Differentiation of Self

“A person with a well-differentiated ‘self’ recognizes his realistic dependence on others, but he can stay calm and clear headed enough in the face of conflict, criticism, and rejection to distinguish thinking rooted in a careful assessment of the facts from thinking clouded by emotionality. Thoughtfully acquired principles help guide decision-making about important family and social issues, making him less at the mercy of the feelings of the moment. What he decides and what he says matches what he does. He can act selflessly, but his acting in the best interests of the group is a thoughtful choice, not a response to relationship pressures. Confident in his thinking, he can either support another’s view without being a disciple or reject another view without polarizing the differences. He defines himself without being pushy and deals with pressure to yield without being wishy-washy.

 

Every human society has its well-differentiated people, poorly differentiated people, and people at many gradations between these extremes. Consequently, the families and other groups that make up a society differ in the intensity of their emotional interdependence depending on the differentiation levels of their members. The more intense the interdependence, the less the group’s capacity to adapt to potentially stressful events without a marked escalation of chronic anxiety. Everyone is subject to problems in his work and personal life, but less differentiated people and families are vulnerable to periods of heightened chronic anxiety which contributes to their having a disproportionate share of  society’s most serious problems.”

From

Bowen Center Website http://www.thebowencenter.org/pages/conceptds.html

Leadership In Action as a Way of Being to meet the Demands of Early 21st Century Life

It seems like there’s nothing much new in the leadership literature until about the year 2000.  Indeed, there has been an evolution in thinking about leadership which has moved through first “person-subjective” to “second person-interpersonal” to “third person-objective” (organizational systems) to a more integrative “fourth person-inter-objective view”. (Nicolaides & Wallis, p.1)

Once, effective leadership was viewed as an individual having specific traits or qualities and displaying specific behaviors.  In the years following, you see the introduction of an appreciation for the interactions of leaders and followers with the introduction of “emotional intelligence” and still later, a more complex systems-oriented view incorporating concepts from Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory.  The bookstore shelves are full of how to guides and even some of the most notable authors on the subject, like Peter Drucker suggest good leadership is the possession of a set effective personality traits and the display of certain desired behaviors.

Our thinking about leadership has evolved from thinking in terms of behavior traits of effective leaders to a more complex systems view.  Certainly, today’s more progressive view of leadership is one of leadership as a state of being as opposed to simply displaying the specific traits or behaviors.  Advances of genetics, nanotechnology and robotics (GNR) will inevitably require even more significant changes in how leaders lead.  In the near future, failure of our social systems to evolve rapidly enough to keep pace with technological advances could lead to tremendous problems for humanity.

1^st Person-Leadership from the individual perspective (Subjective)

Leadership, to the average person, most likely means charisma.  The handsome, articulate political, business or military leader comes to mind.  But there are many examples of charismatic leaders, like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin who led their followers into a death spiral.

Conversely, other reserved, shy and somewhat awkward people were very effective leaders.  Perhaps Lincoln, Churchill and Gandhi are good examples.  Perhaps because, as management guru, Peter Drucker suggests, the foundation of effective leadership is clearly defining the mission.  You find this theme echoed in some of the most popular evidenced-based leadership textbooks like Kouzes and Posner’s very popular, The Leadership Challenge (1987).

One finds the trait theory alive and well into the 1960s when MIT professor Douglas McGregor defined the characteristics of “Theory X” and “Theory Y” managers.  Theory X assumes most people respond best to coercion and force while Theory Y suggests people respond better to the charismatic leader who using persuasion to change follower’s behavior.  It was McGregor who suggested a Theory Y approach would better create an environment of trust which he believed was more a more effective leadership strategy.

Many of the traits ascribed to good leaders have proven quite stable over time.  Good leaders view their role as a responsibility rather than an honor bestowed.  Good leaders are secure with themselves and gather the best possible teams around them.  Good leaders engender trust in their followers. (Kouzes & Posner, pp.3-49)

Trust emanates from integrity which is demonstrated by behaving in a manner consistent with ones spoken words. (Drucker, p.271)  Through self awareness and reflection, today’s good leaders behave as they want their followers to behave.  One’s actions are more important than words.  Research tells us we have gaps between what we say and what we do.  Followers experience those inconsistencies at unconscious and preconscious levels and see them at a conscious level. (Quinn, p. 233)

