Fast Food Research - Not Nutritious, Leading to Flabby Reasoning

Yesterday's hot news out of the Rotman School of Business, namely that exposure to fast food logos causes us to speed up, because the logos of fast food franchises suggest, you know, fast, is a great example of positivist pseudo-science. The full paper is here and with a few seconds of critical analysis, one can easily see enough holes to populate the phony Swiss cheese used on a Subway sandwich. One hint, for example: what may have been demonstrated is the effect of pervasive fast food marketing on impulse and desire, rather than on cognitive processing in general, the latter being the suggestion of the paper; the former being a phenomenon that has been well-understood by marketing types for years. (And for a much better treatment of marketing phenomena in general, you may want to check out Terry O'Reilly's great radio series, The Age of Persuasion.) There are many other methodological problems with the research design that jumped out at me immediately. As research, I would rate it a fail; as marketing for Rotman, however... hmmm...

Positivist research presumes that there is an objective reality outside of ourselves that can be discovered through empirical studies. Although this is true in natural systems (neither the Sun nor the Earth particularly care what we believe in terms of one going around the other), human systems are something else altogether. I deal with this in the methodology section of my thesis, essentially demonstrating how models of human systems are generative - the way we think governs the way we react and interact in human situations, and the way we (are often conditioned to) act governs the way we think. What is important in human systems research (i.e., almost all research that happens in business schools, for instance) is to acknowledge our subjectivity in the assumptions we bring to our supposed hypotheses. If not, we run the risk of concluding nonsense; when pronounced from the bully pulpit of an august business school like Rotman, that indeed may affect with way we think about human systems, and therefore the way we create and govern human systems (like organizations).

So, thanks to my friend, Leigh Himel, I offer you the research to demonstrate that pie is better than cake. Proof positive that positivist research in human systems is often as flaky as a pie crust, and as crummy as a devil's food cake. (Oh, and by the way, Happy Birthday, Leigh!)

[Technorati tags: marketing | research | positivist | rotman school of business | leigh himel]

From BAH to ba: Public Thesis Defense Video

For those who weren't able to join either in person or via Skype, here is the video of last week's public thesis defense.


Mark Federman's Public Thesis Defense from Mark Federman on Vimeo.

[Technorati tags: thesis defense | valence theory]

Spencer Harrison: "I know why I'm here..."

Spencer Harrison is a human rights activist and is currently the artist in residence at George Vanier High School in Toronto, Ontario. He is also a doctoral candidate in my department at OISE, a warm, genuine, and wonderful person, and a friend. I remember meeting Spencer in my role as one of the department mentors at his initial new-students orientation. At the time, he seemed as unsure of himself in this strange environment of Adult Education and Counselling Psychology as the grade 9 student he describes near the end of this video. Now... well, see for yourself, as Spencer demonstrates his role as activist, mentor, teacher, and friend, creator of enabling and safe spaces. He is a remarkable person, one whom I am honoured to count among my friends.



[Technorati tags: spencer harrison | george vanier | artist in residence]

Reframing "The Future of Publishing"

One of the largest challenges for any business, industry, or market is to overcome one's own biases and internal logic. We are all products of our own discourses, and are especially sensitive to the dominant discourse in any field. In other words, when it comes to systems that involve human interactions, we both make it up as we go along, and tend to (either tacitly or explicitly) agree with what the other guy or gal sees. It's the Emperor's sartorial splendour writ large, more or less. (Karl Weick has lots to say about vesting in the sense we make, and John Ionnidis, as well as Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, describe how science really isn't all that scientific. Yep, make it up, follow the other guy, get the funding...)

So, it heartens me to see this clever bit of internal - and now external - marketing from publisher Penguin in the UK, that focuses on truly thinking through the effects of imposing a well-trodden, but not necessarily true, line of argument that supposes a very particular causal logic to a seemingly inevitable conclusion. But, step out of simplistic, linear causality, consider the juxtaposition of very different and diverse contexts and ways of understanding the world, and the conclusion is not quite as forgone as vested self-interests would have us believe. This is truly a gem!



[Technorati tags: future+of+publishing | marketing | penguin]

Public Thesis Defence - You're Invited!

The thesis has just officially passed committee and, after a final check-the-commas read-through, will be on its way to the external examiner. My external is Dr. Brenda Zimmerman from Schulich School of Business at York University, co-author of Getting to Maybe: How the world is changed. She is well-known for social innovation and complexity models of organization, and I am quite honoured to have her as my external.

Although the official defence is three months away, I am planning to do a public, "department defence" to which everyone is invited, including you! Here's the notice for the event:

What do a social justice NGO, a New York City advertising agency, and a Japanese Zen philosopher have in common?

Come find out how these three, very different entities represent a common future for organizational transformation when Mark Federman publicly presents his doctoral thesis research in a department defence.

From BAH to ba: Valence Theory and the Future of Organization

Wednesday, March 24, from noon to 1:00
OISE Room 7-162
252 Bloor Street West
Toronto, ON

Everyone is welcome! If you're on Facebook, you can RSVP to the event

If you are, or will be, in Toronto, it would be great if you could join in person. If you are not in Toronto, there will be a Skype conference call (max 23 people), with preference given to research participants who would like to listen in. Please email me with your Skype ID to reserve your Skype slot.

