like TQM and BPR are just fads and have no serious value to management practices. The current literature has been blind to the issues of organizational power (De Cock, 1998). Furthermore, "There are many practical realizations of TQM and BPR and that there exists where only a loose link between the basic concepts and the way these are enacted in organizations" (De Cock, 1998, p. 147). De Cock (1998) says that we should look at the constructs of TQM and BPR as, "discourses emergent from power-knowledge relations, collectively sustained and continually renegotiated in the process of making sense" (p. 147).
 

According to Lawrence and Phillips (1998), critical organization theory skepticism differs from the postmodernism critique. "Critical theory focuses on analysis and reform intended to restructure the social foundations of organizations in an emancipatory manner" (Lawrence & Phillips, 1998, p. 157).

The second stream is inspired by Habermas and his notion of communicative action (Lawrence & Philips, 1998). In this second stream, patterns of communication are analyzed and ideal speech situations are important. Characteristics such as accuracy and honesty provide a pathway for " Rational, reflective, and moral decision making" (as cited in Lawrence & Phillips, 1998).

Critical scholars see ideal speech situations as the potential for individual and social transformation, however, the limitation would be in people’s disbelief or refusal to engage in ideal speech communication or critical self-reflection. According to Freud (1900) when people have a weltanschauung, "One feels secure in life, one knows what one ought to strive after, and how one ought to organize one's emotions and interests to the best purpose" (p. 122). In this case, organizations succeed, guided with a philosophy of life, and tools to manage that philosophy within the organization.

References

DeCock, C. (1998). It seems to fill my head with ideas: A few thoughts on postmodernism, TQM and BPR. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(2), 144.

Lawrence, T. B. & Phillips, N. (1998). Commentary: Separating play and critique. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(2), 154.

Habermas, J. (1981). The tasks of a critical theory.  In Delanty, G. & Strydom, P. (Ed.). Philosophies of social science. The classic and contemporary readings. (pp. 240-245). Philadelphia, PA: McGraw-Hill.

Apel, K. (1977). Types of social science in light of human cognitive interests. In Delanty, G. & Strydom, P. (Ed.). Philosophies of social science. The classic and contemporary readings. (pp. 246-258). Philadelphia, PA: McGraw-Hill.

The Hermeneutical Argument

What justification does Habermas offer for his critique of Gadamer's hermeneutical approach to society and social science? Is Habermas's approach more justified than Gadamer's or other approaches (for example, neo-positivism, conventionalism, or postmodernism) you have seen in the course? In formulating your answer, it may be preview the Week Six readings, which details the theoretical underpinnings of Habermas's critical method.

The justification that Habermas offers for his critique of Gadamer's hermeneutical approach to society and social science is that Habermas argues that there is a political naïveté' of Gadamer's hermeneutics. According to Ramberg and Gjesdal (2005),

          In Habermas's view, Gadamer places too much emphasis on the authority of tradition, leaving no room for critical judgment and reflection. Reason is denied the power of a critical, distanced judgment. What is needed is therefore not just an analysis of the way in which we de facto are conditioned by history but a set of quasi-transcendental principles of validity in terms of which the claims of the tradition may be subjected to evaluation. Hermeneutics, Habermas argues, must be completed by a critical theory of society (para. 48).

As opposed to Betti (1955) and Hirsch (1967), Habermas does not claim that Gadamer's approach to hermeneutics is completely mistaken. He argued, rather, that Gadamer ascribes to hermeneutics an illegitimate kind of universality. Hence, the fundamental problem with Gadamer's hermeneutics would not be solved by calling for a hermeneutic method. Furthermore, Gadamer criticizes the use of a formal method, rather he ascribes to a certain standard of validity what Habermas says is, "quasi-transcendental principles of communicative reason" (para. 49).

Gadamer argued that it was never his intention to do away with validity, objectivity, and method in understanding rather he sought to, "investigate the conditions of possibility for understanding as such (Ramberg & Gjesdal, 2009). I agree with Gadamer's position that, "it is not the case that our situatedness within history is a limiting condition only: rather, as the space of human experience and reason, it opens up the world to us in the first place"(para. 51) and as such I feel Gadamer's approach is more justified.

It is worthwhile to note that Paul Ricoeur was a philosopher who proposed a new way (a third wave) of hermeneutics. His was seen as an alternative to an epistemic orientation to hermeneutics and to Gadamer's ontological distinction between validity and the factualness of interpretation.

Although the differences between the two are authentic, Ricoeur proposes an alternative that aims at combining convincing arguments of the two. Ricoeur agrees with Habermas that the hermeneutic approach goes hand in hand with critical reflection although he does think this requires nixing the field of tradition and historical texts. According to Ramberg and Gjesdal (2009), "...Ricoeur argues how the text itself may open up a space of existential and political possibilities. This dynamic, productive power of the text undermines the idea of reality as a fixed, unyielding network of authoritative patterns of interpretations" (para.

Finally, Ramberg and Gjesdal (2009) eloquently argued, "Appreciating hermeneutics as a living tradition is not, in the end, a matter of identifying a theory or a family of theories. It is fundamentally a matter of perceiving a moving horizon, engaging a strand of dialogue that is an on-going re-articulation of the dynamically historical nature of all human thought" (para. 69).

