I experienced an epiphany.
Yesterday I woke up at 4:00am to transport a student to the airport. Then I took a 45 minute nap. Then I spent an hour completing readings for my MBA course. Then I woke up my kids, fed the family breakfast, made my coffee, got everyone dressed with teeth brushed, stood at the bus stop with my eldest, dropped off the youngest at daycare, and carpooled to work with my spouse. Then I worked 8 hours. Then I spent an hour getting fresh air and exercise. Then I spent an hour with some fellow MBA students on group work. Then attended my MBA class for 3.5 hours. By now, it was 9:00pm. Then I walked home. Then I ate dinner. Then I went to bed.
On the one hand, I feel extremely productive in my day-to-day life. When I look at all the things I get done in a day, I feel like I am absolutely crushing it.
On the other hand, I feel extremely overwhelmed and completely behind in every single area of my life (family, wellness, work, grad school, extracurriculars).
Both are true. I live my life in the interstitial space between these realities.
What will I choose to see? Because what reality I choose to see makes all the difference in the world.
Friday, January 31, 2020
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Building Empathy Across Political Boundaries
“I am glad that it is you and not me doing this meeting,” noted my colleague. “I cannot stand that guy. They are all in lock-step with Trump. They want to gut programs like ours.”
To be honest, I shared some of my colleague’s reservations. I was keenly aware of Congressman Stauber’s legislative agenda and the ways in which his policy proposals diverged from my political preferences. Building a human connection with the Congressman across strong political aversions posed a significant challenge that required a mindful approach. In today’s highly-charged partisan environment, culturally-competent communication across significant boundaries demands self-awareness, recognition of privilege and power, and a commitment to empathetic relationship-building beyond the transactional.
My journey to meeting with Congressman Stauber started with an internal examination of my identities and experiences. Filtered through my lens as a person of privilege whose professional training focuses on equity and inclusion for marginalized student populations, my stomach clenched as I first read the empathy walk activity description. From my vantage point on the ladder of inference, the empathy walk activity looked like a classic faux pas committed by well-intentioned people of privilege: assuming that “getting to know someone” who is “very different” is an objective and equal experience for both parties involved. As Carl Crawford (2016), Human Rights Officer for the City of Duluth, noted: “For a white person, learning about the experience of people of color is a choice. For me as a black man, learning about the experience of white people is a matter of my own survival.” A well-intentioned academic exercise from the privileged perspective may — at the same time — be a microaggression from the marginalized perspective. Since I am a person of extreme privilege — I currently hold 21 of the 22 privileged identity types identified by Obear (2017) — “very different” almost certainly aligns with marginalized identities and experiences. As I discerned this structural reality and its meanings, I concluded that meeting with an individual with equal or greater privilege was the most culturally-fluent way to carry out the empathy walk activity.
As I explored possible dialogue partners, it proved difficult to find a person of equal or greater privilege with whom I significantly differed. As logic dictates, cultural differences between me and other people of privilege are relatively small and superficial: education, economics, and lived experiences tend to be shared. For example, in my first attempt at the empathy walk activity, I met with a classmate who was forced into an exorcism and subsequently excommunicated from a monastery. At surface, her experiences seemed different than mine. However, as the conversation unfolded, it became apparent that there were few significant cultural boundaries between us. It was a delightful and easy conversation; it provided no challenge in building an empathetic relationship. So, in the spirit of the empathy walk activity, my search for a dialogue partner continued.
The person with greater privilege and power usually dictates the terms of engagement that structure a dialogue. Beyond my control, I was invited — passive voice intended — by a vice-president of my organization to meet with Congressman Stauber. The date, time, and location were set by others. The purpose of the conversation was provided to me. My limited power in this arrangement created a sense of unease. As I anticipated our meeting, my personal biases against the Congressman’s political party produced feelings of dread. In short, an opportunity to complete the empathy walk activity finally presented itself.
As I entered the meeting with Congressman Stauber, I carried my experiences and emotions related to our political differences, mindful of their impact on my perception, but unable to entirely escape their power. When we met, I smiled and shook his hand — because smiling was the savvy thing to do. When we sat down, I jumped right into my rehearsed opener. I had prepared talking points in advance, based on my assumptions around the language and frames that would fit within his political worldview. I smiled some more. Despite my intentions to enter into the dialogue focused on empathetic relationship-building, I retreated to a transactional facade — “impression management” in the business lexicon.
