Archive for February 27, 2009

The Lifeworld & Healthy Organizational Systems

February 27, 2009 / / One comment

Carman, As always it is a real pleasure to read and share your posts.  I look forward to having a chance to respond in the near future.  Best wishes to you! Lisa

Habermas and Happy Cows

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/content/images/home_cover_cows.jpg

Hi Lisa,

Thank you for the intellectual oasis you’ve created here! Like a jeweler examining a precious stone, I’ve spent the week reading and re-reading your comments. Every facet enriched my “lifeworld” (the source of human activity, connectedness and meaningfulness according to Habermas). I was especially enamored by your comment, “in a healthy organic system, groups exist to serve their members, and members serve the group so that it continues to sustain them.”

Adult educator Michael Welton agrees with you: “the bedrock of the lifeworld is the provision of safety, security and sustenance for all of us.” Welton also says that harmful, anxiety-producing and unstable conditions distort the socialization process, giving rise to various pathologies…” With your forbearance I would like to apply Habermas’ concepts of Instrumental, Communicative and Emancipatory learning to cows.

Cows

Studies in Britain have shown that an average dairy-sized farm could see production increase by an extra 6,800 gallons a year based on the following:

• Naming and treating cows as individuals cuts stress levels and boosts yields
• Giving cows one-to-one attention so makes cows feel happier and more relaxed
• Naming cows makes them more docile and less likely to kick during milking
• Treating cows like “one of the family” is believed to cut levels of cortisol—a stress hormone known to inhibit milk production
• Placing importance on the individual cow improves their welfare and their “perception of humans and increases milk production

http://www.berwickshire-news.co.uk/news/Happy-cows-produce-higher-milk.

Instrumental learning and action might approach the cow as an object to be controlled or manipulated. Many farmers, on the other hand, enjoy Lifeworld concepts wherein the cow is more than a milking machine—she is “one of the family!” They can now challenge the distorted meaning perspectives of those systems (driven by money and power) which invade their Lifeworld and undermine the dignity of the cow.

I am reminded of Senge’s Systems Law: “Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.” Living ‘systems’ like the cow have integrity. Senge says that violating the boundaries results in a “mess”—we recall the BSE scandal—which evidently started by feeding cows diseased sheep brains.

I love your comment, “in as much as we are encouraged to subordinate the quality of our experience to economic and other outcomes, there is an inclination to shut down other feelings, including empathy, which is considered to be “soft” and “feminine” and therefore, less appropriate for an organizational environment.” For me, the cow symbolizes the subjective under siege from the system: the host hostage to the parasite.

To illustrate, workers in one Canadian organization ;) tethered to a telephone all day long are treated to “soft” skills training. Ironic given that most are female and most have exemplified “soft” skills for decades. In this scenario, the workers’ Lifeworld did not legitimate the system; the systems media (which eschews face-to-face interaction) are “colonizing” their Lifeworld—despite respectful protestations from the workers.

Your insightful references to “holism” and “the revalorization of the quality of our subjective and inter-subjective experience” are key to the reclamation of the beleaguered Lifeworld. Lisa, I am wondering how Montuori would achieve the “healthy organic system”? Does he see any antagonism between the Lifeworld and the systems world?

Bye for now!

Carman

p.s. I’ve talked about cows—how about a duck? From Reader’s Digest—the only joke I know. This duck walks into a store, and asks the storekeeper, “Do you have any grapes”?  The storekeeper says, “Sorry, No.” The duck leaves. The next day the duck walks back into the store and asks the storekeeper, “Do you have any grapes”?  The storekeeper says, “No.” So the duck leaves”  The next day the duck walks into the store and asks the storekeeper, “Do you have any grapes”? The storekeeper says, “No, and if you ask me one more time I’m going to staple your feet to the floor!” The duck leaves. The following day, the duck walks back into the store and asks the shopkeeper, “Do you have any staples?” The shopkeeper says, “No.” The duck replies, “Do you have any grapes?”

From More on humanizing systems (and the brain), 2009/02/27 at 6:16 AM

Category: All Posts, Leadership, Partnership, Philosophy, Science /

More on humanizing systems (and the brain)

February 22, 2009 / / 2 comments

Hi Carman, As always, your posts are both intellectually enriching and poetic.