Good stuff.

References

Betti, E. (1955). Teoria generale della interpretazione. Milan: Giuffrè.

Habermas, J. (1965). Knowledge and human interests. In Delanty, G &

          Strydom, P. (Ed.), Philosophies of social science: The classic and

          contemporary readings. (pp. 234-245). Philadelphia, PA:

           McGraw-Hill.

Habermas, J. (1973). The hermeneutic claim to universality. In Delanty, G &

          Strydom, P. (Ed.), Philosophies of social science: The classic and

          contemporary readings. (pp. 164-171). Philadelphia, PA:

           McGraw-Hill.

Hirsch, E. D. (1967). Validity in interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale

          University Press.

Ramberg, Bjørn and Gjesdal, Kristin, (Summer, 2009). Hermeneutics. The

          Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from

          <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/hermeneutics/>.

Ricoeur, P. (1973). Towards a critical hermeneutic: Hermeneutics and the

          critique . In Delanty, G & Strydom, P. (Ed.), Philosophies of social

          science: The classic and contemporary readings. (pp. 172-181).

          Philadelphia, PA: McGraw-Hill. 

Administrative Science or Social Science?

Approaches to Science;  Postmodernist, Poststructuralist, or Hermeneutical?

Pinder & Bourgeois (1982, p. 650) recommend that “the goals of an applied administrative science, like the goals of any applied science, should include (but not be limited to) the provision of advice to practitioners that is useful, precise, and predicated on scientific grounds.” To what extent does this recommendation apply to postmodernist, poststructuralist, and hermeneutical approaches to the social sciences?

The extent to which this recommendation applies to postmodernist, poststructuralist, and hermeneutical approaches to the social sciences appear minimal because of the use of tropes in the administrative practice to create formal theories. According to Pinder and Bourgeois (1992), "The practice in question is the unconstrained use of tropes (such as similes, analogies, and metaphors in the development and presentation of formal theory" (p. 641). I agree with scholars who argue that metaphors are important, critical and an integral part of language and simply unavoidable in all discourse. I do not believe that because theories are not able to be proven by science that these theories and ideas are according to Pinder and Bourgeois (1992), "Cast as open social systems, garbage cans, marketplaces, psychic prisons, clans, and countless other things" (p. 642).

I think this is a harsh assessment coming from a scientific thinker. Peter Winch (1958) in his article Philosophy and Science argues about the same idea some scientists have (Winch thinks a priori thinking is legitimate), "...new discoveries about real matters of fact can only be established by experimental methods; no purely a priori process of thinking is sufficient for this. But since it is science which uses experimental methods, while philosophy is purely a priori, it follows that the investigation of reality must be left to science" (as cited in Delanty & Strydom, 2003, p. 153).

The problem is that science ask a question that is empirical in nature whereas social science asks a question that is conceptual (Delanty & Strydom, 2003). So, really there are two different questions being asked and the conceptual one, is best answered by understanding our past (history), which is the hermeneutical, as well as the postmodernism and social science approaches. I agree with Winch (1958) in his thought that, "...theoretical issues which have been raised in those studies belong to philosophy rather than to science and are, therefore, to be settled by a priori conceptual analysis rather then by empirical research" (p. 157)

Hermeneutically speaking, Hans-Goerg Gadamer (1960) in his article Hermeneutical Understanding argued that everything should not be empirically verified and indeed, "When a naive faith in scientific method denies the existence of effective history, there can be an actual deformation of knowledge" (p. 159).

I agree that science is legitimate and empirical research is necessary, however, I belief philosophy and the hermeneutical approach is equally important to the study of epistemology. Gadamer (1960) reminded us that history does not need to be recognized. Gadamer (1960) eloquently stated, "This, precisely, is the power of history over finite human consciousness, namely that it prevails even where faith in method leads one to deny one's own historicity" (p. 150).

References

Gadamer, H.G. (1960). Hermeneutical understanding.  In Delanty, G & Strydom, P. (Ed.), Philosophies of social science: The classic and contemporary readings. (pp. 158-163). Philadelphia, PA: McGraw-Hill.

Pinder, C. C., & Bourgeois, V. W. (1982). Controlling tropes in administrative science.  Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4): 641-52.

Winch, P. (1958). Philosophy and science. In Delanty, G & Strydom, P. (Ed.), Philosophies of social science: The classic and contemporary readings. (pp. 152-157). Philadelphia, PA: McGraw-Hill. 

Geistewissenschaften? Got Epistemology?

Over the last 7 weeks, you have seen the central concern of the course referred to as the social sciences, human sciences, behavioral sciences, management studies, and organization studies, and in German Geistewissenschaften. Which best describes the focus of our attention and why?

The focus of our attention in this class has been social sciences insofar as we have been able learn about the other sciences and how they explain the human experience. According to Crawford-Muratore (2011) in week two lecture, "Thinkers have since the times of the ancient Greeks explored the basic questions of “What do we know, and how do we know it for sure?” Those who have pursued this as a profession or passion are called epistemologists, and in this class we will look at the epistemologists of the 20^th century. In this manner we begin to understand the evolution of social theory and also management theory, which is a part of the social sciences" (para. 1).