“I am excited to be here,” Congressman Stauber replied. “First let me show you something. Who do you think this is?” He displayed an old black and white picture on his phone. I recognized the photo source: the alumnae hall at the college where I work.
“A relative?” I conjectured.
“Yeah, this is my mom. She graduated from here. When I saw her picture on the wall, it nearly brought me to tears,” he responded.
Shaped by my preconceived notions of political behavior, my initial reaction to the Congressman’s opening exchange was skepticism — I see the political game you are playing, I thought. However, I noticed my knee-jerk response, and chose to internally reframe my approach to the dialogue. I paused, looked at the Congressman, and noticed the genuine expression on his face.
“Tell me more,” I replied.
From that point on, something closer to an empathetic dialogue unfolded. Given the context of our conversation, we still addressed transactional matters related to Federal funding for higher education. However, we also shared stories, listened to one another, and even found common ground around the misuse of statistics in educational policy. I noticed my level of trust slowly growing. My interpersonal energy shifted from a defensive stance to a more inquisitive posture. At times, different phrases that the Congressman used still irked me. However, I avoided the trap of reactive thinking and feeling patterns. Instead, I consciously stepped off the negative train of thought and emotion before it left the station. Eventually, Congressman Stauber’s handler announced that it was time for our meeting to conclude. We shook hands and expressed excitement for a future meeting. To be honest — and to my surprise — I was in fact excited by this prospect. No longer was the Congressman a partisan “boogeyman.” Now he was a fellow human being with whom I could respectfully engage across difference.
In closing, navigating the challenging terrain of authentic dialogue across significant boundaries requires self-awareness, recognition of privilege and power, and a commitment to empathetic relationship-building beyond the transactional. Partners in the dialogue must be mindful of their default modes, biases, thought patterns, and feeling tones in order to engage in an authentic way. Through such an approach, I developed an empathetic relationship with Congressman Stauber. The dialogue softened my hard edges of distrust and opened up new heartspace to humanize the Congressman. Although political differences remain, such an approach created authentic and respectful communication across a significant boundary.
References
Crawford, C. (2016, January). Personal experience as a person of color in Duluth. Fostering the roots of cross-racial competence. Talk presented at Roots training, Duluth, Minnesota.
Obear, K. (2017). Exploring the dynamics of privilege: Our role and responsibility to create inclusive campus environments [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://drkathyobear.com/ wp-content/uploads/2017/06/handouts-Dominican-2017-send-electronically-.pdf.
To be honest, I shared some of my colleague’s reservations. I was keenly aware of Congressman Stauber’s legislative agenda and the ways in which his policy proposals diverged from my political preferences. Building a human connection with the Congressman across strong political aversions posed a significant challenge that required a mindful approach. In today’s highly-charged partisan environment, culturally-competent communication across significant boundaries demands self-awareness, recognition of privilege and power, and a commitment to empathetic relationship-building beyond the transactional.
My journey to meeting with Congressman Stauber started with an internal examination of my identities and experiences. Filtered through my lens as a person of privilege whose professional training focuses on equity and inclusion for marginalized student populations, my stomach clenched as I first read the empathy walk activity description. From my vantage point on the ladder of inference, the empathy walk activity looked like a classic faux pas committed by well-intentioned people of privilege: assuming that “getting to know someone” who is “very different” is an objective and equal experience for both parties involved. As Carl Crawford (2016), Human Rights Officer for the City of Duluth, noted: “For a white person, learning about the experience of people of color is a choice. For me as a black man, learning about the experience of white people is a matter of my own survival.” A well-intentioned academic exercise from the privileged perspective may — at the same time — be a microaggression from the marginalized perspective. Since I am a person of extreme privilege — I currently hold 21 of the 22 privileged identity types identified by Obear (2017) — “very different” almost certainly aligns with marginalized identities and experiences. As I discerned this structural reality and its meanings, I concluded that meeting with an individual with equal or greater privilege was the most culturally-fluent way to carry out the empathy walk activity.