Years ago, Alfonso Montuori and I wrote an essay on how our philosophical paradigm and guiding metaphors have shaped organizations and leadership, and created the blind spots that now limit organizations. A very perceptive reviewer suggested the article would be all the more impactful if it was written from the voice that naturally emerges from the perspective we descibe. You write in that voice.

You make an excellent point about humanizing systems, and I appreciate your references to Weber and Havel. It raises the question: Are we meant to serve our systems, or are they meant to serve us?  There is so much more to be said here about human and social psychology in a “mechanistic system” or a “theocracy.”  But, for the moment, I, too, am drawn to explore more creative and fulfilling possibilities. ..

Towards that end, I would like to offer an additional perspective. In our essay, Alfonso Montuori observes that we tend to emphasize and value either the individual or the group — one in opposition to the other. For example, capitalism vs. communism; the lone hero fighting the oppressive organization.

However, Montuori also observes that sense of opposition itself reflects a worldview of separation (which I would loosely associate with our ideas of left brain cognition).  Rather, from a systems point of view, he suggests, it’s a matter of “both/and. ” The organization and individual are part of a single continuum. In a sense, each is in and shapes the other.  In a healthy organic system, groups exist to serve their members, and members serve the group so that it continues to sustain them. We could also add that a healthy organic system also recognizes that its own sustainability requires a healthy environment…    

A key distinction between a healthy organic system and bureaucratic systems is that, as rational systems, bureaucratic systems tend to make objects of their members. Using the machine analogy, the “subject” is the operator of the machine, and the experience of organizational members is not considered as important as the economic and other outcomes of the organizational machine. Often it could be said of these organizations that the experience of organizational members only makes a difference in so much as as it affects the bottom line.

This machine also exists inside many of its members — who learn not to value our own subjective experience.  For example, there have been times in my organizational career, where I had so much to do (produce) that I literally felt machine-like and disconnected from my feelings.

My perspective is that in a hierarchal, bureacratic system (which emphasizes external power relations), we are enculturated to feel primarily those emotions associated with our dynamic place in the pecking order: anxiety, anger, depression and for the lack of a better word, “glory.” But, in as much as we are encouraged to subordinate the quality of our experience to economic and other outcomes, there is an inclination to shut down other feelings, including empathy, which is considered to be “soft” and “feminine” and therefore, less appropriate to an organizational environment.

Being a biological organism myself 🙂 I believe that when one of my bodily subsystems is in distress (or very healthy), I feel it — either unconsciously or consciously.  Conversely, when I am happy or in distress, every system in my body is impacted by that.  In other words, I think that the quality of holism arises, at least in part, from mutual feeling (of parts and the whole).  [I’m very influenced in this train of thought by Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy.]

So, I think the restoration of feeling and the revalorization of the quality of our subjective and inter-subjective experience is key to a more cognitively balanced (Partnership) approach to organizations…  To come full circle, this is a quality I hear in your writing.

thank you so much for this inspiring conversation!

Category: All Posts, Communication, Leadership, Organization, Partnership, Philosophy, Psychology, Rewards, Teams, Values /

Humanizing Systems — from Carman de voer

February 22, 2009 / / No comments

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

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

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

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

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

Bye for now!

Carman

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

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

Reply to Organization as Theocracy

February 21, 2009 / / One comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organization as Theocracy Metaphor

February 21, 2009 / / One comment

Hi Lisa, I had fun originating the “theocracy” metaphor. Your question, ‘What are the dynamics that can lead us to imagine other people as objects?’ guided me throughout. As with all metaphors it both illuminates and obfuscates.

Organization As Theocracy

Theocracy: government by men claiming to know the will of God.

Etiology of Error

The Messianic [Christian] Scriptures are a record of rabbis disciplining rabbis. In-groups were those rabbis who accepted Jesus as Jewish Messiah; out-groups—rabbis who rejected Jesus as Jewish Messiah. “The world”—ancient Jewish society—was the arena of reclamation. All discipline was lateral –rabbi counseling rabbi–and only after the completion of the biblical canon became hierarchical [leader controlling “laity”].