Social sciences is the umbrella under which the other sciences have come to be understood. As Breslin (2011) notes, "This is right in line with the way I view social science and what it deals with.  The course is particularly relevant to the study of management and leadership because both of these study the social world of people" (para. 3). According to the class syllabus, we have engaged in the understanding that the postmodern world is an amalgam of our beliefs, physical sensory interpretations, psychological projections of our wants/needs/fantasies, a cultural interpretation of existence/meaning/purpose, a moral sense of right and wrong, a religious or spiritual interpretation of responsibility, and the sense of the relationship we have to each other. (syllabus, 2011, para. 1)

In relating to the course syllabus, Prince II (1988) discusses the social learning approach and he says that Social Learning Theory is a general approach to understanding how we learn, retain, and eventually choose to perform or not perform any given class of behavior-including moral behavior. Moreover, Prince II (1988) argued, "Indeed, the fundamental approach of social learning theory is based on the recognition that behavior is in large measure determined by situational factors outside the individual. However, the individual is not overlooked and is given the central role in processing the components of the situation in terms of perception, reasoning, memory, an other internal psychological responses" (p. 489).

We as scholars, leaders and practitioners have engaged in this course as budding epistemologists to understand the social sciences.

References

Prince II, H.T. (1990).  Moral development in Individuals. In Wren, J. T. (Ed.), The leader's companion insights on leadership through the ages. (pp. 484-491).  New York, NY: The Free Press. Reprinted from Harvard Business Review.

Crawford-Muratore, J. (2011, February 02).  Week 2 Lecture– Dr. Jane Crawford-Muratore. Message posted to University of Phoenix class forum PHL/717 –Constructing Meaning.

Breslin, E. (2011, March 15).  Week 7 DQ 7.3 – Edward Breslin. Message posted to University of Phoenix class forum PHL/717 –Constructing Meaning.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Class post. Enjoy!

Happy Saturday R:

You know I agree with your post regarding self-regulation and ethics. I wrote about written policies for ethics in organizations. I believe if everyone acted in self-regulation, these types of policies and written procedures would not be necessary. But as it is today, unfortunately, they are still needed. I would like to add that corporate social responsibility also plays a role in self-regulation (from an organizational perspective), servant leadership, and organizational culture of companies and organizations alike.

Corporate social responsibility is exhibited through the policies and activities organizations engage in that are aimed at meeting or advancing the social needs of those within and outside of the organization (Baron, 2010). Corporate social responsibility can be great for a company’s bottom line because it can foster employee commitment and customer satisfaction (Chitakornkijsil, 2012). However, when organizations are irresponsible, it can be detrimental (Lang & Washburn, 2012). 

Phillip Morris fell under public scrutiny after the states sued the tobacco industry for medical expenses related to tobacco related illnesses. The company was scrutinized for misleading consumers about the dangers of its products. In addition to paying billions of dollars in settlements and removing billboard advertisements, Phillip Morris began running ads explicitly warning about the dangers of smoking and sponsored tobacco cessation programs to help rebuild the company’s reputation (Weidenbaum, 2004; “Caron Tobacco Cessation Program Funded by Phillip Morris”, 2009).

References

Baron , D. P. (2010). Business and its environment (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Caron tobacco cessation program funded by Phillip Morris. (2009). Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, 21(15), 3-4.

Chitakornkijsil, P. (2012). Business performing social responsibility activities and corporate social responsibility issues. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 5(1), 309-323.

Lange, D., & Washburn, N.T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300-326. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0522

Weidenbaum, M (2004). Business and government in the global marketplace (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Child Labor and the Price of Fashion in the USA

Class post. Enjoy!

Dr. S:

Thank you for your question. As I read Radin and Calkins (2006), I likened the child labor experience in India to the sweatshop experience for women in the USA and abroad (That I wrote about in an earlier post). This was my frame of reference. Radin and Calkins (2006) argued that the work environments that violate laws in a sweatshop scenario include:

• Extreme exploitation, including the absence of a living wage or long work hours;
• Poor working conditions, such as health and safety hazards;
• Arbitrary discipline, such as verbal or physical abuse; and/or 
• Fear and intimidation when they speak out, organize, or attempt to form a union (p. 262).

Ramishvilli (2012) reported that children (child labor) are also working in deplorable conditions in India. Dan McDougall (of The Observer) went to India and talked with a child named Amitosh who was 10 years old and was working for a GAP contract in India. Amitosh said,

The men came looking for us in July. They had loudspeakers in the back of a car and told my parents that, if they sent me to work in the city, they won’t have to work in the farms. My father was paid a fee for me and I was brought down with 40 other children. I am working for free. The supervisor has told me because I am learning I don’t get paid. It has been like this for four months (Ramishvilli, 2012, para. 6).

According to the UN, India has become the world capital for child labor, employing over 55 million children aged everywhere from 5 to 14. Amitosh was sold into bonded labor by his family and now works 16 hours per day, hand-sewing clothing for Gap (Ramishvilli, 2012).

Ramishvilli (2012) reported that the corridor in which Amitosh works with a dozen other children is smeared in filth and has a flooded toilet. Alongside of him works Jivaj who is 12 years old. Jivaj spoke to the Observer with tears streaming down his cheeks, “’Last week, we spent four days working from dawn until about one o’clock in the morning the following day. I was so tired I felt sick. If any of us cried we were hit with a rubber pipe. Some of the boys had oily cloths stuffed in our mouths as punishment.” (Ramishvilli, 2012, para 7).