As I explored possible dialogue partners, it proved difficult to find a person of equal or greater privilege with whom I significantly differed. As logic dictates, cultural differences between me and other people of privilege are relatively small and superficial: education, economics, and lived experiences tend to be shared. For example, in my first attempt at the empathy walk activity, I met with a classmate who was forced into an exorcism and subsequently excommunicated from a monastery. At surface, her experiences seemed different than mine. However, as the conversation unfolded, it became apparent that there were few significant cultural boundaries between us. It was a delightful and easy conversation; it provided no challenge in building an empathetic relationship. So, in the spirit of the empathy walk activity, my search for a dialogue partner continued.
The person with greater privilege and power usually dictates the terms of engagement that structure a dialogue. Beyond my control, I was invited — passive voice intended — by a vice-president of my organization to meet with Congressman Stauber. The date, time, and location were set by others. The purpose of the conversation was provided to me. My limited power in this arrangement created a sense of unease. As I anticipated our meeting, my personal biases against the Congressman’s political party produced feelings of dread. In short, an opportunity to complete the empathy walk activity finally presented itself.
As I entered the meeting with Congressman Stauber, I carried my experiences and emotions related to our political differences, mindful of their impact on my perception, but unable to entirely escape their power. When we met, I smiled and shook his hand — because smiling was the savvy thing to do. When we sat down, I jumped right into my rehearsed opener. I had prepared talking points in advance, based on my assumptions around the language and frames that would fit within his political worldview. I smiled some more. Despite my intentions to enter into the dialogue focused on empathetic relationship-building, I retreated to a transactional facade — “impression management” in the business lexicon.
“I am excited to be here,” Congressman Stauber replied. “First let me show you something. Who do you think this is?” He displayed an old black and white picture on his phone. I recognized the photo source: the alumnae hall at the college where I work.
“A relative?” I conjectured.
“Yeah, this is my mom. She graduated from here. When I saw her picture on the wall, it nearly brought me to tears,” he responded.
Shaped by my preconceived notions of political behavior, my initial reaction to the Congressman’s opening exchange was skepticism — I see the political game you are playing, I thought. However, I noticed my knee-jerk response, and chose to internally reframe my approach to the dialogue. I paused, looked at the Congressman, and noticed the genuine expression on his face.
“Tell me more,” I replied.
From that point on, something closer to an empathetic dialogue unfolded. Given the context of our conversation, we still addressed transactional matters related to Federal funding for higher education. However, we also shared stories, listened to one another, and even found common ground around the misuse of statistics in educational policy. I noticed my level of trust slowly growing. My interpersonal energy shifted from a defensive stance to a more inquisitive posture. At times, different phrases that the Congressman used still irked me. However, I avoided the trap of reactive thinking and feeling patterns. Instead, I consciously stepped off the negative train of thought and emotion before it left the station. Eventually, Congressman Stauber’s handler announced that it was time for our meeting to conclude. We shook hands and expressed excitement for a future meeting. To be honest — and to my surprise — I was in fact excited by this prospect. No longer was the Congressman a partisan “boogeyman.” Now he was a fellow human being with whom I could respectfully engage across difference.
In closing, navigating the challenging terrain of authentic dialogue across significant boundaries requires self-awareness, recognition of privilege and power, and a commitment to empathetic relationship-building beyond the transactional. Partners in the dialogue must be mindful of their default modes, biases, thought patterns, and feeling tones in order to engage in an authentic way. Through such an approach, I developed an empathetic relationship with Congressman Stauber. The dialogue softened my hard edges of distrust and opened up new heartspace to humanize the Congressman. Although political differences remain, such an approach created authentic and respectful communication across a significant boundary.
References
Crawford, C. (2016, January). Personal experience as a person of color in Duluth. Fostering the roots of cross-racial competence. Talk presented at Roots training, Duluth, Minnesota.
Obear, K. (2017). Exploring the dynamics of privilege: Our role and responsibility to create inclusive campus environments [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://drkathyobear.com/ wp-content/uploads/2017/06/handouts-Dominican-2017-send-electronically-.pdf.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
My Love-Hate Relationship with Feedback
Tightening in my stomach. Shortened breath. Pursed lips. Furrowed brow. Feverish. When I pay attention, I notice these changes in my body as others share their views on my performance. Meanwhile, my mind becomes reactive, dismissive, unbelieving, defensive, critical, and ready to pounce in counterattack. It doesn't matter if the other person is a supervisor, professor, spouse - the unconscious response is all the same. I am well prepared to either fight or flee.