[Technorati tags: valence theory | thesis | defence]

The Case of Dufferin Grove Park

The dysfunctions of bureaucracy are widely documented throughout the critical management literature, and in books and documentaries like The Corporation. These dysfunctions are most certainly etched in the minds of countless individuals who spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the ensuing frustrations, both as inside members, and outside victims, of bureaucracies. But while bureaucracies were noted by early 20th century economist and sociologist, Max Weber, as a superior way of organizing work for maximum efficiency, they have become anything but that merely one hundred years later. The case of Dufferin Grove Park and its headlong clash with City of Toronto’s Parks, Forestry, and Recreation bureaucracy is particularly illustrative: it not only highlights bureaucratic dysfunctions; it serves as an almost too-perfect example of using Valence Theory as a frame for organizational healing.

The complicated facts of the case are, by now, well-known thanks to reportage in the press, and through the community organization, Friends of Dufferin Grove Park (FDGP). The principles being applied by the City, and specifically Parks, Forestry, and Recreation (PFR, headed by its General Manager, Brenda Patterson, with Councillor Janet Davis as the Chair of the Community Development and Recreation Committee) are clearly BAH – bureaucratic, administrative, and hierarchical in nature. They go something like this:

1. There are two, distinct organizations involved in this issue: one is a community organization defined loosely by self-identified association (i.e., those who consider themselves members of the Dufferin Grove community are, de facto, members); the other is a City department whose members are defined according to formal employment contracts.
2. A member of a “formal” (in this case, meaning paid employment) organization is considered by that organization to owe his/her first allegiance to that formal organization, strictly according to terms set out in the employment contract (in this case, the collective agreement between the City and its workers’ union, CUPE Local 79).
3. Organizational members are interchangeable in a particular “office” (job function or station) so long as they have equivalent technical specifications; individual personalities, dispositions, and other so-called soft skills are (for the purpose of job assignment) in effect, irrelevant.
4. The City claims to be the agent for the public interest in the matter, which creates a problematic conflict of interest, since the “public” (specifically, FDGP) holds opinions that are diametrically opposite from those of its putative agent, namely, the City in the body of PFR. This is not dissimilar to an accused defendant being represented in court by the Crown. Nonetheless, the City is, bureaucratically and administratively, indeed the nominal representative of the public according to our rooted-in-the-13th-or-19th-century system of government (take your pick). One is left to contemplate whether this 13th- or 19th-century principle is useful in this instance of a problem in 21st-century Toronto.
5. PFR is determined, seemingly at any cost to the community or effectiveness, to “reproduce its system of means” (Manuel Castells’s definition of a bureaucracy) by ensuring that all community-based organizations are structured, managed, and most of all, controlled in the same ways, strictly according to centrally determined policies and procedures. The department’s determination here is based on the presumption that all areas of the City should be treated equally. (Another analogy: As a good parent, to treat your children equitably do you treat them each exactly the same?)

It is all too clear that the conventional, BAH reading of this situation will not lead to a happy and healthy resolution of this situation. Were it not for the determination of FDGP, community programming in the Park would not have been initiated in the first place, and certainly would not sustain this current strife. Although it would not be obvious to the thinking of the bureaucratic personality, I would argue that by attempting to set identical standards that intend to “provide excellent service to residents throughout the City,” as Councillor Davis suggests, the City is, in fact, diminishing its capacity for innovation to provide quality services as and where they are needed. According to my research, bureaucracies are structurally incapable of creating innovation (and they’re incapable of perceiving quality, as well). It is only through UCaPP-style undertakings, such as FDGP in this case, that innovation can, and does, occur.

Valence Theory provides a very different understanding of the five issues I raised. Approaching the problem from a Valence Theory context enables more of the salient issues to become discussable, thereby fostering a quicker, more satisfying resolution to the problems at hand, and providing healing to the organizations involved.

1) Valence Theory maintains that there is no difference between internal and external constituencies. All members who share several of the five valence relationships (Economic, Socio-psychological, Identity, Knowledge, and Ecological) are members of the organization. Hence, City workers, officials in PFR, and community members of FDGP are all part of one valence organization—let’s call it Larger Dufferin Grove, for clarity’s sake. One could say, therefore, that there is an allegiance owed by all members to that larger, composite organization.
2) Specifically, the collective agreement and employment contracts in general define only the Economic valence relationship between one or more members and one particular organization, namely, the City. That organization is not Larger Dufferin Grove (although workers and the City are both constituent members of Larger Dufferin Grove; hence, there is a level of complexity here that is not contemplated in collective agreements). Thus, the collective agreement is, ultimately, not a useful complication in resolving this matter, since it serves to divide rather than unite the parties. As well, one key constituency of Larger Dufferin Grove – FDGP – is not a party to the collective agreement; thus, based on a principle of fundamental fairness, the collective agreement should not be used as a determining factor or justification for actions taken on behalf of Larger Dufferin Grove. Yes, this means that management’s assumed unilateral prerogative to control its employees essentially goes out the window. (Don’t worry, since under Valence Theory, collaborative leadership is far more effective and efficient.)
3) Since, according to Valence Theory, organizations are emergent from relationships among people, if you change the people, you change the organization. Specifically, by reassigning Ward 18 recreation supervisor Tino DeCastro to supervising cleaners at Metro Hall, Larger Dufferin Grove has been changed. The principle here is relatively straight-forward to understand: people are not machine parts; they are not interchangeable according to similarity in technical specifications.
4) The term, “conflict of interest” has been bandied about considerably in this circumstance, specifically pertaining to protecting against the potential for fiscal malfeasance (something with which the City is well acquainted). However, as I mentioned in point 4 above, there are clearly conflicted interests on the City’s part (specifically PFR, and even more specifically in the Office of its General Manager—and I am clearly distinguishing between the Office and the person of the GM, according to bureaucratic theory). Interestingly, throughout this entire matter, there is no venue for recognizing and reconciling the specific interests of Larger Dufferin Grove, as each of FDGP, PFR, and City workers represent the interests of their particular component organization (and yes, this is a tricky one to get one’s head around, but think about it for a minute or two because it’s a key concept to understand the distinction between Larger Dufferin Grove and each of its constituent sub-organizations).
5) Treating all communities and citizens fairly and equitably is not to treat them all the same, no matter how much bureaucratic principles would wish it so. A city like Toronto is diverse and complex. Hence, a complexity approach (which is neither a simplistic nor complicated approach) is required to resolve these sorts of issues.