Ramishvilli (2012) revealed that Amitosh and Jivaj are just two of the millions of children that are forced through similar situations, for just one company, in just India. Indeed, there are many more companies that exploit child labor and sweatshop labor in the USA and abroad. Some examples include; Reebok, Nike, Victoria’s Secret, Forever21, Wal-Mart, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Guess, and Gap (Ramishvilli, 2012).

It seems to me that the treatment that women face in the sweatshop scenario is similar to what the children in India face in the child labor scenario. It seems to me that the children have it worse off, if I had to compare one to another. Thank you for allowing me to explain my perspective.

References

Radin, T., & Calkins, M. (2006). The struggle against sweatshops: Moving toward

          responsible global business. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 261-272. doi:

          10.1007/s10551-005-5597-8

Ramishvilli, T. (2012, April 18). Sweatshops and child labor: The price of fashion?

          The Gleaner, p. 1-8.

Sweatshops, Women, and The Solidarity Center

Class post. Enjoy!

Good afternoon M:

Thank you for your post. I think you hit the nail on the head when you referred to the Weidenbaum (2004) text regarding the rising of consciousness on the part of workers and of the general population in those countries, and the passage and enforcement of appropriate legislation. The Solidarity Center (2013) speaks to your notion of shifting the consciousness of sweatshop workers who are, by the way, mostly women. In addition to suffering in sweatshops, according to the Talking Union: A project of the DSA Labor network (2013),

Women also suffer disproportionately from other negative global trends: human trafficking and its resulting forced labor and debt bondage; contract labor, which undermines women’s long-term job prospects, income stability and benefits; and the wholesale slashing of public-sector jobs, a career avenue that traditionally has provided women a way into the middle class (para. 5).

The Solidarity Center’s (2013) mission is to highlight the advantage of unions that are helping women transform their consciousness and fight for the rights of women. For example, the Tunisian women participated in the uprising known as the Arab Spring. They continue to fight for the rights of women in their nation’s ongoing political upheaval. The Solidarity Center (2013) points to the Honduran maquila workers and banana packers (mostly women) who are self-organizing for a greater voice in the workplace.Finally, in South Africa, women are shifting their consciousness in traditionally male-led unions while creating models that can be replicated around the world ("Solidarity Center: Promoting Worker Rights Worldwide", 2013).

Labor historian Dorothy Sue Cobble, wrote a report for the Solidarity Center called, Gender Equality and Labour Movements: Toward a Global Perspective. She called attention to the fact that since the 1970s, unions have become a primary global vehicle for advancing gender equality. Women are shifting their consciousness, as you have suggested, making their voices heard. Thank you for your post.

References

Cobble, D. S. (2012). Gender Equality and Labor Movements: Toward a global

            perspective. Retrieved from

            https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=5&

            gs_ri=psyab&tok=d_9WVZp3mTks07LgmlzKNg&cp=65&gs_id=7&xhr=t&q=Gender+

            Equality+and+Labour+Movements%3A+Toward+a+Global+Perspective&es_nrs=true&

            pf=p&output=search&sclient=psyab&oq=Gender+Equality+and+Labour+Movements:+

            Toward+a+Global+Perspective&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm

Solidarity Center: Promoting worker rights worldwide. (2013). Retrieved from

            http://www.solidaritycenter.org/

Talking Union: A project of the DSA Labor Network. (2013). Working women empowered:

            Building strength through unions. Retrieved from

            http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/working-women-empowered-building-

            strength-through-unions/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Weidenbaum, M. (2004). Business and government in the global marketplace (7th ed.). Upper

            Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sweatshops and Child Labor

Class Post. Enjoy!

Hello V:

It is good to be in class with you again! I hope all your travels are going well.

You posed a serious question to us in your post. According to O’Byrne (2002), continued consumer indifference to the conditions that sweatshop workers have to deal with perpetuates the sweatshop system. I remember when it was uncovered that GAP stores used sweatshops to make their clothing. I was embarrassed that I wasn't informed. I shopped there all the time.

As a result of this discussion question, I conducted more research and found that Nike has been accused of the same negligence. I believe that we have to educate ourselves as consumers and make ethical choices that can help to stop sweatshops. O’Byrne (2002) advanced the notion of shopper mobilization to shift the issue to the center of public attention. I believe this has happened in the past but we have to stay vigilant until some real progress is made.

Yoon Louie’s (2001) book, Sweatshop Warriors is about the stories of immigrant women sweatshop workers. The book describes their stories of exploitation as well as their role as activists for their own conditions. Yoon Louie (2001) conducted interviews with Mexican, Chinese, and Korean women who have worked in sweatshops in New York, Texas, and California. Indeed, these women became empowered to use their solidarity as a platform from which to challenge their bosses. Eventually, they received withheld back pay, recognition, and proper working conditions. Yoon Louie (2001) wrote about these women’s account of moving from sweatshop victims to sweatshop warriors.

In the U.S.A. it seems we have as much work to do as developing countries with regard to eradicating sweatshops. Thank you for your post!