I know this will almost always be my initial response, yet I continually go out of my way to seek feedback. Not because I like it, but because I know that it can expand my horizons.
I know that this will not happen at first. I need to wait out my own defenses of body and mind. Eventually, I get to a place where I can examine the feedback without the need to respond to it. In that space, I can more fully appreciate the perspective of the other. I may ultimately agree or disagree, usually somewhere in between. In any case, it is always a helpful opportunity to expand my understanding of self and other. From a stance of mindfulness and humility, I become stronger.
I know this will almost always be my initial response, yet I continually go out of my way to seek feedback. Not because I like it, but because I know that it can expand my horizons.
I know that this will not happen at first. I need to wait out my own defenses of body and mind. Eventually, I get to a place where I can examine the feedback without the need to respond to it. In that space, I can more fully appreciate the perspective of the other. I may ultimately agree or disagree, usually somewhere in between. In any case, it is always a helpful opportunity to expand my understanding of self and other. From a stance of mindfulness and humility, I become stronger.
Monday, January 13, 2020
Complexity and Organizational Learning, Part 2
The theory of organizational learning has developed through phases over the course of the last century, from functional improvement within specific problems, to organizational adaptation within complex environments, to the development of specific processes and tools for implementing a learning organization (Nair, 2001). As one key development, Argyris and Schön (1978) conceptualized single-loop versus double-loop learning within the OD context. Double-loop learning closely examines underlying assumptions, norms, and values impacting organization development (Putnam, 2014) (see figure 1). While functional problem correction only requires single-loop learning, adaptation to complex challenges within a dynamic systems requires double-loop learning (Patton, 2011). Another key OD contribution, Senge (1990) operationalized organizational learning into five disciplines: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning. Senge’s book, The Fifth Discipline, popularized double-loop organizational learning and brought systems thinking into mainstream OD practice (Nair, 2001).
Despite these theoretical efforts to articulate organizational learning, Tschakert and Dietrich (2010) noted that “the methodological toolbox is sparsely equipped to facilitate and sustain adaptive and anticipatory learning in the face of complex risks and uncertainties” (p. 12). Nonetheless, organizational learning tools focused on generating adaptations to complexity are emerging. For example, Patton (2011) outlined a framework for developmental evaluation: an ongoing process of experimentation that adapts to the realities of complex non-linear dynamics, keenly aware of unintended consequences and opportunities. Marshak and Bushe developed dialogic OD, investigating how conversations, processes, images, and leaders socially construct organizational reality and generate adaptive solutions (Marshak & Bushe, 2018). Witherspoon (2014) introduced a model of double-loop coaching, which is “designed to foster deep learning...helping leaders reflect critically on their own behavior—especially the way they think about or frame key situations” (p. 262). Meanwhile, Worley, Williams, and Lawler (2014) presented evidence that companies with superior financial performance utilize “agile” practices: perceiving, testing, learning, and implementing. In short, the work of developing theory, processes, and tools for organizational learning continues apace. However, the question remains: How applicable are these cerebral theoretical constructs in the realm of visceral practice?
--
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Marshak, R. and Bushe, G. (2018). Planned and generative change in organization development. OD Practitioner, 40(4), 9-15.
Patton, M. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, New York: The Guilford Press.
Putnam, R. (2014). Double-loop learning. In Couglin, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.) (2014). The Sage Encyclopedia of Action Research. [online]. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406.n118.
Tschakert, P., and K. A. Dietrich. (2010). Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecology and Society 15(2), [online]. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art11/.
Witherspoon, R. (2014). Double-loop coaching for leadership development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,50(3), 261–283.
Worley, C., Williams, T., & Lawler, E. (2014). The agility factor: Building adaptable organizations for superior performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
--
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Marshak, R. and Bushe, G. (2018). Planned and generative change in organization development. OD Practitioner, 40(4), 9-15.
Patton, M. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, New York: The Guilford Press.
Putnam, R. (2014). Double-loop learning. In Couglin, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.) (2014). The Sage Encyclopedia of Action Research. [online]. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406.n118.
Tschakert, P., and K. A. Dietrich. (2010). Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecology and Society 15(2), [online]. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art11/.
Witherspoon, R. (2014). Double-loop coaching for leadership development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,50(3), 261–283.
