I
remember one time several years ago – probably back in 2007 or so – I was
listening to Bill O’Reilly on the radio. I have no idea what the discussion was
but I felt compelled to respond so I called in to the show. To get through on
one of those shows takes a combination of timing, patience, and luck but somehow,
I magically got through and actually got to state my opinion on whatever the
topic was. When I was done, Mr. O’Reilly called me an enlightened man.
This
is the first week of a new class about organizational change. In it, we are
studying organizational development (OD) which “comprises the long-range
efforts and programs aimed at improving an organization’s ability to survive by
changing its problem-solving and renewal processes” (Brown, 2011, p. 4). OD
affects organizational cultural change through the knowledge and application of
behavioral sciences. OD is not just about individuals but rather as changing the
collective whole. It is therefore fitting that this first blog is about
enlightenment as knowledge leads to action.
In a
YouTube video, Matthew Taylor (2010), Chief Executive of RSA (Royal Society for
the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), discusses enlightenment in
the 21st Century and how our society is changing. I might have this
saying just a little off but it is often said that the definition of insanity
is doing the same things the same way but expecting different results. Because
we don’t live in a perfect world and there is constant growth, the ways of
thinking and behaving in the past are no longer acceptable. Just think if our
society still behaved as we did in the last century, or even how we did the
century before that. We would still have racial segregation, there would be no
such thing as LGBT rights, and we would not care one iota about issues such as
global warming. Pointing out these issues doesn’t mean that our society was
less just or immoral in the past. We (“we” meaning humanity as a whole) was
simply ignorant to the truths.
With
the growth of communications technology, we are discovering more truths every
day. Viewing society as an organization, how would we apply OD? To develop – to
live differently than we did in the past - we must think differently than we
did in the past. Sadly, there are segments of our society that are not willing
to change but “21st century enlightenment should champion a more
self-aware, socially embedded model of autonomy that recognizes our frailties
and limitations” (Taylor, 2010, 3:18). We must first recognize that we are not
perfect so we won’t be able to achieve a utopian world but that shouldn’t stop
us from working toward that goal. Since we know this to be true – that we are
all imperfect - we are not all going to see eye-to-eye as we work toward a
better society.
With
this realization – this enlightenment – we can start working together to
develop our society. As Taylor (2010)
notes, empathy is equally as important as education to achieving this goal.
When we actually try to view our issues from the other side, we can work toward
true resolution. “A culture which prized empathy would be one which distinguished
the healthy activity of public disagreement from the unhealthy habit of public
disparagement” (6:37). Empathy really is the key here. Arthur Brooks (2016),
president of the American Enterprise Institute, addressed this in his TED Talk.
When we try to look at our issues through the lens of our “opponent” (my word,
not his), we begin to find that we are not so different after all and that we
actually need differing views to keep our own views in line. Imagine the
problems that we could solve if we just truly approached them with empathy!
Imagine if we embraced our differences instead of fighting each other on them. But
why do we have such a hard time with this? There is a phenomenon known as ideological asymmetries which is the phenomenon of
assuming that your ideology is based in love but your opponents' ideology is
based in hate (Jost, 2017). When we think that our views and values are not
only superior to others’ but that others’ are based on hate, it is impossible
to be empathetic! Think of the implications of that in our current political
climate. The media almost seems to try to pit us against one another by
spinning stories to make it seem that Republicans are evil and hate Democrats.
Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. As Brooks (2016) points
out, when we actually try to view our problems through the opposing lens, we
start to see that we pretty much all want the same thing.
Taylor
(2010) states that “to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which
is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange” (4:10). Ideological
asymmetries and a lack of empathy can make that resistance difficult, though,
and we will try to justify our stance even when we know it to be wrong. In my
opinion, this is probably one of the most common reasons for divorce. Instead
of trying to work together as a team, one of the couple deems that the other is
just out to be their enemy even when they know that to not be true. Imagine if
we stopped justifying the hurtful things that we did to each other in our
marriages and other relationships and conducted ourselves in a manner which
shows true empathy. If we would truly resist these tendencies to justify our
wrongs and work toward together, imagine what we could actually achieve. We
could collaborate and support the best ideas and talents (especially within our
own organizations) and avoid conflict.
We
are clearly evolving as a society. Our eyes are being opened more and more
every day as our knowledge grows. As we become more enlightened, we have to
understand that we are not going to see eye to eye but when we conduct
ourselves with empathy, we start to recognize that we all have the same goals
in mind. Thinking of my own situation at work, I can see how this enlightenment
would be beneficial to my team that is comprised entirely of non-volunteers.
(In Army Recruiting, we have about a 20% volunteer rate and the rest are
selected by the Department of the Army. I have an office full of
ground-pounders that just want to be out there engaged in the fight.) I am the
only one that volunteered to come to recruiting and now I am the center leader.
When I manage my team, I wonder if I have really looked at my decisions from a
non-volunteer point of view. Do they make sense to someone that doesn’t want to
be here? I mean they make sense to someone with a passion for the mission but
what about the team members that are doing it just because it is their job?
Maybe I can be a bit more empathetic to them. After all, the old ways of managing in the past aren't applicable today.
Brooks,
A. (2016, February). A Conservative’s
Plea: Let’s Work Together [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_brooks_a_conservative_s_plea_let_s_work_together
Brown,
D. R. (2011). An Experimental Approach to
Organizational Development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Jost,
J. T. (2017). Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167-208.
doi:10.1111/pops.12407
Taylor,
M. [The RSA]. (2010, August 19). RSA
ANIMATE: 21st Century Enlightenment [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo
No comments:
Post a Comment