So, where to start? According to Valence Theory, the order of priorities is as follows: Values, Tactility (effects), Relationships, Purpose, Goals & Objectives, and Tasks. The Larger Dufferin Grove organization must convene to create organizational values that are emergent from those of its participant members (and not vice versa). With underlying values commonly understood, the organization can then answer its tactility question: who do we want to touch, and how do we want to touch them today? This will reveal the specific effects that Larger Dufferin Grove will want to enable among all its component constituencies, via the five valence relationships. From an in-depth understanding of these effects and relationships, the specific purpose, goals, and objectives of what is to be accomplished will emerge and come into focus, and from these, the specific tasks that can be taken up by all members.

There are any number of venues and intervention techniques (facilitated through a competent organizational therapist; disclosure: this is what I do) through which this process of organizational healing can occur. However, I maintain that it is vitally important to change the language of interaction among Friends of Dufferin Grove Park, the Department of Parks, Forestry, and Recreation, and the City workers themselves in order to create a common ground of organizational healing for Larger Dufferin Grove.


[Technorati tags: dufferin grove park | toronto | parks forestry recreation | organizational healing]

Let the Reflection on the Games Begin

Yes, it was a great hockey game yesterday, and not merely because Sidney Crosby finally lived up to hype surrounding his wunderkind-ness. But key among the many "real stories" of the Vancouver Olympics are the stories of all 206 Canadian athletes who have dedicated their lives over many years, and those of the families and friends of those 206. There is an important lesson to be taken from these games, I think: individual effort, dedication, perseverance, training, preparation can yield tremendous success that creates both direct, and vicarious pride and sense of accomplishment. Additionally, it is the tremendous and often selfless support, encouragement, advice, and sacrifices of those who care about the athlete in question that make a huge difference in whether the ultimate performance realizes the dreams and aspirations of the competitor.

Not to elevate myself or overstate my own experiences over the past six years, I am just completing a marathon not unlike those undertaken by Olympic-level performers. Like them, I have dedicated, persevered through adversity and challenge, prepared, and expended tremendous effort to the exclusion of many other pursuits to complete my Valence Theory research (which will be defended on Friday, June 11, 2010, beginning at 10:00 a.m.). Like them, I have enjoyed and am truly grateful for the often selfless support, encouragement, advice, and sacrifice of those who have cared about me and my work - support that has indeed made a huge difference in my ability to realize my goal. Here, then, are the Acknowledgements that are included in my thesis: 

A doctoral thesis is a marathon, and in many ways appears to be a solitary, isolating process. At the same time, to successfully complete this marathon requires the assistance and support of so many wonderful people that it truly cannot be considered as anything else but a collaboration, reflexively an emergent organization not unlike those about which I write.

Thank you to my doctoral committee—Marilyn Laiken, Derrick de Kerckhove, and Ann Armstrong. Marilyn has encouraged and mentored me throughout my two degrees at OISE, and provided one of the two key inspirations that formed the kernel of Valence Theory through her course on the History and Theory of Organization Development. She was the first to challenge me with the “obviousness” of Valence Theory, and hence, spurred me with the impetus to clearly articulate new thinking about that which everyone already sees. Derrick provided me the other inspiration—the incorporation of the Toronto School of Communication discourse, leading to the realization that I should be able to observe the emergence of new organization consistent with contemporary reality if I was able to notice the “effects that precede the cause.” Ann inspired me to carefully question not only the approach I was taking, but the approaches I was not taking so that I could better appreciate and comprehend the ground of my work. To the three of you, my heartfelt thanks for your guidance, inspiration, and friendship.

To my friends and colleagues at OISE, thank you for participating in making these the six best years of my life. Special thanks to the members of our thesis group – Soosan Latham, Tracey Lloyd, Bettina Boyle, Carole Chatalalsingh, Cristin Stephens-Wegner, and Alena Strauss – for your unwavering support, camaraderie, and encouragement. Thanks as well to all those who participated as core members of Students on Seven through my years here, who helped create a great environment in which to learn, think and play. A heartfelt thank you to Bonnie Burstow, who taught me everything I know about designing and conducting research from a ground of respect and equity.

To my participant organizations, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for granting me permission to connect with some of your members, and especially to the managers and executives in those organizations who facilitated the approval processes. Although I would love to thank you by name, respecting confidentiality does not permit. Sincere thanks to Adam, Frank, Karen, Robert, and Roxanne from Organization A; Aaron, Jeff and Matt from Organization F; Jean and Sam from Inter Pares; Mary, Mina, Sean, and Stan from Organization M; and Cindy, Frances, Loreen, and Roger from Unit 7. The gift of your time and insight is the foundation of this thesis and I will be eternally grateful for all that you have contributed.