Effective leaders model values important to the purpose or mission of the organization and good leaders are able to facilitate the creation of a shared vision around which followers can rally.  By its nature, leadership is about inspiring followers to move toward something new.  If people are to stay where they are, they need good management, not effective leadership.  So leaders, by nature, are risk-takers.  Through integrity and trust, leaders inspire others to action.  Great leaders are also able to “tap into” the emotions of followers inspire their followers.  Churchill and Martin Luther King are good examples of leaders who presented themselves authentically, inspired a shared vision, challenged the status quo, enabled and encouraged others and tapped into the emotions of their followers. (Kouzes & Posner, pp. 3-49)

Kouzes and Posner have conducted longitudinal research about the attributes followers say they value in leaders.  Consistently across years and cultures, followers say they look for honest (integrity/authenticity), forward-looking (vision/mission), inspiring and competent.  They maintain these attributes comprise credibility and they suggest that characteristic is the foundation of leadership. (Kouzes and Posner, pp. 3-49)

According to the old models, and even today, effective leadership is definitely a “way of being”.   Historically, most leaders of note have been people whose locus of control was more internal than external.  (Rogers, p.119)  Self awareness for effective leadership then, is not a new idea.  When one reviews lists of the characteristics of effective leaders created by the popular writers in the genra, the similarities appear striking.

As recent as the late 1970’s and early 80’s, the focus remained on the leaders’ behavior with “situational leadership” gaining popularity. (Graff, p. 285)  This movement seems to be related to “structural contingency theory” and the concept of person/environment fit.  Jim Collins in his popular book, Good to Great (2001) speaks about the importance of getting the right people “on the bus”.   It seems the classic argument that leaders are born, not made is successfully refuted in Rooke and Torbert’s article, “Seven Transformations of Leadership”.  They suggest leadership is situational and that leaders can change their behavior though self-awareness and personal development efforts.  How leaders develop is the most important factor. (Rooke &Tolbert, p.45)

In his very contemporary but rather traditional book, The Soul of Leadership Deepak Chopra (2010) highlights the themes of self-awareness, vision creation and vision communication.  Interestingly, Chopra lists introduces the seven-letter acronym L-E-A-D-E-R (L= Look and listen, E= Emotional Bonding, A= Awareness, D= Doing, E= Empowerment, R= Responsibility, S= Synchronicity) to define a leadership style which is visionary, emotionally intelligent, self aware, empowering (echoes of servant leadership) and accountable for the development of both the group and the individuals.

Type	Characteristics	Strengths	Weaknesses
Opportunist	Wins any way possible.Self-oriented; manipulative;“might makes right.”	Good in emergencies and inpursuing sales.	Few people want to followthem for the long term.
Diplomat	Avoids conflict.Wants tobelong; obeys group norms;doesn’t rock the boat.	Supportive glue on teams.	Can’t provide painful feedbackor make the hard decisionsneeded to improveperformance.
Expert	Rules by logic and expertise.Uses hard data to gainconsensus and buy-in.	Good individual contributor.	Lacks emotional intelligence;lacks respect forthose with less expertise.
Achiever	Meets strategic goals.Promotesteamwork; jugglesmanagerial duties and responds to market demands to achieve goals.	Well suited to managerialwork.	Inhibits thinking outside thebox.
Individualist	Operates in unconventionalways.Ignores ruleshe/she regards as irrelevant.	Effective in venture andconsulting roles.	Irritates colleagues andbosses by ignoring key organizationalprocesses andpeople.
Strategist	Generates organizationaland personal change.Highly collaborative; weavesvisions with pragmatic, timely initiatives; challenges existing assumptions.	Generates transformationsover the short and longterm.	None
Alchemist	Generates social transformations(e.g., Nelson Mandela).Reinvents organizationsin historically significant ways.	Leads societywide change.	None

Rooke and Torbert’s seven Action Logics (Rooke and Torbert, p.45)

 2^nd Person-Leadership from the interpersonal and relational perspective (Inter-Subjective)

Dan Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence (1995), like Steven Covey’s, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, codified many of the somewhat timeless traits of effective leaders.   The awareness of one’s own emotions and the emotions of others and the ability to manage both are found in the writings of Drucker and many other management and leadership theorists and writers. The accurate empathy of Rogers’ “core conditions” has implications in management and leadership.

Emotional intelligence has been shown to be important factor in determining which individuals emerge as leaders, the effectiveness of the management or leadership process, how others perceive the individuals as leaders and organizational performance.  It is generally agreed emotional intelligence has four components they are: (1) awareness of one’s own emotions; (2) accurate awareness of others’ emotions; (3) the ability to manage one’s own emotions; and (4) the ability to manage others’ emotions. (Humphrey, p. 495-502)

The concept of authenticity comes up, again and again. To be authentic requires courage because when one is authentic, they are exposing their “real selves” to others and the world.  If one’s inauthentic self is rejected, one can take solace in the fact that it wasn’t their true identity that was rejected but their “avatar”.  The rejection of one’s authentic self would be more painful.  If one considers the ability to influence or persuade others a necessary leadership skill then Carl Roger’s “core conditions” of an effective therapeutic relationship which include authenticity, unconditional positive regard and accurate empathy contribute to the leadership literature of the 20^th century.

3^rd Person-Leadership from an organizational and systems perspective (Objective)

            While not cited in his book, “Change the World”, Quinn’s Advanced Change Theory appears to draw heavily from Spiral Dynamics thinking.  His “four strategies of change” parallel the MEMEs found in Spiral Dynamics.  Some of the themes common to both are high concern for task and people rather than position or hierarchy, preference for collective good over personal and internally directed and other focused leadership.  (Quinn, p. 238) Quinn’s term “bounded instability” has a definite systems origin. (Quinn, p. 149)

4^th Person- Leadership from an integral multi-dimensional perspective including the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd person perspective (Inter-Objective)

When one gets to Beck and Cowan’s Spiral Dynamics (1996) and Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory (2000) there is a view into a more transcendent leader.  While their views might be viewed as simply expanding upon the work of Maslow and other developmental theorists, they integrate earlier thinking into a framework that is quite different. (Figure 1)  These works appear to have spawned a new wave of thought about leadership, a more holistic view, rooted in systems theory.  This approach views leaders as catalysts or “spiral wizards”, a term coined by Beck and Cowen.  From a human development and leadership perspective, Wilber and Beck integrate quite nicely. (Figure 2)

One can hear themes of both situational and servant leadership in Beck, Cowan, Wilber and Quinn’s writings.  A connection between Rooke and Tolbert’s seven “action logics” or descriptors of leadership styles to Spiral Dynamics’ MEMEs is obvious.

Figure 1: In Spiral Dynamics:  Mastering values, leadership and change (1996), Don Beck and Chris Cowan describe a systems-based evolutionary human development framework depicted in a spiral balloon’ graphic.  From this view, individuals and society expand consciousness from a center focused upon individual survival to concern for the welfare of all others and of nature.

Figure 2: Ken Wilber’s Four Quadrants overlaid upon Beck and Cowan’s nine levels, Rice (2006)

Chopra’s selection of seven principals here shouldn’t go unnoticed.  It has some correlation with the seven hierarchical chakras from the Hindu belief system.  Chopra provides no references in this book which seems to be written for the hurried executive interested in a view of leadership that goes beyond those offered by the best-seller volumes found on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.

In Evolutionary Leadership (2009), Peter Merry positions leadership in an organization development “change agent” light.  Merry references Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near (2005), Beck and Cowan, Wilber and many other progressive thinkers of today in defining effective leadership as facilitation of change.  Interestingly, he brings physical health into the conversation by devoting a significant amount of space to the topic.

While not specifically about leadership, Ken Wilber’s Theory of Everything (2001) suggests effective leadership would use an “all quadrant, all level” (AQAL) approach.  Wilber’s theory suggests that there is an interior, exterior, individual and collective component to everything.  Daryl Paulson suggests the development of Wilber’s four quadrant, Integral Theory is a natural evolution from Theory X (Upper Left) to Theory Y (Upper Right) to cultural management (Lower Left) to systems management (Upper Left). (Wilber, p. 94)

If Ray Kurzweil (2005) is correct then much of the leadership thinking of the past will be out of sync if not mostly irrelevant within a few decades.  If good leadership is about emotional intelligence and meeting people where they are, then classifying people according to their Meyers-Brigg Type Indicator or their Strength’s Finder 2.0 hierarchy will not be sufficient in the future.  Historically, throughout human history, man’s tools and technologies have evolved more rapidly than the social systems which govern them.  While the looming advances in GNR offer great promise, they also hold potential for great tragedy.  A genetically modified virus or a nanotech “robot” in the wrong hands could kill millions if not destroy all humanity.

