Posts Tagged ‘David Cooperrider’
- Image by Reith Lectures 2009 via Flickr
I think Michael Sandel’s Reith lectures may be relevant to management
Have you been listening to Michael Sandel’s Reith lectures? These are my favourite quotations from Lecture 2 on morality & politics that seem to have an intuitive bearing on the task of management.
Sandel’s thesis
“A politics of moral engagement is also a more inspiring ideal than a politics of avoidance . . . that our debates about justice are inescapably arguments about the good life then a politics of moral engagement is also a more promising basis for a just society.”
Core idea
To determine rights we need to determine the essential nature of the activity – and “virtues worth honouring.”
Aristole
Artistotle: Justice means giving people what they deserve.
“The best flutes should go to the best flute players because that’s what flutes are for.”
Refereeing contemporary disputes
Can we reason about social practices in the face of disagreement?
What was the conflict really about? The reasons given in a dispute may not be the real reasons.
“Debates about the rights . . . are about the purpose of social institutions, the goods they allocate, and the virtues they honor and reward.”
We cannot make decisions on neutral grounds. . . we have to look at the version of morality that we advocate. When we referee, we are clarifying the moral purpose of an institution.
What is the sine qua non of the institution? Which interpretation of the purpose or essence “celebrates virtues worth honoring”?
“Contested moral terrain” . . . “we cannot remain neutral toward competing conceptions of the good life”.
[How do we clarify the various arguments about the ‘good life’ that are being put forward? Do we aid the organization by clarifying the alternative arguments and the agreement that we will enact?]
Revitalizing our pubic discourse in democratic life
Is it possible to conduct our politics on the basis of mutual respect?
Does respect mean ignoring the opinions of others? [e.g., what most people call PC]
Robust public engagement with more moral disagreements could provide a stronger not weaker. . . basis for mutual respect.
Attend to the views of others – sometimes contesting and sometimes listening & learning.
A politics of moral engagement is also a more inspiring ideal than a politics of avoidance . . . that our debates about justice are inescapably arguments about the good life then a politics of moral engagement is also a more promising basis for a just society.
Notes from the questions
Offer reasons and listen to the reasons given in reply [Isan answer invited? Do we expect to learn?]
There are dogmatic secularists just as there are dogmatic others
Re: Barack Obama. Hunger for spiritual discourse and bring it to bear on public life. [Is it so repulsive to bring spirituality into discussions of work? Presumably only if no answer is invited – which is why CCTV cameras are offensive and why it is so satisifying when the security apparatus is filmed committing misdeeds.]
We don’t know in advance what the moral argument will be. Hence we need to open the discussion to all sectors of the community. [Diversity = talking to people who are unfamiliar and scary.]
Change takes place when people are persuaded by circumstances and the debates taking place around them . . . ambitious engagement with what the good life is . . .
[Can we ask people at work about the good life? I think David Cooperrider does in Appreciative Inquiry. But the answers may change our strategy as we clarify the essential activity of our institution, as we resolve tensions about the ‘goods we allocate’, and under stand the ‘virtues we celebrate honor and reward.’ And this discussion is ongoing because we don’t know what the next discussion will reveal. So we need an organizational design – itself subject to debate – which allows us to clarify and act – clarify and act. That is consistent with Weick’s work, is it not?]
My own questions
Does the general argument apply to workplaces? Why does Sandel think this is soooo important? There may be issues to resolve but a high level change to politics is separate argument that might require a large problem to justify engagement. Phrased alternatively – who might argue against Sandel and what would their argument be?
Where do we debate the ‘essential activity’ of work, the ‘goods we allocate’ and the virtues we celebrate, honour and reward? Are the virtues we honor and reward still worth celebrating? I think many authors would say not and that many if not most of us feel a deep weariness about the social institution of work. We would dearly love to have the notion of work revitalised.
So then how does Sandel’s work fit in with the work of David Whyte, Otto Scharmer? I suspect they would like it. Do they quote each other?
Are you listening to the Reith lectures?
I’d love to hear your thoughts if you have any. Sandel’s Reith lectures are available on BBC as podcasts – about 45 minutes each with question time. The next one is on Tuesday 30 June 2009 at 9am BST. That’s around midday in Washington, DC where he will be speaking.
Poetry in HR?
Posted December 18, 2008
on:Psychology and no poetry
I studied psychology and taught work psychology for many years. I arrived in psychology from the physical sciences and found the hard core experimental and measurement approach quite familiar. Indeed as a youngster, I might have fled had I been asked to deal with poetry. Literature had been my worst subject at school by quite a long way and I simply lacked the frameworks for understanding what poetry offered.
Poetry in management theory
One of the pleasures of the school of positive organizational scholarship is that it embraces poetry. Indeed, poetic language is one of the five original principles of appreciative inquiry. Leading exponent, David Cooperrider, coins many a melodic expression, the best known being: the good, the true, the better and the possible.
Poetry in government
As he accepted his nomination for Secretary of Energy, I was delighted to see Nobel Prize winning physicist Stephen Chu quoting the words spoken by William Faulkner when he won his Nobel Prize in 1950. Speaking to a world concerned about the ramifications of nuclear power and nuclear bombs, Faulkner said:
It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking.
I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail.
He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.
The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things.
It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.
The poet’s voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.
Poetry in business and HR?
If this is good enough for the Secretary for Energy and the White House, then it is good enough for factories, banks, shops and insurance brokers!
Do you employ a poet and an artist? Do you think a style of HR that lifts hearts, reminds us of courage and honour and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of our past and are the glory of our present and our future, together?
Buzzing with expectation?
Posted November 4, 2008
on:5 contemporary concepts for understanding why some groups buzz with expectation
Self-styled vagabond, Sam Brannon, asked a good question last weekend on Linkedin. Are we in a state of learned helplessness?
I’m an inveterate shaper so I am always asking “is what we do important and are we doing the important things?” Because I ask these questions, it is possible I sense learned helplessness more than do others. But, I am also much more interested in the the opposite of learned helplessness.
- I love the crowd singing their local hero to victory.
- I love the buzz of getting a group project done on time.
- I love the feeling of belonging to an institution worth belonging to.
Indeed my love of that community buzz is key to my professional interest in work psychology and university teaching. Sam’s post led me to list 5 contemporary concepts from psychology and management that, I think, are key to creating the spiral of group buzz and efficacy.
1 Collective efficacy
If we believe in each other, we add 5-10% on our effective results. Collective efficacy is a simple yet powerful idea. When the teachers in a school believe in each other, the school outperforms other schools who have equal resources!
Rule one: The CEO needs to believe genuinely in his or her direct reports. That process kicks off their belief in each other and in their direct reports, etc. etc.
P.S Faking doesn’t work. The pre-requisite of leadership is genuine, heart-felt belief in one’s followers.
2 Solidarity
Rejection is enormously destructive. Roy Baumeister, who blogs at Psychology Today, has shown that being rejected by a computer (not even a person) is sufficient to stop us looking in a mirror. Someone who feels rejected is not going to be feeling efficacious!
Rule two: Don’t just walk around! Walk around with a mission to create a sense of belonging.
P. S. Be hyper-alert to the small minute and accidental ways in which we exclude people. They are devastating to moral and self-confidence.
3 Personal Leadership
Social media (like LinkeIn) has awakened our sense of being at the centre of our own network. Everyone is a leader. The personal leader ‘school’ supports the development of individual leadership (see poet David Whyte). I am also interested in organizations that recognise that everyone is a leader.
Rule three: Tell our own ‘stories’ to show how the organization fits in to our personal destinies, and write an organizational story that depends upon our differences and uniqueness.
P.S. A story that depends on us mimicking the boss defines us as irrelevant (a hole below the waterline for the organization!)
4 Positive psychology/positive organizational scholarship.
The work of Martin Seligman and David Cooperrider has shown the power of gratitude and appreciation. Positive whatever-whatever sounds like touchy-feely stuff but it is pretty hard core. Basically, it is an approach where we focus on what works and works well and we discard the rest.
There are good reasons why haven’t focused on what works well as a matter of course. Simply, if we define leadership as one person knowing what is best, and telling the rest of us what to do, then we are always focusing on a gap – on something negative.
Rule four: Scrap all the “gap” technology on which management and HRM was built. Pinpoint what works and do more of it! Then keep the conversation there.
P.S. Its scary to abandon the idea that we know best. But when we get the hang of it, we find out all the good stuff that is happening that we didn’t know about.
5 Globalization
Globablization has changed economics and shifted where and how we can make a profit. We have to work harder now to create value that produces a penny of profit. Working with this constraint produces fantastic results as we see in V.J. Prahalad’s value at the bottom of the pyramid.
The principle used by large companies to rethink their process is this: abandon the idea of trying to sell more and more at a better and better price. Rather, ask what is needed at what price, and work backwards to what we can supply. The ability to ask questions about the world outside the organizations is a key aspect of successful business teams.
Rule 5: Forget about being a leader! Ask how to develop a community who are interested in what we do.
P.S. We do need to honour the community’s needs and trust it to honour ours (complete the circle). When we don’t have this loyalty to each other, a buzz is not possible. We simply don’t have the conditions for a high performing organization. This is not the day!
[CSPPG : cheerful squirrels prepare parties toGether]
Everyday use of these concepts
I use all these ideas in running everyday projects, like university courses. I know students do better when they believe in each other. My job, as I see it, is replacing their initial dependence on me, with, a strong belief in each other, a belief in their project of studying together in this year & in this place, and a deep pride in how they came to be here and how they will move on together.
That is the buzz of expectation that the whole world feels tonight with the US galvanized to get out and vote (or is just to get a free cup of coffee from Starbucks?). That is the buzz we get when our favourite team makes the finals. That is the buzz we get when you couldn’t stop us going to work even if you tried!
Have a winning week!
Recent Comments