Thanks to all those who participated and contributed to my thinking via my weblog and wiki. Taking the time to reflect on what I have been writing has enriched my understanding of this work. Thanks especially to Pam Rostal for pointing me to Nonaka’s use of ba, from which it was a small step to discover the work of Nishida Kitaro. A very special thank you to my dear friend, Christine Sorenson, who has contributed immeasurably to my research, writing, and state of mind throughout this entire process. Finally, thanks to my friends at Salsaholics Anonymous and Toronto Salsa Practice for helping to keep me sane and embodied, enabling me regularly to go out of my mind.

Last, but not least, thank you to my wife, Miriam, and the two, finest young adults I have the privilege to know – my children, David and Julie – for standing by me through the long hours, days, weeks, months, and years. I have been able to begin to realize my dream; I pray that you each will be able to realize yours.

[Technorati tags: olympics | 2010 | acknowledgements]

The Essential Roger Ebert

If you love movies, there is little chance that you would not know the name, not to mention the contribution, of Roger Ebert. Ebert, with his longtime partner and nemesis, Gene Siskel, gave us "two thumbs up" and peerless guidance of what was worth seeing on the big screen. Chris Jones of Esquire magazine has written a remarkable portrait of Roger Ebert, a man now silenced by repeated treatments and surgeries to battle the cancer that is taking his life by inches.

Seven years ago, he recovered quickly from the surgery to cut out his cancerous thyroid and was soon back writing reviews for the Chicago Sun-Times and appearing with Richard Roeper on At the Movies. A year later, in 2003, he returned to work after his salivary glands were partially removed, too, although that and a series of aggressive radiation treatments opened the first cracks in his voice. In 2006, the cancer surfaced yet again, this time in his jaw. A section of his lower jaw was removed; Ebert listened to Leonard Cohen. Two weeks later, he was in his hospital room packing his bags, the doctors and nurses paying one last visit, listening to a few last songs. That's when his carotid artery, invisibly damaged by the earlier radiation and the most recent jaw surgery, burst. Blood began pouring out of Ebert's mouth and formed a great pool on the polished floor. The doctors and nurses leapt up to stop the bleeding and barely saved his life. Had he made it out of his hospital room and been on his way home — had his artery waited just a few more songs to burst — Ebert would have bled to death on Lake Shore Drive. Instead, following more surgery to stop a relentless bloodletting, he was left without much of his mandible, his chin hanging loosely like a drawn curtain, and behind his chin there was a hole the size of a plum. He also underwent a tracheostomy, because there was still a risk that he could drown in his own blood. When Ebert woke up and looked in the mirror in his hospital room, he could see through his open mouth and the hole clear to the bandages that had been wrapped around his neck to protect his exposed windpipe and his new breathing tube. He could no longer eat or drink, and he had lost his voice entirely. That was more than three years ago.

Ebert's own response to the article is posted on his blog - his words are as touching as is the Esquire article itself. Well worth the read if you are a fan of film, of Roger Ebert, or both.

[Technorati tags: roger ebert | chris jones | esquire | two thumbs up]

So What Do You Do?

Every so often I get asked this question, often in a social encounter: "so what do you do?" And my response is always the same: I create great environments of engagement so that all participants can have the opportunity to achieve their own aspirations. As for me, I want my own aspirations to have at least two of three principle attributes - they should be interesting, important, and fun - and hopefully all three. All of that suits my role* (natural mode) of educator and is a nice place to live for how I hope to earn my living now that "this thesis thing" is coming to a close.

Why do I bring this up this morning? I just received an email from some students who attended my lectures and playshops last fall during my annual trip to Högskölan för Lärande och Kommunikation (the School of Education and Communication) at Jönköping University in Sweden. I love these opportunities to engage with first-year communications students and introduce them to the thinking and approaches of Marshall McLuhan, especially including the Laws of Media tetrads as an analytic tool for both reading and writing the culture, as many of these students will eventually do. In particular, these engagements with the students are always interesting and fun, and being able to inspire students to new thinking about the world is, perhaps, among the most important of human endeavours.

The students shared with me a lovely video project they created in their Visual Communications course for which they used the tetrad approach to help them construct the piece. As will all good craftspeople, you can't see the tools left over in the final production, but the cleverness of it demonstrates to me that there was some advanced creative thinking that went in to its design. The video is a fabulous example of a cool medium - on in which the audience must become involved to complete the work. Watch it twice.



(Thanks, and congratulations, Johan, Sanna, Sara, Ida, Robin and Jennifer!)

[Technorati tags: hlk | applied mcluhanistics | jonkoping university]

A BAH in the Park

Today is budget day at Toronto City Hall and we are being told that it costs money to run a city like Toronto. Yes, that's true, especially when one realizes that BAH is far more expensive and less efficient than UCaPP, and the fair City of Toronto is a Bastion of BAH. Here is a small microcosm of a much larger organizational and management problem that pervades the tiny minds of the City bureaucracy. It concerns the rink at Dufferin Grove Park, and how City managers went out of their way not only to destroy a healthy, (UCaPP) emergent community organization, but to impose such utter stupidity in the name of BAH.

Parks and Recreation management is making it move to homogenize its offerings. Management says: No community boards of management for arenas. And in the case of outdoor rinks, the message this year has been getting ever more insistent: No campfires. No skate lending. No mini-pizzas. No woodstoves. No zamboni cafes with cheap food. No easy collaboration between rink staff and rink friends. Rink staff are cautioned: “you are in conflict of interest. Your responsibility is to the Corporation of the City of Toronto.” No visits to other rinks to give those other rink-friends suggestions, or answer their questions. Stay in your zone, and in your assigned place in the city hierarchy.

Lines of communication are strictly laid down. The recreation supervisor is told to stop working with his on-site rink staff directly. On-site staff are told to work only with the “recreation programmer.” If rink users ask the rink staff when the zamboni crew is coming to resurface the ice, rink staff are not allowed to ask the crew directly -- they must call the Recreation Programmer, who calls the Recreation Supervisor, who calls the Parks Supervisor, who calls the Zamboni Foreperson, who radios the crew and then calls the Parks Supervisor back, who calls the Recreation Supervisor, who calls the Recreation Programmer, who calls the rink staff. Yes, really. Every time.

The supervisor himself is cautioned about being in conflict of interest. His job is: to follow policies laid down by management, sometimes backed up by council vote, often not. If he wants to support special activities put on by rink friends, he has to ask the Permit Office, which asks for permission from the Parks Supervisor. If permission is given, Customer Service enters the information into the central permit system. If the rink supervisor is seen to be helping rink volunteers avoid paying a permit fee or insurance for community events, he is warned.

It's interesting that the phrase "conflict of interest" is bandied about. Whenever a bureaucrat seeks to reproduce his/her system of means as their main organizational goal (in the words of Manuel Castells) they create a huge conflict of interest, one for which we, the citizens of Toronto, pay dearly. It is little wonder that both the politicians and bureaucrats of City Hall seek to control, regulate, and punish rather than facilitate, encourage, and reward grassroots initiatives and things that just make sense. Not surprising that City Hall attracts raw ambition, power-seeking, and narcissistic self-righteousness irrespective of one's political bent, throughout both its elected and non-elected ranks, and among its associated agencies and services.

It's a sad state of affairs (and no, that's not meant to be a Giambrone punchline, but case in point...)

(Thanks, Michael!)

[Technorati tags: toronto | city hall | parks and recreation | dufferin grove park]

I Think We Need a Different Kind of Medium

I'm in the University of Toronto Blue Book of so-called experts willing to provide interviews to various media outlets. As such, I receive a fair number of requests from, among others, journalism students concerning social media, the effects on society, and any sensational headline involving Facebook. But today, I received an email request somewhat different from the usual (both the individual and the school shall remain nameless to protect the embarrassed:

Mr. McLuhan,
I am a journalism student working on a short piece about social media's impact on PM Harper's recent decision to cancel Parliament's spring break. My
focus is mainly on whether the facebook movement impacted his decisions. I was wondering if you, as an expert in the social media field, had any
thoughts on the matter that you would be willing to share with me.
Thanks.

I think this student is confusing medium, message, and medium.

[Technorati tags: journalism school | media request]

Google's SuperAd

Google's Superbowl ad is perfect: great story-telling, show not tell, and perhaps most savvy of all, hitting the message of the Internet spot on - relationship and connection. This one goes to my commercials playshop (assuming I visit Jonkoping again).



[Technorati tags: google | superbowl | advertisement]

Message to TTC's Gary Webster: It Ain't Gonna Happen

I came across the public version of a memo TTC Chief General Manager (egad! what a title), Gary Webster sent to all staff.  In it, he says that "our customers deserve better," and that he is "becoming increasingly tired of defending the reputation of the TTC." Do tell. What concerns me - that is, what indicates that Mr. Webster is essentially without clue when it comes to matters of changing organization culture - is the conclusion of his memo:

As Chief General Manager, I am ultimately accountable to our customers. As employees, you - and you alone - are accountable for your actions. The culture of complacency and malaise that has seeped into our organization will end. I hold all of management responsible to make this happen. Reviews and plans are under way to address systemic issues regarding customer service, but real change starts with you.

Fascinating how wrong this man can be. Every single sentence in that paragraph is either wrong on its face, wrong-headed, wrongly framed, or combinations and permutations of all of the above! I cannot imagine how someone who conveys such a basic lack of knowledge about organizational culture and the nature of leadership could end up as "Chief General Manager." (Actually, I do - that is the nature of BAH; to be a BAH leader, you have to have a BAH leadership personality.) So, I hear you asking, what's wrong with Mr. Grand Chief Poo-Bah's memo?

1. "As Chief General Manager, I am ultimately accountable to our customers." Wrong. Your position does not automatically or necessarily convey accountability, except in a trite, nominal, procedural, it-says-so-in-the-book sort of fashion. Being "ultimately" accountable is code for "there are others who are going to fall before I do," rather than the more direct, "if our customers feel pain, I'm going to make damn sure I feel it too." But, worse than that, the idea of "ultimate" accountability means detachment, not an impetus to own up to fundamentally what is wrong (more on this later).

2. "As employees, you - and you alone - are accountable for your actions." Wrong. Oh, I would say that in a sort of childish, you're-responsible-for-your-own-behaviour concept, yes, individuals taking coffee breaks, naps, not handing out transfers, being churlish and rude - yes, people should be able to control themselves. The operative words there are should be able to. TTC workers - management and unionized workers alike - are human, and humans respond to their environment. If the environment has been poisoned by management and union alike, the workers (all workers, right up to you, Mr. Webster), are similarly poisoned, and their behaviours are likely to be toxic. Thus, it is insincere or naive (or both) to simply say that individuals are solely responsible for the daily headlines of inappropriate actions. In other words, Mr. Webster, if you are truly holding yourself accountable (see point 1), you are "ultimately" accountable for the toxic organizational culture over which you preside. But, you're not alone in your accountability - no, not by a long shot.

3. "The culture of complacency and malaise that has seeped into our organization will end." Wrong. It won't end, especially by fiat. This is yet another example of the toxicity to which I referred a moment ago. If you believe you can legislate good behaviour - especially without changing the fundamental nature of your organizational culture - you're in for a surprise.