The realm of consciousness and the definition of authenticity may change dramatically in the not too distant future and the biological and non-biological worlds merge mid-century, as predicted by Kurzweil.  With the potential for organ regeneration, artificial organs and body parts, our very definition of what it means to be human may need to evolve.  And Wilber suggests what good are these technological developments if they are placed in the hands of those whose consciousness has not evolved to a point where they will be good stewards of it (Wilber, pg. 105).

References

Intrator, S.M. & Scribner, M. (2007).  Leading from within: poetry that sustains the courage to lead.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Beck, D. E. and Cowan, C.C. (1996). Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership,

and Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bennis, Warren.  (2009). On Becoming a Leader.  New York: Basic Books

Chopra, D. (2010). The Soul of Leadership.  New York: Harmony Books.

Day, D. V., Harrison, M.V and Halpin, S. M. (2009). An Integrative Approach to Leader

Development: Connecting Adult Development, Identity, and Expertise. New           York: Routledge

Drucker, P. (2007).  The Essential Drucker. Oxford: Elsevier.

Edwards, M. (2009). “Seeing Integral Leadership through Three Important Lenses:

Developmental, Ecological and Governance.” Integral Leadership Review. IX, 1, January 2009

Fuhs, C. (2008). “Towards a Vision of Integral Leadership: A Quadrivial Analysis

of Eight Leadership Books.” Journal of integral Theory and Practice, Spring, Vol. 3, No. 1.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ.  New York: Bantam.

Graff, C. (1983).  “Situational Leadership Theory:  A Critical View”.  Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 285-291.

Hatala, R. J. & Hatala, L. M. 2005. Integrative Leadership: Building a Foundation

for Personal, Interpersonal & Organizational Success. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Integrative Leadership Institute.

Heifetz, R.A & Linsky, M. (2002).  Leadership on the Line:  Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hollenbeck, J.R., Moon, H. et al (2002).  “Structural Contigency Theory and Individual Examination of External and Internal Person-Team Fit”.  Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 3, 599-606.

Humphrey, R. (2002).  “The many faces of emotional leadership”.  The Leadership Quarterly.  Vol. 13, Issue 5.  October. pp. 493-504.

Kurzweil, R. (2005).  The Singularity is Near.  London: Penguin.

Kouzes, J.M & Posner, B.Z. (2003) The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Laske, O. (2006). “On Leadership as Something We Are Rather Than Have”, Integral

Leadership Review, VI, 2, March.

Lowney, C. (2009).  Heroic Living.  Chicago: Loyola Press.

Merry, P. (2009). Evolutionary Leadership. Pacific Grove, CA: Integral Publishers.

Nicolaides, A. & Wallis, N. (2011) “Leadership In Action as a Way of Being to meet the Demands of Early 21^st Century Life”.  Management and Leadership Syllabus.  Fielding Graduate University. Spring.

Rice, K.L. (2006).  “Shades of Leadership: A case study in leading for the followers”. Integral Leadership Review.  Vol. VI, No. 1, March 2006.

Rogers, C.R.  (2004). On Becoming a Person.  London: Constable.

Rooke, D.& Torbert, W. (2005). “Seven Transformations of Leadership,” Harvard Business Review, April, 83, 4, pp. 67-76.

Volckmann, R. (2006a). “Making leadership actionable: what we are learning and

how we can use it,” Leadership Review.

Wilber, K. (2000).  A Theory of Everything:  An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality.  Boston: Shambhala.

Wilber, K. (2007). Integral Spirituality.  Boston: Integral Books.

How do people “make sense” of things in organizations?

            The formation of the concept of organizational sensemaking is attributed to Karl Weick, an American psychologist (Hatch, p.44).  According to Choo (1996), “The central concern of sensemaking is understanding how people in organizations construct meaning and reality, and then exploring how that enacted reality provides a context for organizational action, including decision making and knowledge building” (p.337).  Organizational sensemaking is set in motion, when members encounter events or circumstances that appear to contradict what they believe they already know.  This “ecological change” forces members to try to understand the differences (Choo, 1996, p.333).  It is how circumstances are categorized and converted into explicit language. It is how knowledge is converted from tacit to explicit.  It is an ongoing process that is “instrumental, subtle, swift, social and easily taken for granted” (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, p. 409).  Wright, Manning, Farmer & Gilbreath (2000) introduce the term “resourceful sensemaking” which they define as “the ability to appreciate the perspectives of others and use this understanding to enact horizon-expanding discourse”.  They believe the individual’s past experiences as well as their current standpoint is important to resourceful sensemaking (p. 823).

            Sensemaking theory suggests the real organization exists primarily in the minds of its members.  Organization sensemaking is not just an amalgam of individual cognitions but something more and different.  Sensemaking is a complex and dynamic process where members shape and are shaped by events (Weber & Manning, pp. 238-239).  It is how members deal with ambiguity.  The members create cognitive maps or schema of their experiences through which they construct or “make sense” of the organization.  These schemas have several functions.  They provide a structure to map experience, they direct information storage and retrieval, they impact efficiency and speed of information processing, they help to fill in information gaps, they provide problem solving templates and they facilitate planning for the future (Harris, p. 310).  Schema guided sensemaking can occur consciously or unconsciously and this internal dialogue impacts individual image and decision making (Harris, p. 315). 

             Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld, assigned the following characteristics to sensemaking in organizations:

            “Sensemaking Organizes Flux-organizes chaos

            Sensemaking Starts with Noticing and Bracketing-classifies

            Sensemaking Is About Labeling-defines

            Sensemaking Is Retrospective-compares to experience

            Sensemaking Is About Presumption-tests intuition

            Sensemaking Is Social and Systemic-beyond the individual

            Sensemaking Is About Action-evolves through action

            Sensemaking Is About Organizing Through Communication-tacit knowledge is   made explicit through dialogue” (pp. 411-413).

             In organizations, sensemaking evolves through action.  As members take actions, they learn and make meaning.  The number of plausible options often gets reduced.  Because sensemaking is an evolutionary process, it is less about accuracy than it is plausibility (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, p. 415)

            It is generally agreed among the leading theorists that organizational sensemaking follows a connected sequence of stages.  Choo (1996, pp.333-334) indentified these stages as:

            Enactment-bracketing, labeling and rearranging, generate data

            Selection-choose meanings, create schema

            Retention-store successful sensemaking for the future

            Some sensemaking is belief-driven.  That is, members start with beliefs then seek out information to support those beliefs.  Other sensemaking is action-driven. Here, members start with actions and grow structures around them thereby creating meaning to justify or explain their actions.  Once the environment has been enacted, selections made and retained the organization is now faced with the “what now?” question or what Weick called, a consequential moment (Choo, 1996, p. 337).

            Power and emotion are two areas where more research is needed.  Power plays into sensemaking in that those in positions of power may disproportionately impact the sensemaking process.  According to Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld the seven dimensions of sensemaking are:  “the social relations that are encouraged and discouraged, the identities that are valued or derogated, the retrospective meanings that are accepted or discredited, the cues that are highlighted or suppressed, the updating that is encouraged or discouraged, the standard of accuracy or plausibility to which conjectures are held and the approval or proactive or reactive action as the preferred mode of coping” (p. 418).  Members have emotional experiences when the sensemaking process is interrupted or resumed.  Their expectations impact the emotional reactions they will have to these events (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, p. 419).

            According to Choo (1996), three types of knowledge exist in organizations—tacit, explicit and cultural.  Tacit knowledge resides in the experience and expertise of individuals.  Explicit knowledge is found in artifacts and it is defined in terms of rules and routines.  Explicit knowledge can be articulated.  Cultural knowledge is found in the “assumptions, beliefs and values” of the organization.  Choo believes new knowledge and capabilities comes from the mingling of these three (pp. 334-335).

            Choo (1996) believes there are four knowledge conversion modes: 

            Socialization-tacit knowledge is obtained through shared experience

            Externalization-converting tacit knowledge into explicit concepts

            Combination-creating explicit knowledge through combination

            Internalization-“embodying” explicit knowledge (p. 335-336)

            If one considers organizations as “decision-making systems” then an organization, like an individual is limited by the concept of “bounded rationality”.  It cannot have all of the information about decision choices before making them.  It’s not possible in reality.  Therefore, like the individual, the organization is limited by “the mental skills, habits, and reflexes; by the extent of knowledge and information possesses; and by values or conceptions of purpose which may diverge from organizational goals”, as stated by Simon. 

            In order to protect itself, the organization establishes decision premises to guide its members.  These premises set up two decision making conditions.  First, members seek to satisfy, not exceed expectations.  Second, members seek to simplify in order to avoid uncertainty and reduce complexity (Choo, 1996, p. 331). One of the purposes of organization sensemaking is to reduce equivocality of information (Choo, 2002).

            Although often considered distinct processes, the information use areas of sensemaking, knowledge building and decision-making are highly interconnected.  Perhaps best thought of as concentric circles with sensemaking the outermost circle, then knowledge building then decision-making the three processes leading to organizational action are analogous to information interpretation, information conversion and information processing as shown below (Choo, 1996, p. 339).

• Sensemaking—Information Interpretation
• Knowledge Creation—Information Conversion
• Decision Making—Information Processing

Choo characterizes an organization effectively integrating these processes as a “knowing organization” (1996, p.339).  In these organizations, there are continuous reiterative cycles of sensemaking, knowledge creation and decision making.  Certainly more research on the interplay of these processes would be of great value.

            Isabella (1990) identified stages of sensemaking taking place during organizational change.  These are anticipation, confirmation, culmination and aftermath.  With anticipation, managers may consider a plethora of information from rumor to bits and pieces of factual and non-factual information.  Confirmation is an interpretational stage following anticipation.  Here, events are put into a framework or schema and standardized.  It’s what Isabella calls “reasoning by analogy”.  Culmination follows confirmation.  Here, organizations members adjust their interpretations of an event. Isabella’s final stage is aftermath.  Aftermath is a post-mortem analysis or an evaluation.  (pp. 16-26)  Weber and Manning (2001) assert the processes proposed by Isabella are circular rather than linear as she suggests (p. 240).

            Meindl, Stubbart & Porac (1994) suggested there are many important questions for those conducting research in organizational cognition. 

• What is an appropriate construct system for describing managerial and organizational cognition?  While there is general agreement schemas play an important role in the sensemaking process, there is not much agreement about how to use and interpret them (Meindl, Stubbart & Porac, p. 290).
• What is an appropriate way to treat level-of-analysis issues in cognitive research?  Should research be conducted at the individual, group, organization or industry level? (Meindl, Stubbart & Porac, p. 290), (Walsh, p. 280).
• What is the relationship between cognitive structure and cognitive process?  Most of the research has looked at either the process (individual/collective) or structure (schema, etc.) of thought. Very few have looked at both. (Meindl, Stubbart & Porac, p. 291)
• What is the relationship between managerial cognition and organizational outcomes?  There has been pressure to link research on organization cognition to outcomes.  Unfortunately, the measures are difficult at best.  (Meindl, Stubbart & Porac, p. 292)
• What role do “cognitive aids” have in shaping managerial and organizational cognition?  Not enough attention has been given to collective problem formulation and solution development (Meindl, Stubbart & Porac, p. 292).

            Substantial research exists about sensemaking and innovation. Dougherty, et al (2000) suggests innovative and non-innovative organizations have qualitatively different sensemaking systems.  Innovative organizations link knowledge to solve customer problems.  Non-innovative organizations link knowledge to solve functional operational problems which do not necessarily directly address customer concerns.  Innovative organizations differ from non-innovative organizations in how they manage tension.  Innovative organizations purposefully contrast new technologies and insights with established ones at the product, business and strategic level in order to create new knowledge.  Non-innovative organizations use tension to “confirm, verify and exploit existing knowledge”.  It’s more about doing what they do better than doing something new or different (pp. 342-344).

            Weber and Manning (2001) suggest cognitive maps may help further understanding of sensemaking in organizations by explaining how hierarchy and culture impact the process.  Their study indicated one’s position in the organizational hierarchy, and access to information, were significant factors in sensemaking during organizational change.  They advocate a broad distribution of information as a means to address those differences (p. 243). 

            Research suggests information technology can be designed to better support the sensemaking processes in organizations.  In their article, Boland, Tenkasi & Te’eni (1994), argue information technology has not addressed the distributed cognition phenomenon of sensemaking.  They believe distributed cognition should be viewed as a hermeneutic inquiry and technology should be designed to support that process.  Information technology should “support distributed cognition by enabling individuals to make rich representations of their understanding, reflect upon those representations, engage in dialogue about them with others, and use them to inform action. The authors suggest six design principles for distributed cognition.  They are:

1. Ownership-an interpretation belongs to an individual
2. 2.    Easy Travel-an interpretation should be easily linked to another
3. 3.    Multiplicity-individuals should make their own interpretations and participate in critique
4. Indeterminacy-interpretations are not necessarily complete or precise
5. Emergence-new concepts emerge during interpretation
6. Mixed Form-members should be able to represent their interpretations in mixed form.  They should not be limited to written communication.

                                                                                                            (pp. 456-457)

                A substantial amount of research has been conducted around individual cognition.  However, much work is needed in the area of organizational thought processes.  Weick speaks of the “collective mind” in organizations.  According to Weick and Roberts (1993), “collective mind is conceptualized as a pattern of heedful interrelations of actions in a social system”.  The mind, says Weick, “is an integration of feeling, thinking and willing”.  An organizational mind evolves from social processes.  Weick says, “People act heedfully when they act more or less carefully, critically, consistently, purposefully, attentively, studiously, vigilantly, conscientiously, pertinaciously” (p. 361).  When organizations practice “mindfulness”, they seem to be more effective (p. 357).

            Wright, Manning, Farmer and Gilbreath (2000) suggest the sensemaking practices “shape and are shaped” by events and the “lifeworld”.  Events are occurrences which trigger a need to interpret.  The “lifeworld” is the background against which these events are evaluated.  It is the “routines, interactions, values and skills which are essential to the conduct of everyday affairs (pp. 818-819)

           Isabella (1990) suggests one of the implications of the organizational sensemaking research is that organizational change professionals and leaders might begin to think differently about change resistance. Rather than something to be mitigated, it may be better construed as a necessary part of the organization’s learning process.  Additionally, her research indicates manager’s roles may vary according to the stage of cognition (p.33). 

           Walsh (1995) identified several areas for a future research agenda.  In the area of representation, he suggests researchers need to reconsider the value of descriptive studies of knowledge structure.  He believes a better understanding of the relationship between knowledge structures and the environments they represent is needed.  Walsh suggests the study of content and structure should be combined.  He believes researchers should look at organization cognition as something other than an aggregation of individual minds (pp. 303-308). 

           In the area of use, he suggests many researchers may be guilty of “The Fallacy of the Wrong Level” when investigating supra-individual knowledge structures.  Walsh thinks more research is warranted in the area of knowledge structure use.  As he states, “research suggests we can be mindful, mindless or ‘out of our minds’.  We need to know more about “out of our mind” behavior.  We need to know more about how knowledge structures are linked to managing organizations (pp. 303-308).

           Development is another area where more research is needed.  Since there is so much evidence of the dynamic nature of organization knowledge structures, we need a better understanding of information processing.  Additionally, we need more information about the “costs and benefits of forgetting”, according to Walsh.  And finally, more research about the “social and emotional bases of change” is needed (pp. 306-308).

           There are significant methodological challenges for researchers in this domain.  The subject matter is inherently difficult to classify and measure.  It is even difficult for researchers to be certain they are measuring their subject’s processes and not their own.  Advances in research design are called for.  Longitudinal studies incorporating cognitive mapping, argument mapping and semiotic analysis techniques have promise. (Walsh, pp. 308-311)

           The field of organization sensemaking and cognition is still very broad.  It’s believed future research will focus upon areas of the domain which hold the greatest promise.  The highly-exploited arena of level-of-analysis is likely to fall by the wayside to more promising topics such as interpretive dominance.  Future research will better integrate the study of both process and content and the most important studies will link cognition, behavior and organization outcomes.  And finally, information systems will play a more important role in facilitating, managing and measuring sensemaking and other organizational cognition processes (Meindl, Stubbart & Porac, p.293).

References

Boland, R., Tenkasi, R. & Dov Te’eni. (1994).  Designing Information Technology to Support Distributed Cognition.  Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 3, August, pp.456-475.

Choo, C.W. & Bontis, N. (Ed.) (2002).  Sensemaking, Knowledge Creation, and Decision Making:  Organizational knowing as emergent strategy.  Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

Choo, C.W. (1996).  The Knowing Organization:  How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge and make decisions.  International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 329-340.

Dougherty, D., Borrelli, L., Muni, K. & O’Sullivan, A.  (2000).  Systems of organization sensemaking for sustained product innovation.  Journal of Engineering and Technology Management.  Vol. 17, pp. 321-355.