Worley, C., Williams, T., & Lawler, E. (2014). The agility factor: Building adaptable organizations for superior performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Friday, January 3, 2020
Complexity and Organizational Learning, Part I
According to neuroscientists such as Hanson and Mendius (2009) and organization development theorists such as Patton (2011), the evolutionary human brain is hardwired to seek order, stability, meaning, and patterns. This inherent tendency feeds our individual and collective illusion of certainty and control. Such illusions are comforting, and often serve as necessary pretense for human action. As it turned out, the evolutionary human brain positioned our distant ancestors for survival in a complex world. Left unchecked, however, our human illusions of certainty and control severely challenge our contemporary ability to adapt along the ever accelerating edge of existential change and disruption in the 21st century.
As an organization development (OD) article, let us turn this mindful lens onto the contemporary organization. Spend a few weeks in most any organization today and you are sure to hear talk about goals. Dig just a little deeper and you will come across strategic plans, logic models, budget forecasts, and the like. This is our evolutionary human brain in organizational form; the organization assumes that the factors determining what will happen in the life of the organization are relatively knowable, ordered, and controllable. Is this too an illusion?
To be fair, organizations operate in a causal, linear, and rational world - to a point. Complexity theorists accept that reality is not pure chaos - although we are less in control than we think (Patton, 2011). Postmodernists grant that an objective reality may exist - although it cannot be known outside its conditions of emergence (Levers, 2013). If we pay someone to come into the office, we can be reasonably certain that they will show up tomorrow - although they may not.
Each of these qualifiers supports an important premise for organization development: the notion of a stable and controllable organizational future is - in significant ways - out of touch with the emergence of complexity (Wiltbank, Dew, Read, & Sarasvathy, 2006). The traditional approach to organization development, with its logic of causality, linearity, and rationality, is incongruent with the dynamic and volatile environment that the contemporary organization experiences (Pisapia, Jelenc, & Mick, 2016). How then - fearless OD practitioner - should the contemporary organization respond?
Organizational learning is one key strategy to generate adaptive solutions to complexity. According to Marshak and Bushe (2018), organizational learning and adaptation emerge through experimentation and iterative moves carried out by participants throughout the system.
As an organization development (OD) article, let us turn this mindful lens onto the contemporary organization. Spend a few weeks in most any organization today and you are sure to hear talk about goals. Dig just a little deeper and you will come across strategic plans, logic models, budget forecasts, and the like. This is our evolutionary human brain in organizational form; the organization assumes that the factors determining what will happen in the life of the organization are relatively knowable, ordered, and controllable. Is this too an illusion?
To be fair, organizations operate in a causal, linear, and rational world - to a point. Complexity theorists accept that reality is not pure chaos - although we are less in control than we think (Patton, 2011). Postmodernists grant that an objective reality may exist - although it cannot be known outside its conditions of emergence (Levers, 2013). If we pay someone to come into the office, we can be reasonably certain that they will show up tomorrow - although they may not.
Each of these qualifiers supports an important premise for organization development: the notion of a stable and controllable organizational future is - in significant ways - out of touch with the emergence of complexity (Wiltbank, Dew, Read, & Sarasvathy, 2006). The traditional approach to organization development, with its logic of causality, linearity, and rationality, is incongruent with the dynamic and volatile environment that the contemporary organization experiences (Pisapia, Jelenc, & Mick, 2016). How then - fearless OD practitioner - should the contemporary organization respond?
Organizational learning is one key strategy to generate adaptive solutions to complexity. According to Marshak and Bushe (2018), organizational learning and adaptation emerge through experimentation and iterative moves carried out by participants throughout the system.
--
Hanson, R., & Mendius,R. (2009). Buddha’s brain: The practical neuroscience of happiness, love and wisdom. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
Levers, M. (2013). Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open Journal. 3(4). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013517243.
Marshak, R. and Bushe, G. (2018). Planned and generative change in organization development. OD Practitioner, 40(4), 9-15.
Patton, M. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, New York: The Guilford Press.
Pisapia, J., Jelenc, L., & Mick, A. (2016). The foundations of strategic thinking: Effectual, strategic, and causal reasoning. In Raguz, I., Podrug, N., & Jelenc, L. Neostrategic management: An international perspective on trends and challenges (pp. 45-56). Switzerland: Springer International Press.
Wiltbank, R., Dew, N., Read, S., & Sarasvathy, S. (2006). What to do next? The case for non-predictive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27(10), 981-998.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)