4. "I hold all of management responsible to make this happen." Wrong, for the same reasons as points 2 and 3. It isn't management's responsibility to effect organizational change; it is the responsibility of all TTC members (and the public, too).

5. "Reviews and plans are under way to address systemic issues regarding customer service, but real change starts with you." Wrong. First, real change starts with YOU, Mr. Webster, not the "you" (i.e., TTC workers) at whom you point your finger. Your so-called reviews and plans are likely to involve blame, resistance by the union, customer service "training" for the workers, and not a whit of substantive change that truly creates cohesiveness in an organization and heals the long-standing rifts that exist among the workers.

So what is to be done? It is easy to say, fire the lot of 'em (including senior managers and Chief Whatnots). It's easy to say privatize transit in the city because competition and the so-called free market cures all ills (not). I think what is important to recognize is that the fragmentation and "separation of labour" (Taylor's thinkers and doers) mentality is at the heart of the dysfunction. Do both Gary Webster and Amalgamated Transit Union 113 head, Bob Kinnear, agree and truly accept that there are extensive, organization-wide cultural dysfunctions? If not, then they have to go because they are fundamentally part of the problem. Do they accept and truly acknowledge that each of them, and their respective constituencies, have actively contributed to the adversarial atmosphere that creates such dysfunctions in organizations? If not, then, again, they have to go or there will never be a solution to mutual intransigence.

A major intervention is required, along the lines that one might call "organizational therapy" (and yes, disclosure time: this is something that I practice and facilitate). It begins with collaboratively bringing together the human values from among all (i.e., an appropriate representations of) members of the organization, not by title, rank or seniority, but across and throughout the organization, irrespective of hierarchical status. It continues with extensive involvement from among all constituencies. It evolves to a complete revamping of operational supervision, and even the collective bargaining process.

In short, it is not about individual action, individual responsibility, and holding individual accountability. It is, instead, all about individual autonomy and agency, collective responsibility, and mutual accountability. And, it isn't going to happen overnight, nor over several months' full of nights. It is going to be a slow transformation that will take several years to effect in an organization this large. But the beauty of it is, changes can begin to occur immediately, once those in charge begin to realize that a Bureaucratic, Administrative, and Hierarchical solution to this problem just ain't gonna happen.

Update (8 Feb 2010): This post has been attracting a lot of attention over the past couple of days, so let me be explicit about who I am and the location of my standpoint. I am an Adult Educator, Organizational Therapist, and Organizational Philosopher by training, practice, and disposition. I have just completed an extensive research study on issues of "old" and "new" styles of organization and how to effect transition from old models to new, and developed a new, fundamental theory of organization which is my doctoral dissertation. I understand how cultural change initiatives can go very wrong, very quickly, and the amount of work, perseverance, dedication, and serious attention it takes for any hope of success. I also know FOR CERTAIN that conventional, quick-fix, action-oriented, for-the-love-of-god-do-something approaches (like "customer service sensitivity training") only make matters fundamentally worse, especially in the long run. This is clearly a very unwell organizational culture (a reflection of similar dysfunctions in the larger City Hall organization, by the way) that needs considerable intervention assistance from other than the usual suspects.


[Technorati tags: ttc | toronto transit commission | gary webster | union | amalgamated transit union | bob kinnear]

The Case of Thornley-Fallis: "We Own You" (or so we claim)

My friend, Leigh, posed a question on her Facebook profile asking what people think about PR agency, Thornley Fallis’s, new “online communications policy.” Essentially, it is based on the premise,

You’re always one of us
Each of us represents the company to the world and the character of the company is defined by our beliefs and actions. We must be mindful of this when participating in social media and any kind of online communications.
You may be active in social media on your own account. That’s good. But please remember that whether you are on your own time or company time, you’re still a member of our team. And the judgment you exercise on your own time reflects on the judgment you exercise at work. There’s only one you – at play and at work.

It goes on from there to provide guidelines like, “cause no harm to any person,” be civil, respectful, and transparent, and so on. Not bad things, right? Personally, I think borrowing from the doctors’ Hippocratic Oath is a cute touch, if a tad unoriginal (which raises the question, do you really want a PR agency that speaks in “borrowed” clichés?, but I digress…). There is some emerging conversation on Leigh’s Facebook wall that equates the notion of “you’re always one of us” with 1984-ish groupbeing, and the tacit assertion that the company claims ownership of its employees. This being Canada (and the company being Canadian), such is not the case in law—unlike our neighbours to the south, our labour laws are enlightened beyond employment-at-will. Nonetheless, this idea of “you’re always one of us,” a.k.a., “we own you” is an increasing – and increasingly problematic, if one-way – construct in the contemporary workplace.

I have written about this before, regarding the case of Professor Colin Wightman at Acadia University. And, I discuss a similar example that occurs in one of my participant organizations in my research. This premise is further evidence for me that Identity-valence has become dominant in the UCaPP world. It is easy to interpret this from the ground of a sort of indentured servitude—we pay you, therefore we own you. Given the centuries during which Economic valence (that is, fungible-Economic valence) has been dominant, it’s easy to understand this reading. Additionally, and especially in BAH organizations, the reciprocal nature of f-Economic valence has not been recognized as balanced: the cliché of “fair value for money” is rarely recognized and practiced by corporate entities. There is, of course, a corresponding resistance from the members of the organization seeking to make such an ownership claim. From the traditional “separation of work and life” perspective, these sorts of claims are as repugnant as they are intrusive. However, in an ironic sort of way, an employee protesting the intrusiveness of an ownership claim is, in effect, reinforcing not only the ownership claim itself, but also the dominance of an imbalanced f-Economic valence as the structuring force of the organization. Both of these, I submit, are obsolesced constructs in the UCaPP world.

When an employee says to their boss (organization), “what I do when I’m off the clock is my business, not yours,” they are also essentially saying the converse: “when I’m on the clock, yes, I agree, you own me.” The employee constructs themselves as no more than a mercantile service, defined in strictly f-Economic terms. All other considerations are secondary. If their mercantile service expressly does not include, say, providing insight on policy, or creating new inventions, or improving the efficiency of the operation, or reporting on quality of service lapses, any contributions made in these areas are strictly voluntary contributions to the wealth and wellbeing of a privileged few (see Marjorie Kelly’s book, The Divine Right of Capital, for an excellent treatment of these sorts of issues, and why U.S.-style capitalism is a contradiction in terms). Employees who separate their identities in this way accede to the “rightness” of hierarchical privilege, arbitrary imposition of policy, and exclusion from decision-making in their organization. This, to me, is highly problematic and anachronistic in ways that I discuss at length (in the section on “The Natures of Organization”).

However, when viewed in terms of Identity valence (even fungible-Identity valence), the nature of Thornley-Fallis’s claim of “you’re always one of us” becomes ever so much clearer. Both individuals and organizations reciprocally construct their identities in relation—in relation to their employees, their customers, their sister, parent and partner organizations, and ultimately, to the communities of which they are a part. When Tiger Woods decides to practice his putting outside of his home course (sorry), the identities of those organizations for whom he is a (paid) spokesman are equally sullied. Naturally, they quickly distance themselves from the golf superstar. Perhaps less famous, but no less connected, each member of an organization is the organization. But equally, the organization is its members. It is not sufficient for the members to take on their organization’s espoused values (let alone its in-use values). The organization must respect and embody the collective values of its members. Those in the organization with legitimated hierarchical status must understand that they cannot legitimately impose unilateral policies in a UCaPP environment and expect their members to accept them without critical conversation, no matter how reasonable the sugar-coating may sound. Indeed, in imposing a “we own you” policy (admittedly, well sugar-coated), Thornley-Fallis is causing harm to the persons who are their members by requiring that they unilaterally give up their values if not aligned with those of the organization. And, I would go so far as to guess that there has not been an explicit conversation among all members as to just what those collective values might be, or whether dissent becomes a firing (or constructive-dismissal) offence. Identity valence must be a two-way relationship in an organization that purports to be consistent with contemporary times.

And by making the claim that they are “hip” with social media, Thornley-Fallis must either be truly consistent, or admit to social media hypocrisy – not hip, but a wannabe hipster. So, Joseph Thornley, which is it? (Here’s a hint: brandishing the title, CEO, ain’t hip with being UCaPP.)

(Thanks, Leigh!)

[Technorati tags: thornley-fallis | employment | values | social media | communications policy]

Final Thesis Section Now Posted

After five years of work, the journey now approaches its end. Today, I have posted the last section of my thesis on the Valence Theory Thesis Wiki.

This last section - Meaning: The interplay of figure and ground - describes Valence Theory specifically: the five valence relationships, the two valence forms, and the notion of "effective theory of action." It contextualizes the research findings (from the section, Figure), and describes some of the implications, including, The Nature of Leadership, and Effecting Organizational Transformation.

As with the other sections, each chapter is preceded with A Conversation with Nishida. In particular, the conversation, The Place, describes the philosophical foundation of basho ("place" in Japanese) from which some of the Valence Theory constructs are derived. The other Conversations are both entertaining and thought-provoking, setting up the mindframe for the content chapter to follow.

As always, I invite your comments, critiques, feedback, and suggestions. If you are a research participant, this is your last opportunity to provide input and guidance with respect to how your contributions are represented.

Thank you to all who have contributed their comments on the draft so far. And, once again, a special thanks to those organizations and individuals who participated in the research, without whom none of this would have been possible.

Happy reading!

[Technorati tags: valence theory | thesis]

The Future of the Academy, Courtesy of Critical Commons

Any resemblance to university presidents of large, research universities being run more like capitalist businesses is strictly coincidental.



Critical Commons: obsolescing copyright since 2009.

[Technorati tags: critical commons | copyright]

Hello Chicago? History is Calling

David Olive has a useful column in today's Star. In it, he describes John Cassidy's analysis in The New Yorker, explaining how the still-in-denial Chicago School of Economics not only misread, but misled American policy makers into the financial debacle from which we are still recovering. Olive notes,

It was the Chicago-influenced lawmakers who relaxed government supervision of financiers with their eyes on the main chance, oblivious of the consequences if their ego and avarice led us all over a cliff. This rankly irresponsible behaviour by the masters of the economy seemed to be validated by the Chicago school's unshakable belief in "efficient-markets hypothesis" and the "rational-expectations theory." The former assumes that the prices of stocks, houses and other assets accurately reflect all available information about economic conditions. The latter insists that all economic players, from everyday citizens to high-rolling CEOs and investors, are both acutely knowledgeable about the economy and act wisely on that knowledge.

Both theories are pure bunkum. And never has there been a shortage of experts with a sense of history to explain why – John Kenneth Galbraith, an economic adviser to three U.S. presidents – being a prime example with his steady output of corrective tomes until his death in 2006. ... What becomes evident, and is downright frightening, in Cassidy's account is how deliberately untutored are the free-market Chicago school economists in ... economics.

