Transformational Thinking & The Organization

Lecture VISOWO 804 Organizational and

Community Behavior

The “Current” Paradigm Shift:

The world approaching a turning point?

A “massive shift in the perception of reality”? The shift is from Newtonian view of universe to one based

on quantum mechanics

Moving away form mechanistic thinking toward a holistic model ?

What does this all have to do with organizational theory? (good question!)

(Banner & Gagne 1995; Capra 1982)

Three Assumptions of Mechanistic Thought

1. There exists a fundamental level of reality which is governed by certain immutable laws.

2. These laws should be applicable to larger structures. In fact, we believe they are universal.

3. Researchers are considered separate from the experiments they are conducting. They produce objective descriptions of what they observe.

(Banner & Gagne, 1995)

Origins of Transformational Thought

T-Groups: Introduced concept of group dynamics. If

culture is not supportive of certain behaviors then those

behaviors disappear.

Human Potential Movement: Being all you can be?

Self-Help Philosophies: Empire building. (Dr. Phil?

Deepak Chopra?).

But are these developments a sign that Newtonian thought’s days are numbered?

Setting up the Challenge:

The Contender: Industrial Era Thought

Assumption 1: Everything is separate from everything else. The universe is machine-like, its parts can be controlled.

Assumption 2: The parts influence the whole. If one part breaks, the whole must fix it. Each part is separate from other parts.

Assumption 3: The world is external. It simply exists as perceived. Our job is to manipulate objective reality to our advantage.

The Challenger: Transformational Thought

Assumption 1: Everything (and they mean everything) is inseparable. All things influence each other.

Assumption 2: The whole (life?) organizes the parts. There is design and control inherent in life itself.

Assumption 3: We are co-creators with life. What we see as reality is created in our consciousness. We make it real through manifestation. Reality is consensual.

(Banner & Gagne, 1995)

The Challenge Continues…

The Contender: Industrial Era Thought

Assumption 4: Life is hostile to humans. We must manipulate life’s circumstances in order to achieve success (in title and market based terms).

Assumption 5: We are not experiencing paradigm shift. Self-centeredness is a natural part of the human condition, it will never be otherwise. There are problems in the world, but it is the advanced human mind and technology that will solve them.

The Challenger: Transformational Thought

Assumption 4: By aligning ourselves with the laws of life we will achieve rewards that are in line with creation (harmony and integration).

Assumption 5: The paradigm is shifting. We must abandon self-serving thought and align ourselves with the purposes of the whole. The problems of environmental degradation, racial inequality, and poverty will only be solved by transformation.

(Banner & Gagne, 1995)

Implications for Organizations

Assumption 1: Everything is inseparable. All things influence each other.

Implication: Adopting transformational model requires realization that an organization is part of a larger social fabric. Everything it does effects everything else.

Examples:

Ben and Jerry’s: 15% of pretax profit to charity. Ecological harmony.

Swissair: Putting management in customers shoes.

(Banner & Gagne, 1995)

Implications Continued…

Assumption 2: The whole organizes the parts. There is design and control inherent in life itself.

Implication : Reality is a series of whole within wholes. Life is organized into discrete forms of energy, each a whole unto itself.

Example: Organizations, as part of society, react and conform to consumer preference, competition, international climate, etc.

(Banner & Gagne, 1995)

Implications…

Assumption 3: We are co-creators with life. What we see as reality is created in our consciousness. We make it real through manifestation. Reality is consensual.

Implication : Organizations are just one of many forms created through consensual agreement. Organizations might be better off if we let the design of life to create them?

Example: Golden Age on Earth? Evidence abounds?

(Banner &Gagne, 1995)

Implications…

Assumption 4: By aligning ourselves with the laws of life we will achieve rewards that in line with creation (harmony and integration).

Implication: Each organization is a smaller version of the larger economy and is “intimately connected” to it. A rhythmic market? Go with the flow?

Example: Ben and Jerry’s stock options and commitment to charity.

(Banner & Gagne, 1995)

Implications…

Assumption 5 : The paradigm is shifting. We must abandon self-serving thought and align ourselves with the purposes of the whole. The problems of environmental degradation, racial inequality, and poverty will only be solved by transformation.

Implication: Unanticipated paradigm shifts can sink an organization.

Example: Swiss watch industry.

(Banner & Gagne, 1995)

Some organizations are:

centralized

hierarchical

formalized

bureaucratic

depersonalizing

Banner & Gagne Attempt to Explain Why

Others are:

decentralized

fluid

flexible

adaptive

empowering

The Explanation is That . . .

Centralizedhierarchicalformalizedbureaucraticdepersonalizing

ORGANIZATIONS

are created by

ego-driven,fearfuleffect-oriented

PEOPLE

Decentralizedfluidflexibleadaptiveempowering

ORGANIZATIONS

are created by

whole-centeredmatureresponsible

PEOPLE

Banner & Gagne attempt to demonstrate that

The METAMODELor new paradigm organizational form

originates inthe beliefs, attitudes and values of individuals

therefore, to change organizational form,there must be changes in

the beliefs, attitudes and values of individuals

The old paradigm includes the assumption thatchange begins at the level of external form.

To improve the organization, externals must be manipulated.

The old paradigm focuses on

STRUCTURES AND STRATEGIES

What are the essential beliefs, attitudes, and values of mature people who are able to create fluid, adaptive, empowering organizations?

• Wholeness already exists. Everything is related to everythingelse.

What does this say about the presupposition ofdisconnectedness and competition that permeatesour society?

• Harmony and balance result from the willingness to yield tolife’s design. Havoc is created by human striving andgoal-oriented action.

What does this imply about the strictly outcomes-based approach

frequently characteristic of contemporary social services?

What are the essential beliefs, attitudes and values of maturepeople …

• Human mental and emotional capacities are the channels through which the design of life can be made manifest in the world of form.

• Flexible organizations are created by an agreement of the collective mind (thoughts and emotional forms shared by those who are open to the design of life).

How may this idea be of practical help to create psychological ownership of an organization’s mission by that organization’s employees?

The promise of “one nation, indivisible”and the dismantling of the social contract

The perspective of Bill Moyers

(From his speech at the Take Back America Conference,June 4, 2003)

The main story within U. S. history:

“the struggle to determine whether ‘we, the people’ is a spiritual idea embedded in apolitical reality—one nation, indivisible—or merely a charade masquerading as piety and manipulated by the powerful and privilegedto sustain their own way of life at the expenseof others”.

The struggle against privilege and oligarchy:the progressive movement

• The Populists (1890s)

• The Social Reformers (1900-1915)

• The New Deal (1930s)

• The Great Society (1960s)

The past 25 years: Dismantling the Social Contract

The challenge of an effective movement:

“to convert public concern and hostility into a crusade to resurrect social Darwinism as a moral philosophy, multinational corporations as a governing class, and the theology of markets as a transcendental belief system”

“. . . public services, when privatized, serve only those who can afford them and weaken the sense that we all rise and fall together as ‘one nation, indivisible.”