Dougherty, D. (1992).  Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms. Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, May, pp-179-202.

Fiol, M. & Lyles, M. (1985) Organizational Learning.  The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, October, pp. 803-813.

Harris, S.G. (1994).  Organization Culture and Individual Sensemaking:  A schema-based perspective.  Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 3, August, pp. 309-321.

Hatch, M., (2006).  Organization Theory.  New York: Oxford Press.

Isabella, L. (1990).  Evolving Interpretations as a Change Unfolds:  How managers construe key organization events.  Academy of Management Journal.  Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 7-41.

Manning, M.R. & Weber, P.S. (2001).  Cause Maps, Sensemaking, and Planned Organizational Change.  The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 37, pp. 227-251.

Meindl, J., Stubbart, C., & Porac, J. F. (1994).  Cognition within and between Organizations:  Five Key Questions.  Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 3, August, pp. 289-293.

Thomas, J., Clark, S., & Gioia, D. A. (1993).  Strategic Sensemaking and Organizational Performance:  Linkages among Scanning, Interpretation, Action and Outcomes.  Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, April, pp-239-270.

Walsh, J. (1995).  Managerial and Organizational Cognition:  Notes from a trip down memory lane.  Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 280-321.

Weick, K. & Sutcliffe, K. (2005) Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking.   Organization Science, Vol. 16, No. 4, July-August, pp. 409-421.

Weick, K. & Roberts, K. (1993).  Collective Mind in Organizations:  Heedful interrelating on flight decks.  Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3, September, pp.358-381.

Wright, C.R., Manning, M.R. (2004).  Resourceful  Sensemaking in an Administrative Group.  Journal of Management Studies, 41: 4, June, pp. 623-643.

Wright, C.R., Manning, M.R., Farmer, B. & Gilbreath, B. (2000).  Resourceful Sensemaking in Product Development Teams.  Organization Studies.  21: 807, pp. 808-825.

Who needs an executive coach?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/04/need-executive-consultant-ceonetwork-leadership-coach.html?feed=rss_news

Havard Business Review Research on Executive Coaching

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B24gShy_trk6NzU4OGFkMDMtZTQ1NS00ZTdmLTkyMjAtOTk0YmNiZjQxMzVi&hl=en

Align Your HR Function with Your Business…

http://www.hrcapitalist.com/2009/08/you-want-your-hr-team-aligned-with-the-business-ill-keep-it-simple-for-you-1.html

What the CEO Wants From HR | workforce.com

What the CEO Wants From HR | workforce.com

Shared via AddThis

Unemployment stablizes Spring 2010

I agree it will be several months before the US employment situation improves significantly.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/08/chart_therapy_normal_job_loss.html?sc=fb&cc=fp

Google CEO says everyone needs a coach

Corporate leaders from Michael Dell to Google’s CEO endorse coaching.  Do you have a coach?http://money.cnn.com/video/fortune/2009/06/19/f_ba_schmidt_google.fortune/

 

Ed Rankin

ed.rankin@maneragroup.com

 

Spirited Leadership

In today’s challenging economic environment leaders need to have exceptional behavior and communication skills to deal with this challenge:

·  27% of employees are actively engaged in their jobs.  (They are fired up and full of spirit).

·  54% of employees are not engaged in their jobs – (they are switched off- they have lost their competitive business spirit).

·  19% are actively disengaged – (they are tuned out) 

Different times call for different leadership

Ed Rankin and Dr. Sandy Gluckman are combining their expertise to offer organizational leaders a program teaching how to apply corporate and team spirit as a hard-edged economic driver. When spirit goes up, operational costs go down and productivity and profitability go up.

The Spirited Leader Program
 
A 2-Day Offsite with a maximum of 15 leaders . This seminar is based on Sandy Gluckman’s groundbreaking book , Who’s in the Driver’s Seat?  Dr Gluckman will teach recession-proof skills that enable leaders to mobilize and apply employee spirit to the achievement of the business goals.
 
Follow-up one-on-one coaching with Ed Rankin to strengthen these skills as the leaders apply them to the achievement of their business goals.

ed.rankin@maneragroup.com

214.803.6526

http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddj4x62m_17czkxhbc9

 http://www.sandygluckman.com/video/Me_or_we.wmv