Cassidy's full article is behind a New Yorker paywall, but he has posted transcripts of his interviews with key Chicago School figures, including Judge Richard Posner, who has converted to Keynesianism. Well worth the read for those who want to understand what we are up against in attempting to bring the 21st century into, well, the 21st century. Remember, it was Chicago's Milton Friedman who (in)famously said, "a corporation's social responsibility is to increase its profits." To which I say, not in my book.
[Technorati tags: david olive | john cassidy | chicago school | economics]

Bureaucracy Kills

Today's National Post has an article by "Ishmael Jones" and "Michael Ross," respectively former operatives of the CIA and Mossad. They describe how the CIA's bureaucracy prevented information about the Christmas Underwear Bomber from properly being assessed and disseminated within the agency, and to those who needed to know at the TSA. They write:

There are so many managers and administrators, in so many separate and loosely organized chains of command, that not only is acquiring the intelligence a stroke of luck, but getting it to where it needs to go, on time, is almost impossible. This is in sharp contrast to the Israeli intelligence community, which has worked to eliminate unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and implemented clear lines of communication and guidelines for inter-agency intelligence sharing.

The Mossad’s organizational culture scorns bureaucracy because it recognizes the danger in excessive layers of management. Its counterterrorism division alone supervises and directs all terrorist-related intelligence obtained from overseas sources. The intelligence received is promptly assessed, analyzed and disseminated as an actionable product in accordance with strict terrorist-threat protocols. This information is put into the hands of end-users who will employ it to address the threat — such as allied intelligence agencies and aviation security officials. Israel’s intelligence community has learned from hard experience that bureaucracies and hierarchies are ineffectual in fighting terrorist networks.

Ironically, according to various permutations of Structural Contingency Theories, the internal structure of an organization is, more or less, supposed to match the external environment in which it exists, or to which it must respond. Ideally, then, the CIA should quickly transform into an amorphous, decentralized network in which "when nobody is in charge, everyone is in charge."

That last bit, by the way, is taken from my thesis draft, specifically from the next chapter to be posted (expected in about three to four weeks or so). In other words, the CIA would do well to begin thinking about a transformation towards becoming a more UCaPP organization. Perhaps that's why the Sitemeter tracker logged a hit from the CIA domain recently.

[Technorati tags: CIA | bureaucracy]

Valence Theory Findings Now Posted!

After an intense two months of writing, the Findings chapters are now available and posted to my Valence Theory thesis wiki.

I have restructured the thesis into three parts: Ground (the invisible context), Figure (what is noticed), and Meaning (the interplay of figure and ground). These newly posted chapters comprise Figure, and tell the stories of the five participant organizations, as well as providing a summary of the characteristic differences between BAH and UCaPP organizations in seven categories: Change, Coordination, Evaluation, Impetus, Power dynamics, Sense-making, and View of people.

Of course, I would be interested in hearing your feedback and thoughtful reflections on my analysis. Organizations that are seeking to transform or gain insight into their current situations may find the results gleaned from others instructive.

For quick reference, direct links to specific organizations are:
Organization M, Organization A, Organization F, Unit 7, and Inter Pares.

As a reminder, Organizations M and A are BAH organizations. Organization F was transitioning from being mostly a UCaPP organization to becoming more BAH in nature. Unit 7 has been transitioning in the other direction, becoming more UCaPP. And Inter Pares is the archetypal UCaPP organization.

As always, the Conversation with Nishida chapters are intended to set an appropriate mindframe for the analysis to follow.

PDFs for the three posted Figure chapters, and for each of the Conversations, are available for downloading at the site.

[Technorati tags: valence theory | findings]

Assault and Aftermath

I was assaulted today. Not metaphorically assaulted—a guy punched and kicked me; there was a trip to Emerg, police report, witness statements, the whole nine yards. Without getting into the details, (except to say that the incident was unprovoked by me aside from what the assailant may have perceived that caused him to fly into a rage), I’m pretty shaken up by the entire incident. But more disturbing than the physical upset, the bruises, and the post-adrenaline drag is the question of the level of both latent and expressed rage that seems to be pervasive these days. This goes far beyond lack of civility and manners. It seems that many people become violent at almost no provocation, sometimes with tragic consequences. (In fact the circumstances of my assault this morning are strikingly similar to those of Mr. Skinner’s attackers—no pun intended.)

That the world has become stressful to an extreme is not news. That people believe that their individual concerns, schedules, work priorities, or the few seconds of travel time saved by driving through red lights and stop signs are more important than anyone else’s concerns is a significant problem: It seems to demonstrate a type of collective, pathological narcissism that does not bode well for the survival of our society. As a social animal, we humans require the rest of the “pack” to ensure both our collective and individual survival. Sociopaths destroy the material from which the fabric of society is sewn. As an increasing number of people transform from responsible fathers, mothers, wives, husband, business colleagues, charity volunteers, soccer coaches, and hockey moms into channels of unbridled violence at the slightest slight, ultimately that fragile societal fabric is ripped asunder, and we are all inevitably lost.

McLuhan famously said that violence is the quest for identity. Although that may be true – a threat to one’s identity is often met by degrees of violence acted out in any number of ways – it is time, I think, for each of us to reflect on our own pent-up frustrations and latent rage. To heal the world, we must first heal ourselves.

I know that the man who attacked me was apprehended and charged. I hope that he will be able to use the lessons of the process he is about to face to reflect on how he can heal himself for the good of people who care about him, and for the rest of us as well.


[Technorati tags: assault | violence | rage]