References

O’Byrne, A. (2002). Sweatshop Warriors: Immigrant women workers take on global factory.

            Regional Labor Review, 4(2), 38-39. Retrieved from

            http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/colleges/hclas/cld/cld_rlr_s02_immiwomen.pdf

Yoon Louie, M. C. (2001). Sweatshop Warriors: Immigrant women workers take on global

            factory. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Gestalt Approach to a Hostile Work Environment

Class post. enjoy!

Good Morning R:

To add to this discussion about hostile work environments and what we can do to alleviate hostility is related to managing our own self. What is impressive to me about Cheung-Judge’s (2012) article is the idea on instrumentality. I believe it relates to the discussion at hand.  According to Cheung-Judge (2012), this notion of instrumentality aligns with heightened awareness (heightened consciousness) in a gestalt approach to organization consulting. I would add that it aligns to creating a hostile free workplace as well. Nevis (1998) defined the qualities of “presence” as the effective integration of knowledge and behavior:

Presence is the living embodiment of knowledge: the theories and practices believed to be essential to bring about change in people are manifested, symbolized, or implied in the presence of the consultant. (p. 69).

Although Cheung-Judge (2012) spoke about instrumentality from an OD perspective, it is useful in regards to the workplace environment and it may be useful to the folks within the Murdoch organization, even now. The concepts of instrumentality of presence in gestalt practice see the use of self as our prime asset in achieving the helping relationship. It is not an option but the cornerstone of OD work. The ability to fill a wide range of roles depends upon this use of self (Cheung-Judge, 2012). She goes further to answer the question of how we develop our instrumentality.

Cheung-Judge (2012) stated that the answer lies in two concepts: owning and refining our instrumentality. Each of these ideas and their related practices are based upon a requisite perception of our self as a key asset requiring both proper management and investment (Cheung-Judge, 2012). Owning our instrumentality aligns with  the development of our self-knowledge and expertise as members of an organization or in a specific field (industry). Refining our instrumentality implies regular maintenance work on self (Cheung-Judge, 2012).

In practice, owning the self means devoting time and energy to learning about who we are, and how issues of family history, gender, race, and sexuality affect self- perception. It means also identifying and exploring the values by which we live our lives, as well as developing our intellectual, emotional, physical, and spiritual capacities (Cheung-Judge, 2012). Owning instrumentality can also be understood in terms of Cooperrider’s (2000) concept of identifying the “positive core” within and using it to achieve one’s dreams. “Putting first things first” (Covey, 1995) in order to achieve balance between work and life can also be considered part of owning one’s instrumentality. I believe it may also help employees who work in a hostile work environment, and people who find themselves working in an organization that condones unethical decisions-making practices.

References

Cheung-Judge, M. (2012). The Self as an instrument: A cornerstone for the future of OD. OD

   Practitioner, 44(2), 42-47.

Cooperrider, D. (2000). Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis of organizing. In  

                Cooperrider, D., Sorensen, P., Whitney, D. & Yaeger, Y. (Eds.), Appreciative Inquiry

                (pp. 29-53). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

Covey, S. (1995). First things first. New York, NY: Fireside.

Lao Tzu on War

Class Post. Enjoy!

Thank you, R:

I do not know much about war or how it is fought and what perspectives go into deciding to go to war. My perspective has always been, "Peace, not war." I will also admit that my head is stuck in the sand with these matters. Your post has already enlightened me more than I have been. Ever.

On the other hand, I can have a philosophical conversation about how we can change the consciousness of war. Holmes (1966) argued it is your thought about a situation, not the situation itself. In the scenario we are discussing, it seems that their thought about the success of the Enigma was more important than the thought of saving lives (or the Enigma itself). My opinion only! In the selection from the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu explains his view on weapons and war.  He believes that humans should never find enjoyment in war, and all humans should choose to reject weapons. He feels that we should resort to war only if it's completely necessary. The purpose of weapons is to cause harm to others and he thinks that no one could ever find pleasure in harming another human being.

Lao Tzu's views on life can easily be recognized throughout his work. He believed in a simplistic form of life, where weapons and machinery would be considered too much of a hassle. Lao Tzu felt that all men should be on the path to goodness in whatever they were doing, and weapons, to him, let people stray off that path to righteousness.

The Tao Te Ching, #31

Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the upmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

References

From the Tao Te Ching, #31. (n. d.). Retrieved from

          http://enloehs.wcpss.net/projects/west42002/laotzu6/review.html

Holmes, E. (1966). Science of mind: A philosophy, a faith, a way of life. New York,

          NY: Penguin Putnam, Inc.

Leader as Servant

A post in the class forum on Ethical Leadership. Enjoy!

Hi K:

Thank you for calling attention to the leader as servant.

Griffith (2007) argued that many of the questions of leadership ethics may be addressed through the lens provided by two essential questions. First, is the process of leadership ethical? Is it ethical to use an influence relationship of any type to attempt to determine the values, objectives and goals of a community? This initial question may, in turn, as posited by Griffith (2007) be further reduced to the determination of whether the leadership process is non-coercive and engaged in voluntarily by both followers and leaders, and whether the degree of mutuality of the agreed upon goals is adequate. According to Griffith (2007) transactional, transformational, and servant leadership may be sequentially applied to satisfy these requirements of ethicality. However, the requirements are not fully satisfied until servant leadership is employed. The second essential question is whether the content of the leadership, that is, the change intended by the community is itself ethical. Griffith (2007) used classical theories of ethics to address this latter question.

As we have been learning in class, the Kantian categorical imperative says to do what is right regardless of the consequences (Johnson, 2007). This view is clearly applicable in questions arising in the ethics and leadership domain, particularly in the subdomain of organizational governance. Indeed, it is not only applicable here, its application is mandatory (Griffith, 2007). Many of the most recent corporate ethical scandals may be seen to have resulted from a failure to adhere to this perspective (Griffith, 2007). The temptation to “adjust the numbers” to satisfy investors and to avoid delivering bad news to the ever present analysts is a clear violation of this principal. Doing whatever is right regardless of the consequences means reporting results forthrightly, forsaking the temptation to hide bad news, taking immediate and visible actions when ethical transgressions are identified, and acting with transparency in all these matters (Griffith, 2007).

As Griffith (2007) correctly stated, “Ethical issues are not fine wine; They do not improve with age” (p. 11).

I agree with Griffith (2007) that if leaders unfailingly act out of a primary regard for the welfare of the other stakeholders and insist that their own interests be subservient to the greater interests of the organization, then many ethical issues can be prevented. More importantly, leaders adhering to this perspective will more often make the more correct strategic and tactical choices for the right reasons (Griffith, 2007). Even when their actions are less successful than desired, their motivations cannot be questioned, for they will fail to prosper along with the rest of the organization.

Reference

Griffith, S. D. (2007). Servant Leadership, Ethics and the Domains of Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2007/griffith.pdf

Emotional Intelligence and Appreciative Inquiry

A post on Emotional Intelligence and Appreciative Inquiry. Enjoy!

Just out of curiosity, how would you place EI information before the shareholders in elections of board members?

Happy Sunday Morning Dr. S:

Thank you for your question. I agree with several researchers regarding the ways in which EI can be introduced to shareholders for a board of director’s election (or anything else organizationally related). One way to place EI information before a group’s shareholders is through appreciative inquiry. Dunton (2008) acknowledged, as Anderson (2010) did, that future trends in the practice of organizational development include appreciative inquiry. I believe these trends are suggestible for today’s organizations and corporation’s shareholders. Action learning and inquiry is a way to drill down by asking tough questions, look at facts in a non-judgmental way, and to be thorough in the process (Dunton, 2008). Dunton (2008) clarified that action learning with inquiry focuses on the individual (or individuals on a future board) that is presenting the problem and creates an opportunity for curiosity from others in the room (a room full of shareholders).

Faure (2006) discussed five important functions of an appreciative interview. Appreciative inquiry:

• Sets a positive, energizing tone.
• Values the participants.
• Creates personal connections.
• Reduces differences, and
• Reduces anxiety.

I believe Faure (2006) hit the nail on the head when he stated that using a generative metaphor can help shareholders by inviting them to view a phrase or saying in a new way or in doing things differently. This can be used to help individual employees, the board of directors, shareholders, and the organization as a whole. The third reason Faure (2006) gives for involving the whole organization in appreciative inquiry is that innovations arise when people look at old problems and make associations between previously unconnected things. Faure (2006) calls this out-of-the box thinking. Liljenquist, Galinsky, and Kray (2004) called it counterfactual thinking:

Consistent with our hypothesis, activating a counterfactual mind-set at the individual level had a debilitating effect on the group judgment task, whereas activating a counterfactual mind-set at the group level had a facilitative effect, increasing information sharing, synergistic coordination and judgment accuracy (p. 1).

One of the important aspects of appreciative inquiry is the idea of conscious evolution of positive imagery and thus assists the boards of directors (and shareholders) evolve together as a whole. Asking the right questions within appreciative inquiry is the basis for its transformative power. Cooperridor & Srivastva, (1987) says it is a, "...collective action which are designed to help evolve the normative vision and will of a group, organization, or society as a whole" (as cited in Thatchenkery 1992, p. 4). Asking the right questions means to ask powerful questions. The Center for Community Support and Research at Wichita State University (n. d.) organized the idea of a powerful question centered on the following characteristics and argued a powerful question(s) should:

1. Generate curiosity and invites creativity

2. Focuses inquiry and stimulates reflective conversation

3. Is thought provoking and surfaces underlying assumptions

4. Touches a deeper meaning and stays with participants

5. Travel well, spreading around the organization (WSU, n. d., p. 1).

Organizations (and shareholders) can move from the less powerful yes/no type of questions, on a continuum to more powerful questions before an election. As shareholders are able to move from simple yes/no questions to why to what if queries, this stimulates enhanced reflective and creative answers (WSU, n. d.). The processes of creating powerful questions assist shareholders in capturing the vision of the organization and its elections. Literally, it can re-frame the trajectory of the board, the shareholders, and the election process.

Moreover, the power of reframing one’s thoughts/perceptions/consciousness is significant as it relates empowering transformation, through appreciative inquiry, for shareholders and their elections. Reframing as Thatchenkery (1992) said is, "intentionally focusing on the person's positive attributes, a reality different from the "problem person" is created. Intentional focus on positivity and not negativity allows the person to become transformed. Holmes (1966) in chapter eight of his book discusses the power of thought. Holmes (1966) posited,

That which thought has done, thought can un-do. Lifelong habits of wrong thinking can be consciously and deliberately neutralized, and an entirely new order of mental and emotional reaction established in Mind; we must become actively constructive and happy in our thinking- not merely passively so (Holmes, 1966, pp. 142-143).

It is interesting to note that Berger and Luckman (1966) advanced the idea of understanding the role of language in creating reality in the same year Holmes (1966) was, to me, doing just that in his book, Science of Mind. Basically, Holmes (1966) guided us toward the idea that our thoughts create our world. Holmes (1966) said, "The more power one gives to his thought-the more completely he believes that his thought has power-the more will it have" (Holmes, 1966, p. 47). This is what Cooperrider, (1990) alluded to when he said, "...positive thoughts leading to positive language and positive action or affirmative language creating affirmative organizational cultures" (as cited to Thatchenkery, 1992, p. 2). I believe it is the shareholders responsibility to take appreciative inquiry into account as they participate in an election of a future board of directors.

Appreciative inquiry is a way that can impact shareholders helping them change the language or reframe questions that help them to address an election. It strikes at the shareholder’s ability to create a shared consensus about the future of their board of directors. Thachankary’s (1992) account of appreciative inquiry does not ignore the problem or issues that organizations have, rather, it reframes the language around the problem that involves powerful questions; questions that delve deeper and allow for critical reflection prior to an election.

Complex decisions can have serious implications and consequences when made by groups (shareholders) (Galinsky & Kray, 2003). For example, when the Presidential Commission investigated the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, it was reported that lack of information sharing was a contributing factor to the accident (Galinsky & Kray, 2003). The Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (1986) showed that although information and data was available showing the temperatures were low and could cause malfunction with the space shuttle, this information was not disseminated (As cited in Galinsky & Kray, 2003). The decision makers were never informed of the information. In this case and the case you asked me to consider (EI sharing to a group of shareholders before an election of a board of directors), counterfactual mind-sets can increase the discussion of unshared information and improve the decision-making process (Galinsky & Kray, 2003).

Counterfactuals are lines of thoughts about what might have been. Counterfactual mind-sets stand for alternate realities for events in the past (Galinsky & Kray, 2003). Roese (1994) stated that counterfactual thoughts are distinguished by expressions of “if only…” (As cited in Galinsky & Kray, 2003, p. 606). People can reconstruct the past through counterfactual mind-sets and thoughts about what might have been can influence future behavior (Galinsky & Kray, 2003). Moreover, asking a group or team to think about what might have been in one context can affect future decision making (in an election) and problem-solving in an unrelated context (Galinsky & Kray, 2003).

This type of mental simulation (Kahneman & Tversky, 1982) can assess the probability that a specific plan will succeed, evaluate alternatives, and identify the risks involved in a plan or course of action (Galinsky & Kray, 2003; Liljenquist, Galinsky, & Kray, 2004). In short, as Galinsky and Kray (2003) suggested, “Counterfactual mind-sets improve group decision making by providing a cognitive mechanism that lead to mental simulation and a greater consideration of alternatives” (p. 615). In this way, shareholders can discuss organizational structure, provide unshared information, resolve issues, and consider the right persons for the organization they support through the use of appreciative inquiry for electing a board of directors. Thank you for your post.

References

Cheung-Judge, M. (2012). The Self as an instrument: A cornerstone for the future of OD. OD Practitioner,

                44(2), 42-47.

Dunton, D. L. (2008). Inquiry and feedback: Using action learning for transformational change. Industrial

                and Commercial Training, 40(2), 109-111. doi: 10.1108/00197580810858956

Faure, M. (2006). Problem solving was never this easy: Transformational change through appreciative

                inquiry. Performance Improvement, 45(9), 22-48.

Galinsky, A. D. & Kray, L. J. (2003). From thinking about what might have been to sharing what

                we know: The effects of counterfactual mind-sets on information in groups. Journal of

                Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 606-618.

Holmes, E. (1966). Science of mind: A philosophy, a faith, a way of life. New York, NY: Penguin

                Putman.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A.

                (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). New York, NY:

                Cambridge University Press.

Liljenquist, K. A., Galinsky, A. D., Kray, L. J. (2004). Exploring the rabbit hole of possibilities by myself or

                with my group: The benefits and liabilities of activating counterfactual mind-sets for information

                sharing and group coordination. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4), 263-279. doi:

                10.1002/bdm.479

Roese, N. J., & Hur, T. (1997). Affective determinants of counterfactual thinking. Social Cognition, 15,

                274–290.

Thachankary, T. (1992). “Organizations as texts: Hermeneutics as a model for understanding

                organizational change,” in Pasmore, W. A., and Woodman, R. W. (Eds.), Research in

                Organizational Change and Development, 6, 197–233.

Wichita State University. (n. d.). Center for Community Support and Research. Retrieved from

                http://www.wichita.edu/ccsr

Shared Leadership Post

This is a post on Shared Leadership from a class discussion. Enjoy!

Good afternoon Matthew:

You provided us with an excellent post! What resonated with me most is your research that indicated, “Fiscally responsible leaders possess humility, transparency, impeccable character, and a can-do spirit. Rather, leadership requires a deep sense of responsibility. Therefore, it is important that our public leaders understand our current economic difficulties” (Kamara, 2013, para. 1). To add to your discussion, I believe taking a shared leadership approach facilitates the characteristics you wrote about.

The shared leadership is the process of working in a collaborative manner to achieve organizational goals (McEachin, 2011; Neck & Manz, 2007). This style of leadership occurs when all members act as the leader by rotating the responsibilities among the people who possess the fundamental education, capabilities, and skills (Bateman & Snell, 2009). Shared leadership is the use of mutual influence to accomplish stated goals by participating in the decision-making process of the organization (Wood, 2005). Rotating or sharing leadership responsibilities within an organization does not eliminate the need for an assigned leader (Yukl, 2006); Rather it allows for use of many different people who have many different skill sets and talents. The principles of the shared leadership paradigm focus on encouraging the heart of the followers, inspiring the vision of the organization, and challenging the process by modeling the way (Leech & Fulton, 2008; Yukl, 2006).

Centers for Spiritual Living (CSL) uses the shared leadership approach.  O’Toole, Galbraith, and Lawler (2002) affirmed the fact that, “The trend over the last half-century has been away from concentration of power in one person and toward expanding the capacity for leadership at the top levels of corporations” (p. 67). Yukl (2006) acknowledged that decision-making in not individual rather a collaborative process with many different people through an interactive process.

According to Singh (2008), a shared leadership model promotes a people-oriented environment that encourages empowerment, which allows the follower to make decisions freely from a point of values, beliefs, and interest rather than a point of position.  Leaders possess the most power when they give the power away (Kouzes, 2003).  In Greenleaf’s description of the servant leader, Hesse’s character Leo gave away authority and position in service to his companions (Greenleaf, 1977). In the end, Leo was appointed to the high council for his service.

Shared leadership empowers the followers and fosters a sense of power and control (Dambe & Moorad, 2008; Yukl, 2006). Because many lay leaders at CSL are volunteers, the empowerment component allows the follower to increase confidence, ownership, awareness, and personal growth (Kieslinger, Pata, & Fabian, 2008; Singh, 2008). Shared leadership and empowerment create synergy through collaboration and interdependency where followers use individual abilities (Neck & Manz, 2007). Over time, shared leadership creates a new pool of leaders, broadening creativity and knowledge within an organization, which is consistent with the intention of the servant leadership model that followers will become leaders (Bateman & Snell, 2009).

Centers for Spiritual Living (CSL) recognizes shared leadership as the contribution of all participants and groups within the organization thus reducing hierarchy and encouraging full participation by all members.  Shared leadership requires the transparency of everyone by the sharing of ideas openly and participation in the decision-making activities of the organization. Within CSL, the shared leadership approach is demonstrated by; (a) Seeking outcomes through consensus rather than by majority vote, (b) Valuing cooperation over competing viewpoints, (c) Balancing the opinions and responsibilities of all members, (d) Sharing rather than limiting or abandoning leadership, and, (e) Relying on all participants to take personal responsibility to be fully informed, current and prepared for all activities of the group (Centers for Spiritual Living, 2012, p. 7).

I believe the shared leadership style can have a positive impact on the financial health of any organization. Together we are aware of our finances and together we make ethical choices about how to remain fiscally responsible. Thank you for your post.

References

Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2009). Management: Leading and collaborating in a competitive

        world (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Centers for Spiritual Living. (2012). Centers for Spiritual Living Policies and Procedure Manual.

        Retrieved from http://www.csl.org

Dambe, M., & Moorad, F. (2008). From power to empower: A paradigm shift in

leadership. South African Journal of Higher Education, 22(3), 575-587.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and

        greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Kamara, M. (2013). Week six, DQ # #1 discussion question. PHL/736 Political Acumen and

        Ethics. University of Phoenix course website. Retrieved from

        https://classroom.phoenix.edu/afm213/secure/view-thread.jspa?threadID=52620178

Kieslinger, B., Pata, K., & Fabian, C. M. (2009). A participatory design approach for the

support of collaborative learning and knowledge building in networked organizations.

International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 2(3), 34-38. doi:

10.3991/ijac.v2i3.999

Kouzes, J. M. (2003). Business leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Leech, D., & Fulton, C. R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of shared decision making and the

        principal’s leadership behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban district. Education,

128(4), 630-644. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS

earch_SearchValue_0=EJ816951&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ81695

1

McEachin, H. (2011). Assessing the perception and practice of servant leadership in small rural

        protestant African-American churches (Doctoral dissertation).

        Retrieved from ProQuest Theses & Dissertations database. (UMI No. 3480372)

Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2007). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for

        personal experience. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

O’Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. E. (2002). When two (or more) heads are better than one:

        The promise and pitfalls of shared leadership. California Management Review, 44

        (4), 65-83.

Singh, P. (2008). SWEAT analysis to determine organizational effectiveness. International

        Journal of Learning, 15(11), 149-159. Retrieved from

        http://l08.cgpublisher.com/proposals/232/index_html

Wood, M. S. (2005). Determinants of shared leadership in management teams. International

        Journal of Leadership Studies 1(1), 64-85. Retrieved from http://www.

        regent.edu.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

        Prentice Hall.