Replacement Theology

In the ensuing centuries, an institution emerged calling itself “Christianity” borrowing concepts from the Jewish worldview and organic culture contained in the sacred scripts. Rather than leaders [rabbis] disciplining leaders and furnishing them lateral training, it conceived a learned group of [non-Jewish] men [clergy] communicating ‘higher’ learning to powerless men and women [laity].

In-groups became those who accepted the institutional interpretation of the Scriptures; out-groups became those who rejected such. The catholic [universal] leadership and institution became “the saved’’—“the world” became those outside of and [often] opposed to “the church.”

Protestant Ethic

A paradigm shift: from individual within the corporate to corporate within the individual.

Dimensions:

• Bi-polar partitioning of people into classes [“superior” and “subordinate”-“saved” and “unsaved”]
• Isolation
• Impersonality
• Systematic and detailed planning of activity
• Efficient and effective “good works”
• Motion economy with corresponding disdain for relaxation and “idleness”
• Time=money
• Patriarchy
• Wealth confirms divine favor
• “Spiritual” slavery to god

Implications for Organizations

The impersonal organization is exalted to divine status and becomes the unconscious projection of human needs and neuroses. Organization has a psychological profile: mission, vision, and values. It is feared and obeyed because “it” controls the material bases of life. Activity un-related to its “business” [idiosyncrasies, laughter, social interaction] is disloyalty to the deity. Object is supreme; subject is slight.

Management: Enacts the business [busy-ness] of the controlling entity. A priestly class “above” mediates between the “deity” and those “below” or “down” the hierarchy. These systematically plan the lives of “workers” to the last detail. Credentials, honor, status, and remuneration confirm their calling as a priestly aristocracy of labor.

Separation and secrecy [hence, ‘secretary’] sanctify them away from the potentially contaminating operatives. Workers are objects to be ‘reconciled’ to the deity [organization]. Management’s success is judged by melding the will of the organization and the will of workers. Obedience, submission and commitment are paramount.

Management Assumptions:

Non-managerial workers are in deficit [“sinners”]. Non-managerial workers exhibit the following characteristics:

• Dislike work and attempt to avoid it
• Have no ambition, want no responsibility
• Would rather follow than lead
• Are self-centered and therefore do not care about organizational goals
• Resist change
• Are gullible and not particularly intelligent

In fine, “workers” are “slaves of god” in that they experience a symbolic ritual of dishonor (social death) inflicted by both themselves and the enslaving organization. As slaves they are deprived of freedom of decision and action by means of force or enforced solidarity with a view to the utility of the enslaving organization. Self-manumission obtains when leaving an enslaving organization; slavery resumes when entering another. The brutal and brutalizing relationship is masked by a thin veneer of civility that is mitigated only by State “protection.”

The antagonism between “leaders” [shepherds] and “led” [sheep] can only be remedied by workers being “born from above” and “saved” [e.g., from unemployment]. Workers must “perform”—demonstrate unequivocal commitment [“everything not out of faith”—commitment—“is sin”] to the divine order—no matter how odious its dictates.

Servitude is insufficient–workers must repent of their own knowledge, repudiate their own identities, and adopt the new identity espoused by their “teachers.” As objects or instruments, workers must “demonstrate” complete and unequivocal submission [slavery] by surrendering to the higher power. In fine, they must “transform by making their minds over” [Romans 12:2] to prove to themselves what is the good and perfect will of the Power. The social pattern is re-enacted within each organization.

From What prevents us from regarding others as whole human beings?, 2009/02/21 at 6:32 AM

Category: All Posts, Culture, Diversity, Leadership, Organization /

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 /

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 /

The Ideal Leader

February 11, 2009 / / 2 comments

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

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

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

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

The cave is diagrammed at the following site:

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

Your blog’s Mission Statement says:

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

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

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

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

Category: All Posts, Leadership, Organization, Philosophy /

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

February 9, 2009 / / 2 comments

More compelling contributions from Carman de voer! 

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

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

Plato’s Cave

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference

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

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

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

Category: All Posts, Organization, Vision /
« Older Entries  
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee