<a href=”http://technorati.com/claim/izw68qaqcw” rel=”me”>Technorati Profile</a>

Only a cursory critique of American culture is necessary to illuminate the existence of an alarming problem. Though deeply embedded within the fabric of the collective American psyche, a complex pattern can be discerned. The rise in popularity of self-help resources, facial treatments promising eternal youth, and the alarming increases in professional burnout suggest that Americans are dissatisfied. Interestingly, the very fabric of this country’s foundation suggests that its inhabitants refuse to remain docile during times of trouble or dissatisfaction. The entrepreneurial spirit pervading virtually every nook and cranny of the cultural landscape invites all people, regardless of age, race, or gender, to invest in solutions that proclaim the power and potential of American ingenuity to alter circumstances to conform to a new, more desirable reality.

The 21st century is characterized by sweeping technological advances, a cultural landscape that is in a state of change, and a prevailing makeover mentality that encourages an attitude of extreme personal dissatisfaction. Americans are thrust into an incessant quest to redefine the self to correspond to the latest trends of societal acceptability. There is an extreme preoccupation as of late with human deficiencies. Television shows such as MTV’s Made and WB’s Nip Tuck cultivate a gnawing and consuming sense of incompleteness that can only be alleviated by making serious modifications to one’s appearance and lifestyle. People are essentially problems to be solved. Interestingly, the solution to the problem is elusive and defies any and every attempt to bring a lasting state of existential wholeness and completeness as societal expectations change as frequently as the climate. Consequently, the law of diminishing returns is invoked as greater attempts to makeover the self are made while the demand for even more considerable modifications to being loom on the horizon. Interestingly, most of our attempts to construct the “proper self” inevitably deconstruct our abilities to effectively gauge our true selves. The external or outward nature of our focus stifles our aptitude for and interest in allowing our individuality to rise to the forefront of our daily activities thus causing us to live and lead critically disengaged from our soul. The 40 plus hours per week invested in professional activities carry the potential to suffocate rather than sustain, suppress instead of stimulate, as they are spent dealing with matters that are far from vocatio, or calling. An analysis of our work week more closely resembles that of a horse trained to fulfill specific tasks on the farm rather than humans infused with a divine calling or vocation. Sadly, the kinetic American lifestyle acts as a bulwark to self-realization. Consequently, Americans drift from one career to the next, one new experience to another, each promising to provide a greater return in the hope of finding something to satiate a thirsty soul.

The transient nature of the American professional lifestyle describe above might compel one to consider what motivates individuals to continue to strive for something more. In his excellent work entitled, “Treat People Right”, Edward Lawler indicates that expectancy theory is very useful in understanding that motivation is inexorably linked to rewards.

“Expectancy theory argues that people are mostly rational decision makers who think about their actions and act in ways that satisfy their needs and help them to reach their goals..The core of the theory states that people generally try to deal rationally with the world as they see it and to direct their behavior in productive ways. The theory views people as proactive, future-oriented, and motivated to behave in ways that they believe will lead to valued rewards.”

For the purposes of this post, rewards can be differentiated by their intrinsic and extrinsic values. In many for-profit organizations, employees may struggle to find intrinsic worth in their work as it only seems connected to bottom-line outcomes (extrinsic value). In less prestigious contexts, how is an assembly line worker or a sanitary engineer, (i.e. garbage man) to find intrinsic value in their efforts? Activities like teaching, ministry, and environmental protection seem much easier to assign intrinsic value to as they are focused upon improving the quality of life for others. Perhaps one explanation for the professsional restlessness shared by so many Americans is the difficulty in finding a balance between their expectations for intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. When imbalance is present, their is a compulsion to readjust the expectations or to remove oneself from the current context in favor of something that seems more likely to meet one’s established goals. Questions to Consider: As you think about your own situation, what types of rewards motivate you to perform well? What about extrinsic rewards like benefits, salary, etc? Are your espoused needs being met in this area? On another note, do you find intrinsic value in what you are doing? Is making a difference important? If your expectations are not being met, how are you channeling your frustrations? Are you eagerly anticipating the next best thing? Do you think you need to recreate yourslf in order to better correspond to your current professional landscape ? Are you denying your destiny? Do you feel nomadic? To what extent does your work match your calling?

We live in a culture that is committed to productivity. People voraciously search for new strategies that can increase personal efficiency in work and daily activities. Only a peripheral inventory of the newest books in the self-help or business aisles of the local bookstore is enough to elucidate a contemporary obsession with maximizing our output. The ambitious climate of the Industrial Revolution has not yet waned as an incessant drive to accomplish and produce more and more dominates our worldview. In essence, people are what they do. When one meets a new person and learns their name, it is generally only a split second before the question is posed, “What do you do?” The person may respond by saying, “I am a dentist” or “I am a teacher.” While a person may spend in excess of 40 hours per week fulfilling a particular occupational role, it is often customary to formulate our self-identity almost exclusively within the context of our work. In other words, our doing informs our being. While the notion of productivity is as ancient as the Garden, it is imperative that self-worth and identity are not to be found solely within the realm of the job. Humans are much more complex. Any attempt to encapsulate the totality of one’s being within the context of job insults the human race. An animal can be trained to fulfill a particular work task. Machines can be engineered to produce a product. However, humans are recipients of the imago dei, uniquely created as a rare piece of art to fulfill a greater destiny. However, though America celebrates the over-involved individual and is ranked as the most workaholic nation of the planet, Americans are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their lives. Evidently, the latest fads to maximize personal efficiency are not working.

Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton (1985) have explored the ramifications of employment within American society. They have identified three dominant orientations toward work that are reflective of most people. Generally people experience work as job, career, or calling. Bellah et al. explained that within the first orientation, people view work as job. They spend their time:
Focusing on the material benefits of work to the relative exclusion of other kinds of meaning and fulfillment. The work is simply a means to a financial end that allows people to enjoy their time away from work. Usually, the interests and ambitions of those with jobs are expressed outside of the domain of work involve hobbies and other interests. For those who view work as a career:
Work for the rewards that come from the advancement through an organizational or occupational structure. For those with careers, the increased pay, prestige, and status that come with promotion and advancement are a dominant focus in their work. Advancement brings higher self-esteem, increased power, and high social standing. (Wrzesniewski, 2003, p. 190)
In contrast to the aforementioned orientations toward work, those who embrace work as a calling, “work not for financial rewards or for advancement but for the fulfillment that doing the work brings. In callings, the work is an end in itself and is associated with the belief that the work makes the world a better place.”

Wrzeniewski noted that inherent within engagement is the presence of passion. He defined passion as an extreme interest in something that promotes intense meaningfulness. To what degree are passions present at work? To what extent do we allow our passions to reveal our calling? Pascal presented a somber account of the life experienced by those who do not cultivate passion. He said:

“Nothing is so insufferable to man as to be completely at rest, without passions, without business, without diversion, without effort. Then he feels his nothingness, his forlornness, his insufficiency, his weakness, his emptiness.”

In his text entitled, The Spirit of the Disciplines, Dallas Willard describes a state that many individuals find themselves in as they are unable to enjoy the consequences of intentional living. He writes:

“Some persons indeed try to abdicate their life, disown their spontaneity, seek security by ‘conforming’ to what is outside of them. But they don’t actually escape life or their responsibility for it. They only succeed in appearing ‘wooden,’ unlively. We may know what to expect from them, but we have as little delight in them as they do in themselves.”

Questions to ponder: Does your soul feel wooden? If your expectations are not being met and you feel disengaged in the workplace, how is this affecting those with whom you interact with regularly: your friends, family members, and colleagues? Do they sense your restlessness? What would it take for you dismiss the notion of yet another temporary fix or makeover and instead, clarify your calling and the right balance of rewards to increase your engagement with your work?

A skilled archaeologist may invest his entire lifetime in pursuit of a valuable artifact. He may sacrifice his time, money, even his reputation upon even the mildest of inclinations that something of great worth lays below the sandy surface. Most of the time, his efforts promise little fortune as he uncovers those everyday, common pieces that can be found for sale at the market down the street. He dreams of the day when fortune smiles upon his work as he uncovers treasures of inestimable worth. This discovery erases all frustration, disappointments, and even that overpowering sense of defeat that used to beat him up every time he tried to sleep at night. When Dreamstealers perform their jobs, they do so with the utmost of efficiency. The victims remain haunted by the stinging words of the assassins, sometimes for several years, sometimes for their entire lives. The raw nerves that the arrows exposed leave the victim feeling helpless and hesitant to ever reveal his inner thoughts to another person ever again. Like the hopeful archaeologist, many of us long for the day when God looks down upon us from his lofty view and points us in the direction of wonderful riches. He sends Dreamstarters into our lives. What the Dreamstealer seeks to systematically dismantle, the Dreamstarter tries to reinforce in us — to point us away from our past failures, inadequacies, and other insecurities and see ourselves not as we think we are within our limited paradigm but as who we really are and will become. They help us to cling to our child-like wonder and to aspire to develop our abilities to such an extent that we may have an impact upon the world. Instead of limiting our view with words reminding us to keep our feet on the ground and engage only in limited thinking, they encourage us as Mother Robin does her young to spread our wings and give it a try.

I would like to thank the following Dreamstarters for their deep influence upon my life:

Chris Bennetts: A teacher at Monroe High School who first taught me the significance of the relationship of self-awareness to leadership effectiveness.

Joseph K. Byrd, Ph.D: A former pastor and supervisor who saw the potential in me for advanced educational training and encouraged me to proactively respond to the damaging comments made by a former guidance counselor who insisted that I was not college material.

H. Lee Cheek, Ph.D: A kindred intellectual spirit whom I joined while in graduate school in the very important battle against the immanentization of the eschaton.

David Tilley. Ed.D: A person who cared for me as a son while providing me a superb example of transformational leadership grounded in integrity.

Doug Walters, ABD: An individual whose powerful and consistent belief in my personal and professional potential granted me the focus, space, and encouragement needed to complete this very significant personal accomplishment.

Charles Paul Conn, Ph.D: It was because of his fascinating leadership practices that I passionately completed the doctorate in Organizational Leadership rather than in Philosophy. I now am truly convinced that the value of the human element within organizational life must not be underestimated.

I would also like to acknowledge the support of Dr. Marty Spiker of the University of Charleston, David Chairez of the West Virginia Center for Civic Life, and Dr. Gail Longbotham of the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship at Regent University.

A skilled archaeologist may invest his entire lifetime in pursuit of a valuable artifact. He may sacrifice his time, money, even his reputation upon even the mildest of inclinations that something of great worth lays below the sandy surface. Most of the time, his efforts promise little fortune as he uncovers those everyday, common pieces that can be found for sale at the market down the street. He dreams of the day when fortune smiles upon his work as he uncovers treasures of inestimable worth. This discovery erases all frustration, disappointments, and even that overpowering sense of defeat that used to beat him up every time he tried to sleep at night. When Dreamstealers perform their jobs, they do so with the utmost of efficiency. The victims remain haunted by the stinging words of the assassins, sometimes for several years, sometimes for their entire lives. The raw nerves that the arrows exposed leave the victim feeling helpless and hesitant to ever reveal his inner thoughts to another person ever again. Like the hopeful archaeologist, many of us long for the day when God looks down upon us from his lofty view and points us in the direction of wonderful riches. He sends Dreamstarters into our lives. What the Dreamstealer seeks to systematically dismantle, the Dreamstarter tries to reinforce in us — to point us away from our past failures, inadequacies, and other insecurities and see ourselves not as we think we are within our limited paradigm but as who we really are and will become. They help us to cling to our child-like wonder and to aspire to develop our abilities to such an extent that we may have an impact upon the world. Instead of limiting our view with words reminding us to keep our feet on the ground and engage only in limited thinking, they encourage us as Mother Robin does her young to spread our wings and give it a try.

I would like to thank the following Dreamstarters for their deep influence upon my life:

Chris Bennetts: A teacher at Monroe High School who first taught me the significance of the relationship of self-awareness to leadership effectiveness.

Joseph K. Byrd, Ph.D: A former pastor and supervisor who saw the potential in me for advanced educational training and encouraged me to proactively respond to the damaging comments made by a former guidance counselor who insisted that I was not college material.

H. Lee Cheek, Ph.D: A kindred intellectual spirit whom I joined while in graduate school in the very important battle against the immanentization of the eschaton.

David Tilley. Ed.D: A person who cared for me as a son while providing me a superb example of transformational leadership grounded in integrity.

Doug Walters, ABD: An individual whose powerful and consistent belief in my personal and professional potential granted me the focus, space, and encouragement needed to complete this very significant personal accomplishment.

Charles Paul Conn, Ph.D: It was because of his fascinating leadership practices that I passionately completed the doctorate in Organizational Leadership rather than in Philosophy. I now am truly convinced that the value of the human element within organizational life must not be underestimated.

I would also like to acknowledge the support of Dr. Marty Spiker of the University of Charleston, David Chairez of the West Virginia Center for Civic Life, and Dr. Gail Longbotham of the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship at Regent University.

“The word ‘school’ which comes from ‘schola’ (meaning free time), reminds us that schools were originally meant to interrupt a busy existence and create some space to contemplate the mysteries of life. Today they have become the arena for a hectic race to accomplish as much as possible and to acquire in a short period the necessary tools to survive the great battle of human life. Books written to be savored slowly are read hastily to fulfill a requirement, paintings made to be seen with a contemplative eye are taken in as part of a necessary art appreciation course, and music composed to be enjoyed at leisure is listened to in order to identify a period or style. Thus, colleges and universities meant to be place for quiet learning have become places of fierce competition, in which the rewards go to those who produce the most and the best.”- Henri Nouwen in Lifesigns

The description of the ideal historical academy proposed by Henri Nouwen is undoubtedly a clear departure from what is occurring in higher education across the country. As a professor, I often began the first day of class by sharing the philosophical foundations of my pedagogy or teaching style. Contained within this discussion were my views on the nature of learning. Since I believe that the capacity to learn and create is endemic to the human condition, I am resistant to relegate it primarily to a four-year period enjoyed by those eighteen to twenty two years of age. While a more rigid, prescriptive approach may occur at this time, other, even more exciting opportunities exist. To refuse to indulge in the opportunities on a regular basis is both irresponsible and negligent. Every human is responsible for perpetuating the evolution of the human race. The ability to transcend the immediate or what is and advance our potentiality or what can be helps to ensure that the world which we leave will be better.

As I contemplate the words of Nouwen, I realize that the dichotomy that he elicits between the intention of school as a place in which one’s busy life is interrupted by the infusion of free time or space in order to contemplate the complexities of the human condition and its current state as a place where students vigorously compete for the high grades in order to obtain the best job is perplexing to me. Our country is currently falling farther and farther behind other nations in a host of academic disciplines. Emerging technologies and new knowledge, and the grave global economic forecast seem to invoke the survivalist instinct in us that we have no choice but to critically consider the pragmatic facets of learning. Does the inevitability of an accelerated, prescriptive academic experience entirely prohibit “schola”? Is authentic learning even possible without the presence of schola? I do not think so.

After serving at four academic institutions in various administrative and professorial capacities, I have determined that many of today’s students narrowly view learning as the acquisition of concrete tools to enable them to land a lucrative job upon graduation. The greater the practicality of the curriculum, the more valuable it is. Authentic learning requires three components: Analysis, Synthesis, and Application. This modified version of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning is inclusive of the pragmatic concerns of contemporary students while also incorporating the mystical and transformational elements that challenge individuals to not only consider what can be done with an education but what the education can do to them. What happens when the observer encounters something new- something that creates a level of dissonance? Is it forgotten? Is it stored within the memory for future reference? Learning often starts and stops here. In some cases, questions of utility logically follow. What can I do with this observation? Or better yet- How much must be remembered for the test? The discipline of synthesis which requires schola is absent. The mystical coalescence between the observer and the observed forces the individual into a reflective state as the appetite to evolve- to raise one’s level consciousness, to be changed, becomes insatiable. To what extent does this observation align or depart from preconceived perspectives? How does this observation resonate with the current worldview of the learner? What types of emotions are experienced as a result of this observation? Why? How does this observation connect or integrate with previous learning from other disciplines? How is it similar? How is it different? These questions allow the observation to move beyond mere recollection and penetrate the fabric of one’s being. In other writings, the importance of being informing doing has been posed. Lastly, application is necessary for authentic learning to occur. However, because synthesis has preceded it, the outcome should be more specific, strategic, and satisfying.

The world shows few signs that things are going to be slowing down. The rapidity with which we are required to function is likely to increase. However, the quest to enjoy a meaningful existence will remain highly elusive devoid of efforts to include schola into one’s life. Meaning requires both experience and reflection to occur. It cannot be bestowed upon another. It must be made by the individual. Perhaps the single greatest strategy that educators and other leaders can use to encourage a positive, holistic attitude about learning is through the intentional inclusion of synthesis. How can individuals be forced to wrestle a bit with a particular concept? How can greater ownership be cultivated? How can the process of learning be embraced rather than the product alone? How can the experience connect to the bigger picture? Finally, the absence of synthesis in the learning process cripples the creative capacities of people. Innovation is unlikely to occur.

Four years ago I published an article in a higher education periodical. The article was entitled: Engaging the Meaning-Making Power of Reflection: An Evaluation of the Undergraduate Experience. The article targeted Student Affairs professionals and received a great deal of positive feedback which eventually led to a series of similar pieces of work including national conferences and publications. Though my thinking has changed to some extent in this area, I still affirm the overall goals of this article.

Engaging the Meaning-Making Power of Reflection: An Evaluation of the Undergraduate Experience

By Tony Marchesi, 2004

A timeless, universal constant of the human condition is our inherent longing to live a life replete with meaning. Though consideration of such a proposition evokes a sense of veracity or rightness within us, our ability to encapsulate this nebulous ideal within an analytical paradigm enabling the understanding and communication of its central tenets is formidable at best. Meaning and meaningful are terms repeatedly employed by Student Affairs practitioners to describe the preferred outcome of a particular event, usually those involving students. We ask ourselves and each other, “Was it a meaningful conversation?’ “Did the student discover the meaning of the experience?” Sound familiar? An even more important question to ask ourselves is what is the meaning of meaning and why is it important?

Does our programmatic intentionality containing vital components like authenticity, frequency, and creativity ensure that students will describe a judicial hearing or student staff training as meaningful? No. Though we might insist that our efforts are markedly attentive to the needs of our student population, we must concede that despite the excellence with which we may function, any attempt to craft a meaningful experience is futile. Humans are not presented with a ready-made meaningful existence or one that mechanically generates meaningfulness following certain behaviors; we must learn to make our lives rich and meaningful. It is an act that requires a degree of intentionality, thoughtfulness, and effective assimilation.

It would be imprudent to imply that most programming efforts are negligent in addressing the co-curricular needs of students. It is, however, probable that because our profession contains few measurable objectives that culminate at year-end or upon graduation i.e. final exams, we initiate a relentless programming spree as we educate within a domain that is concerned with overarching life themes like appreciating diversity, considering the benefits of seeking vocation over work, and choosing to engage in relationships that are substantive. An implicit consideration might suggest that since faculty are responsible for educating toward a professional end, Student Affairs personnel focus upon vital life issues. What an enormous undertaking. This approach is exhausting for professionals and students alike. Because our domain is so large and in many cases undefined, we have few curricular and behavioral safeguards to help ensure that our efforts are beneficial and under control. Our quantitative emphasis upon programming and the high value we place upon heavily involved students communicates the message that busyness is better. It is quite possible that our ambitiousness to “program without ceasing” accounts in part for the high turnover rate of co-curricular educators and the exorbitant amount of tired students.

Meaningfulness is not bestowed by educators and it does not occur through the accumulation of numerous travels abroad or extensive leadership involvement. Even some of our best programming series that demand hours of preparation do not produce meaning. Meaningfulness is generated out of the coalescence of experience and reflection. If we are not providing students with the appropriate space and tools to make their out of class experiences meaningful, our efforts are inconsequential and may even exacerbate the undergraduate years.

We exist in a culture that savors a reality marked by perpetual motion and fluidity. Stability could evoke accusations of an ineffectual life or languishing. Our personal landscapes are of a variegated and hardy sort, able to withstand extreme conditions and easily transplantable. We acclimate ourselves according to our perceived needs of the present. In short, we are addicted to change. We amuse ourselves with unbridled materialism, the challenge of hooking up, and high intensity recreation. Our senses are inundated with stimuli as we exhaust our being.
Upon initial consideration, reflection might invoke unpleasant images of sitting in a frozen state for countless hours or wandering through a lonely desert punishing one’s body in order to attain a heightened state of consciousness. While some may choose to reflect in this manner, this is clearly only a miniscule representation of its power and process. Reflection can not only be a pleasurable activity for our students, it is unquestionably necessary if they are to have a meaningful collegiate experience.

Socrates declared that, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Professor Keating (Dead Poets Society) talked of, “sucking the marrow out of life.” Others, still, prefer a technological paradigm by describing reflection as the process of downloading everyday occurrences and thoughts into appropriate files enabling easy access for meaning-making and life application. Let us examine four practical suggestions that can help ensure that our undergraduates are maximizing their co-curricular experience.

Formulate a co-curricular syllabus containing specific learning objectives that accentuate the institutional mission and clearly defines the role of co-curricular education. If it appears as though certain existing programs/procedures are unnecessary or irrelevant, eliminate them.

Refrain from appealing to the more is better principle. More programs can do much to undermine learning and meaning-making. Are our students worn out? Are we fatigued?

As new programs are formulated, be sure to provide adequate space and tools to enable students to make their experiences meaningful. Consider logistical issues (Are we planning too much in too short a time span? Is there sufficient downtime [space]? Are participants informed of the desired outcomes for the program? Are students provided with appropriate follow-up resources to reflect upon and integrate the experience into their lives?)

Familiarize Student Affairs educators and students with meaning-making tools including:
· Reflection (Kinesthetic reflection works best for most people. Use shower time, driving, walking, and exercising to assimilate activities into meaningful categories)
· Solitude (Encourage students to take a walk alone a few times a week. Perhaps it would be advantageous to be prepared with an issue to ponder.)
· Silence (Incessant music, television, IM, and talking bombard our minds with irrelevant stimuli and ideas. Most of these things do not deserve to occupy such a prominent place in our minds. Our reflective capacity and creative faculties are often incapacitated or dulled by unnecessary noise.)
· Journaling (This is a great way to unload and make sense of pressing concerns, the advantages and disadvantages of an impending decision, clarification of motives, and to keep an account of our thoughts. It is also an excellent exercise that enhances reasoning abilities and improves our written communication.)

Like our students, we aim toward a life immersed in meaningfulness. Amidst the flurry of activities that can assault our senses and wear us out, let us learn to grasp hold of the mundane occurrences that generally are concealed from our scrutiny and turn them into something beautiful and meaningful. Student restlessness is due in large part to their unconscious quest for the fulfilled life. As educators, we can reevaluate our current pedagogy and determine if we are suffocating our students. A more focused co-curricular program that provides ample space and tools for reflection can radically redefine and strengthen the impact of Student Affairs within the university. By introducing students to the meaning-making power of reflection, we extend to them ownership for shaping their semesters into an extraordinary undergraduate experience.

“Some dullards have no curiosity or sense of wonder at the harmony and beauty of creation; others have had it drummed out of them by suffering or deadening educational systems. But traces of the sense of wonder and the quest for meaning survive in most human beings. We find meaning by identifying parts and linking them to each other forming wholes”, Vocation: Discerning Our Callings in Life By Schuurman, p. 65).

“Let no one hope to find in contemplation as escape from conflict, from anguish or from doubt. On the contrary, the deep, inexpressible certitude of the contemplative experience awakens a tragic anguish and opens many questions in the depths of the heart like wounds that cannot stop bleeding” (New Seeds of Contemplation By Thomas Merton, p. 12).

“We do not go into the desert to escape people but to learn how to find them; we do not leave them in order to have nothing more to do with them, but to find out the way to do them the most good. But this is only the secondary end” (New Seeds of Contemplation By Thomas Merton, p. 80).

“…have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don’t search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer” (Rilke)

What is an organization? Is it a place, a process, or a person? Individuals at all levels of employment often wrestle with what many deem to be the daunting task of succinctly articulating the nature of the organization. Countless texts exist that attempt to provide a model for describing the construct and function of organizations; however, depending upon one’s worldview, tolerance for abstraction, and personal presuppositions, many conflicting perspectives may exist within a single organization. Most leaders emphasize matters related to organizational behavior over those that help to elucidate corporate identity. The work loosely informs identity rather than vice versa. Organizations that hope to maintain a competitive edge in the 21st century while resisting the temptation to downsize may arrive at the startling realization that they are suffering from dissociative identity disorder. For those organizations hoping to initiate a plan to remedy or to prevent this state of being, alternative thinking or experimentation is required. The solution to this malady may not be as easily accessible, organized and available as those conveniently found in the business section of the local Barnes and Noble Bookstore. Despite the reluctance that some leaders may have to delve deeply into a critical analysis of the relationship of organizational identity to the climate and output of the organization, Margaret Wheatley makes a strong case for its absolute necessity.

“Mort Meyerson, the former chairman of Perot Systems, said in an interview in Fast Company magazine several years ago that the primary task of being a leader is to make sure that the organization knows itself. That is, the leader’s task is to call people together often, so that everyone gains clarity about what they’re doing, who they’ve become and how they’re changing as they do their work. This includes information available from customers, markets, history, and mistakes. A good leader supports a continuous conversation about organizational identity and how it is changing as it does its work in a changing world. Organizations that are clear at their core work from congruence, not coercion. People feel free to explore new activities, new ventures, and customers if they feel it makes sense for the organization. It is a strange and promising paradox: Clarity about who we are as an organization or team creates freedom for individual contributions. People exercise that freedom in service to the organization and, as they develop their capacity to respond and change, this becomes a capability of the whole organization.” (Finding Our Way, 69).

My post entitled, “The Highly Human Side of Leadership” discussed the impossibility to gauge organizational reality and enter the decision-making process free from carrying our personal baggage with us to the table of inquiry. Our life experiences, education, gender, etc. all influence our perceptions. I am reminded of a great book that I read recently called Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol Dweck. It discussed the differences between a fixed mindset and a growth-oriented mindset and how our particular disposition characterizes how we frame challenges, failures, etc. These divergent positions reminded me of the polarity that exists between two popular metaphors used to describe organizations: the machine and the organism. One (the machine) is fixed as it only functions within the paradigm provided by its programmer while the other (organism) possesses adaptive qualities that serve to perpetuate the evolutionary process. The differences between the two have severe ramifications for matters related to corporate identity, growth, management, performance assessments, human resource management, employee satisfaction and productivity. My timely introduction to organizational metaphors as a graduate student marked the beginning of a renewed sense of purposefulness and stamina as I began to discern how the humanities and social sciences could find a comfortable and complimentary intersection in my research. I eventually discovered that the efficacy of the discipline of organizational leadership required that the historical enmity which existed between the two intellectual approaches needed to be eliminated. Gareth Morgan’s seminal work, Images of Organization established a superb foundation upon which both leaders and academics could better address the dynamics of organizational life through the non-traditional system of organizations as metaphors.

Unlike traditional mission statements and vision-casting activities, metaphors capture the messy, mystical nature of organizational life and provide a useful distortion of reality which allows leaders to consider organizational identity, responses to change, and the anticipated evolutionary process within a system that can be comprehended by those at all staffing levels who are more comfortable with abstraction and those who resonate with the concrete.
The metaphor of machine has remained prevalent within organizations for well over a century. With the Industrial Revolution and the popularity of classical management theory or “Taylorism”, organizations established very specific, rational systems to direct human behavior. Morgan calls these systems bureaucracies (Images of Organization, 13). People essentially found that they were reduced to cogs within a great machine as they were expected to unquestionably function according to the rigid guidelines that were programmed by their managers. In this model, “all the ‘thinking’ is done by the managers and designers, leaving all the ‘doing’ to the employees” (Images of Organization, 23). Opportunities to “self-create” and to feel a sense of personal ownership over the work were minimal. Wheatley describes, “In our machine-organizations, we try to extinguish individuality in order to reach our goal of compliance. We trade uniqueness for control and barter our humanness for petty performance measures” (Finding Our Way, 21).

According to Morgan, there are some clear advantages to organizations as machines. He says,

“The strengths can be stated very simply. Mechanistic approaches to organization work well only under conditions where machines work well: (a) when there is a straightforward task to perform; (b) when the environment is stable enough to ensure that the products produced will be appropriate ones; (c) when one wishes to produce exactly the same product time and again; (d) when precision is at a premium; and (e) when the human ‘machine’ parts are compliant and behave as they have been designed to do” (Images of Organization, 27).

As you consider the culture of your organization, does the description above sound similar? I posit that while many organizations do operate as machines, although they don’t have to. Consequently, their capacities are crippled as major decision-making is confined to a select few within the organization. Employee commitment is purely transactional resulting in minimal personal investment beyond the job-description and the 40 hour work-week. Morgan emphasizes, “The mechanistic approach to organization tends to limit rather than mobilize the development of human capacities, molding human beings to fit the requirements of mechanical organization rather than building the organization around their strengths and potentials. Both employees and organizations lose from this arrangement. Employees lose opportunities for personal growth, often spending many hours a day on work they neither value nor enjoy, and organizations lose the creative and intelligent contributions that most employees are capable of making, given the right opportunities” (31). Perhaps the most debilitating consequence of operating as a machine is the inability of the organization to adequately anticipate, assess, and acquiesce to a changing external landscape. Essentially, the machine becomes irrelevant and ceases to exist.
Unlike the limitations of the machine which operates according to a fixed, predetermined mindset, an organization whose identity and behavior exhibit the fundamental capabilities of an organism, or more precisely, a person is uniquely endowed with the tools to interact and adapt within a rational/affective framework. According to Morgan (42), this “open system” (cycle of input, transformation, output, and feedback) finds its support within contingency theory and exemplifies the following characteristics:
· Organizations are open systems that need careful management to satisfy and balance internal needs and to adapt to environmental circumstances.
· There is no one best way of organizing. The appropriate form depends on the kind of task or environment with which one is dealing.
· Management must be concerned, above all else, with achieving alignment and ‘good fits’”
· Different approaches to management may be necessary to perform different tasks within the same organization.
· Different types of ‘species’ of organizations are needed in different types of environments

How does an organization that functions as an organism operate? Wheatley explains:

Some part of the system (the system can be any size- an organization, a community, a team, a nation) notices something. It might be in a memo, a chance comment, or a news report. It chooses to be disturbed by this. Chooses is the important word here No one ever tells a living system what should disturb it (even though we try all the time). If it chooses to be disturbed, it takes in the information and circulates it rapidly through its networks. As the disturbance circulates, others grab it and amplify it. The information grows, changes, and becomes distorted from the original, but all the time it is accumulating more meaning. Finally, the information becomes so important that the system can’t deal with it. Then and only then will the system begin to change. It is forced, by the sheer meaningfulness of the information, to let go of present beliefs, structures, patterns, and values. It cannot use its past to make sense of this new information. It truly must let go, plunging itself into a state of confusion and uncertainty that feels like chaos, a state that always feels terrible. Having fallen apart, having let go of who it has been, the system is now and only now open to change. It will reorganize using new interpretations, new understandings of what’s real and what’s important. It becomes different because it understands the world differently. And, paradoxically, as is true with all living systems, it changed because it was the only way to preserve itself (Finding Our Way, 85-86).

For the purposes of this discussion, the species that we will now consider is the human. It must be emphasized that despite the vast distinction made between the metaphors of machine and organism, the person can still behave according to a predetermined set of guidelines should it choose to. It is not limited to this structure, however. According to Wheatley, “As we think of organizations as living systems, we don’t discard our concern for such things as standards, measures, values, organizational structures, and plans. We don’t give up any of these. But we do need to change our belief about where these things come from. In a living system, they are generated as people figure out what will work well in the current situation. In a machine these features are designed outside and then engineered in” (Finding Our Way, 94).

How can the metaphor of person help an organization plan for its preferred future? What should this person look like? I contend that this metaphor when properly used provides a superior infrastructure for implementing profound organizational change. It acts as an integrative force for strategic messaging both internally and outside of the organization. This planning process, however, is both nontraditional and potentially messy. This activity considers both the being and the behavior of the organization. Please note, this is not a methodology that is taught in MBA programs. Wheatley provides us with some timely advice as we establish our infrastructure for our activity. “As leaders ensure that the organization knows itself, that it’s clear at its core, they must also learn to tolerate unprecedented levels of ‘messiness’ at the edges. This constant tinkering, this localized hunt for solutions, never looks neat. Freedom and creativity always create diverse responses. If conformity is the goal, it will kill local initiative. Leaders have to be prepared to support diversity, to welcome surprise, to expect invention, to rely on highly contributing employees” (Finding Our Way, 69).

This group activity, entitled, Creating the Organizational Person, should be conducted annually and be utilized to provide the conceptual construct for identity clarification, marketing/branding, and assessment. The brainstorming activity should be facilitated at least initially for the senior leadership of the organization. A distinction should be made between conducting the activity to determine what is or what could/should be. Both versions have merit depending upon the needs of the organization. Lastly, the attributes listed below are not exhuastive. One may wish to include additional human characteristics depending upon the specific outcomes for the session.

The Environment
· Where does person live and function? How does the environment validate and shape identity?(Dangers of Solipsism- Emperors New Clothes)

· Lineage (How does person relate to the past?)

The Person
· Soul (Consciousness)
Mind: (Right Brain/Left Brain/Whole Brain)
Passions: Raison d’ Etre- Calling
Heart (Compassion for Others)
Personality: Introvert or Extrovert

· Voice (Communication) Does person have a story to tell? Does person tell own story to others? Who brags about person?

· Arms/Hands (Outreach/Impact) What types of strategic relationships should person initiate to accomplish calling/purpose/function?

Legs/Feet (Support) Who supports person?

· Fears

The Behavior
· Meaning-Making Disciplines: How does the person self-organize and make meaning? What disciplines of engagement/abstinence are necessary?
· Ambiguity: How much tolerance for ambiguity is needed for this person?
· Relationships: Does this person have friends or a prefer to be a loner?
· Leadership Style: Does this person assume a masculine, feminine, or androgynous approach?- Other Leadership Behaviors: Transactional or Transformational ? Why?
· Vices As all the above mentioned characteristics are taken into account with the context in which this person will function, what types of personal challenges is this person likely to face?
· Proficiencies: What else must this person be good at in order to fullfill the Raison d’ Etre?

The Future
· How does person maintain vitality? Regenerate the self?
· How does person feel about the future?

All metaphors eventually break down since they are comparing two unlike things and invoking a directed distortion of reality. However, they serve as an effective means to help individuals consider the present and preferred future of the organization. An organization cannot afford not to spend time considering its identity and core competencies. Behavior logically follows being. ”Localized change activity does not mean that the organization spins off wildly in all directions. If people are clear about the purpose and real values of their organization, their individual tinkering will result in system wide coherence” (Finding Our Way, 68). Is an organization a place, a process, or a person? I hold that it is all three. The metaphor of organism/person helps ensure that the organization is growth-oriented versus fixed, actively and meaningfully engages its environment and chooses to adapt in order to evolve. It possesses intelligence and affections. It is self-aware and it communicates its identity through its behavior that is supported by its values.

Margaret Wheatley concludes,

“Organizations that are clear at their core work form congruence, not coercion. People feel free to explore new activities, new ventures, and customers if they feel it makes sense for the organization. It is a strange and promising paradox: Clarity about who we are as an organization or team creates freedom for individual contributions. People exercise that freedom in service to the organization and, as they develop their capacity to respond and change, this becomes a capability of the whole organization.”

Leaders who endeavor to cultivate an organizational culture that is responsive to a changing environment while also affirming the human capacities to self-organize and to relate should find Creating the Organizational Person useful. Organizations are complex systems and require a myriad of methodologies to ensure that they are strategically mobilized to generate the greatest impact. Though the survival instinct may tempt some to concentrate solely upon organizational charts, fiduciary goals, and corporate policies, the consequence of emphasizing behavior over being is terminal. Like people, organizations that need to change must address both symptoms and causation. As you consider your organization, how does its identity inform its practices? Is there coherence? How healthy is the organizational person?

For more information, please check out my other website at http://www.transformationspecialists.net/.

Is the vision of the organization important? Yes, but not alone. Vision is inspired by identity. “Organizing occurs around an identity- there is a ‘self’ that gets organized. Once this identity is set in motion, it becomes the sense-making process of the organization. In deciding what to do, a system will refer back to its sense of self.” (37)

Clarifying Questions:
If you are dissatisfied with your organization, what are you doing personally to change? How can your own growth-journey be integrated into your work? In your organization, does cohesion exist between its espoused identity and its behavior? Or, does a belief-behavior dichotomy exist? How can an infusion of being into your organization postively impact its output?

For most of my life, I have heard individuals- teachers, pastors, parents, etc. talk about “the truth.” Many, especially within the pastoral context have spoken quite authoritatively and passionately. All truth claims appeal to some type of epistemological system by which information is processed, compared to some standard which authenticates its veracity, and then transmitted through behavior that should conform to its tenets. While I am strongly compelled to embrace the existence of objective reality, I am also aware of the impossibility of gauging reality free from personal “baggage” or those subjective elements which color our perspective. For example, one’s race, religion, gender, socio-economic status, education, sexuality, geographical origin, personal tragedies, etc. all shape one’s worldview. It is impossible to bifurcate our baggage from our inquiry. When we make truth claims, especially within the presence of others, it is important that we consider how our worldview impacts our process of acquiring knowledge.

Much of the impetus behind my initial desire to study Organizational Leadership at the doctoral level came from my need to make sense out of some bizarre behaviors which I observed of some leaders. What qualities are essential for one to be identified by others as a promising leader? To what extent does one’s personal disposition inform leadership decisions? Within the context of religion, what is the relationship of one’s personality to one’s overall conception of God? Often I would hear individuals in church leadership indicate that they were speaking for God- revelation seemed closely interconnected to the disposition of the messenger. While I agree with the tenets of organic inspiration, I also believe that one’s personality can strongly inform one’s epistemological framework for understanding the will of God. In order to more closely align ourselves with truth, we must be aware of the impossibility of considering truth free from subjective constraints, i.e. personality, experiences, etc. We must acknowledge the presence of these factors, consider the manner in which they influence our thinking, and move forward in our inquiry. One of the most important tools that one can use to help expose the subjective elements that shape our viewpoints is the dialectical process or human interaction. It is within the presence of community that we are able to work together to unravel the complexities of the world in which we live and form some conclusions.

Within the context of leadership, however, many individuals choose a more solitary existence. In some cases, while a desire for meaningful engagement might exist, that interaction must never call to question the veracity of the viewpoint of the leader. That is, the leader surrounds himself or herself with people who do nothing but affirm their own viewpoints. While A is occurring in the organization, the universe within which the leader chooses to reside prefers to embrace B as reality. This alternate universe which closely resembles that found within the wonderful children’s book, The Emperor’s New Clothes is primarily self-referential. I have chosen to refer to this common phenomenon as Organizational Solipsism. Solipsism is a philosophical term that is used to describe an anthropocentric worldview or, more specifically, one in which the self or one’s existence operates as the only thing of which one can be certain. Please note the definitions below:
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition solipsism [(sol-uhp-siz-uhm)]The belief that all reality is just one’s own imagining of reality, and that one’s self is the only thing that exists
American Heritage Dictionary -
sol·ip·sism n. Philosophy
The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

What happens when a leader adopts organizational solipsism?
I once worked for an organization, a college wherein the president persistently offered public praise for the fact that the organization was “on the move.” While brick and mortar was transformed into numerous buildings, many lives were obliterated- both students and faculty. The alternate universe in which the president resided did not allow for divergent viewpoints, healthy debates, or any suggestions that did provide him with an opportunity for direct, explicit self-promotion before external constituencies. Decisions were made on a regular basis that diminished the value of human capital and perpetuated a crippling cynicism and blatant distrust within the culture. Students and staff members were reluctant to express concerns for fear of losing scholarships or jobs for that matter.

Every leader is capable of succumbing to the temptation of engaging in organizational solipsism. Though the allurement of creating an alternate universe where the self reigns supreme might be compelling, the casualties that may be incurred along the way make it a very deplorable course of action. Regardless of our skills, intelligence, or records of success, we must ALWAYS be aware that the “baggage” that we carry can have a marked impact (for better or for worse) upon our organizations and most importantly, upon those with whom we serve. What is truth? What ingredients shape your worldview? What safeguards are in place to help ensure that you are seeing A instead of B? Who in your life (at home and at work) is honest with you no matter what?