Adding diverse conversations to corporate responsibility

I have just finished teaching a couple of final year undergraduate modules on ethics and corporate responsibility. The first thing I do is to ask them about their own values and ethics in practical ways, drawing on their workplace experience if they have any. I have come to realise over the years that paying close attention to personal ethics and how these play out in organisational life is a new to many of them. But that does not mean that they do not care – most care deeply. I then ask them to define corporate responsibility in a few sentences and to explore any tensions that might exist between themselves and corporate life. So, I thought I would share my own personal provisional definition here:

Corporate responsibility are those vital diverse relationships that we form within the organisation, our customers, suppliers, communities and elsewhere. They enable challenging and supportive conversations so we stay alert to the customs and behaviours that we all fall into that may hinder or support long term attention to humanity and the environment recognising the importance of doing so in a financially sustainable way

Here I am keen to stress the importance of how we interact with diverse voices in ways that can change our view of the world and the decisions we take. Without this corporate responsibility is a recipe closely adhered to by an incompetent chef. Not only are the meals poor but our chef is incapable of adapting to new and changing ingredients. And it is this diverse social awareness and our ability to adapt to what is changing around us that I see lacking in the corporate responsibility debate at the moment.

Advertisement

Research validity: the hurly burly of the here and now

Credit: In Your Head, 2021 (w/c on arches), Dean, Graham (b.1951) / Private Collection / © Graham Dean / Bridgeman Images

October sees the publication of my latest paper in the Journal of Autoethnography. I say ‘my paper’ there are actually three of us, Janet McCray, Emerita Professor at the University of Chichester where I work and Adam Palmer from Winchester University. It has taken over five years!

The topic is validity of research. Validity is one strand of the ‘holy trinity’ that marks research quality, the others being generalisability and reproducibility.  However, this stamp of quality comes from a particular paradigm of detached, scientific objectivity; namely positivism. Speaking as a former scientist this has its own enormous merit, but it is not the kind of research that excites me now. I am interested in subjective interpretivist research where the researcher is a part of the research picture. Here research insight often gradually develops through the social interaction of people wending its way through avenues that are hard to plan for or predict. In short, it is emergent. It is the type of research practice well suited to studying people in everyday life doing ordinary things.

So, how can we look at the topic of validity in this emergent way of thinking as opposed to the positivist mindset? That was our task. We have been working together for years and have produced quite a few papers on action learning. It was on one conversation that Adam noted that we were not being true to ourselves, in his words …:

The methodology in the recent draft of our paper just did not give voice to the challenging conversations we have had, given the emergent nature of both the methodology and how we had come to understand our research material.

That set us on a path. We recorded our conversations, wrote narratives of striking moments that happened (such as presenting a research paper at a conference) and wrote letters to each other about what we were noticing in our work together. We were following a collaborative autoethnographic approach. This is where we become inquisitive of our own practice and thought. We would then share those insights with each other for a further round of reflection and insight to work out what really mattered. We were paying attention to the fine grain of our research practice and the detail that would otherwise go unnoticed, those fleeting moments that you catch in the corner of your eye. The point we were making was this: the quality of research improves in the hard work of reflective noticing and talking about what we were noticing. It is work that reveals the bias each of us has about how we see the world and make judgements. In this sense understanding our bias is best made in the interaction with others who themselves see the world differently. It is an argument that tethers the need for diversity to the quality of research.  We call it validity in action. This is in contrast to the positivist mindset where there is a focus on planning of quality before hand and post-hoc. We were interested in the hurly burly of the here and now in what we called the peripheral goings on as we work together.

Warwick, R., McCray, J. and Palmer, A. (2021) Collaborative Autoethnography: Its Use and Revelations in Management and Leadership Research and Publishing. Journal of Autoethnography, Vol 2, Issue 4: 380–395.

I (we) professor

Wittgenstein in New York, 1965 (screenprint), Paolozzi, Eduardo Luigi (1924-2005) / Pallant House Gallery, Chichester, UK / © Pallant House Gallery / Wilson Gift through The Art Fund / Bridgeman Images

In September I take up my new role as Professor at the University of Chichester. Since I heard about my promotion to this senior academc role I have been mulling over what it means.

So far, it is all about me. However, I want to come back to that word – academic, it means to be a member of the academy; a collection of people with a shared interest in learning, teaching and knowledge. For me that centres around management and organisational learning and development.

So who are those people that had a role in my development? You can see why I am asking the question – whilst we focus on the academic (or the person) we nearly always forget the academy (the social melee that formed them). Clearly I am making a more general point here.

In addition to my family here is a short list: the community at the University of Chichester that I have been lucky to be part of for the last eight years; the Association for Management Education and Development (AMED), particularly Bob; the Complexity and Management Centre (CMC) at the University of Hertfordshire and its offshoots over the world, particularly Ralph and Patricia; the conscious business community, particulalry Pete; DARK, my writing buddies Alison, Kathy and Douglas; former colleagues in the NHS, particularly those bosses who saw something in me that I did not; the Mayvin community who are at the centre of something really interesting in the field of people and organisations, particularly James and Martin; former colleagues at London Metropolitan University and Cass (now Bayes) Business School; and there are more.

So, it is not all about me. Just as I have benefited from the support and encouragement of all these people my responsibility increasingly is to do likewise.

Consequences and choices of life through digital interfaces

Picture credit: Me 4 (digital), Davis, Scott J. / Private Collection / Bridgeman Images

Increasingly our experience is mediated through a digital interface, or system, of some sort. This raises important questions as to how we understand and engage with the world. Here I am going to take two examples of being an external examiner at a large UK university and an associate editor of an academic peer reviewed journal to explore the consequences and choices.

Example 1: Along with others I am steering a special issue of a journal through the blind peer review process and we are getting towards the end with some very exciting papers. To make the process more efficient, cheaper and easier to scale there is a digital interface that links me to the reviewers, to the authors and the editor in chief. It is a system that is widely used despite having the feel of something that has been designed by a 14-year-old on work placement. The interface forces us to answer closed questions such as: accept, reject or changes required. There is little opportunity to share uncertainty or be explorative that you might have in a conversation. I am not saying that the double-blind peer review is not important – it is. However, we can challenge the system that has been created for us and to ask questions. In other words to engage in it in our terms. We also have choices as editors. In the special edition that I am working on we encouraged some of the reviewers to have a conversation with the authors after the first round of anonymous per review. Clearly this has to be done carefully and sensitively being aware of the power dynamics at play, but it did create something novel. I was struck by how some (but not all) authors and reviewers were enthusiastic of the idea with one reviewer writing back with ‘How amazing is this!’ The nature of the conversations created several ‘a-ha’ moments, of bridges of mutual understanding being created. And finally, there was an honouring of the authors’ and reviewers’ work. This was just an experiment and would not be suitable for all journals, but it gives a flavour of the choices that we have. In short, we can challenge and mix things up and create new connections and understanding.

Example 2: Being an external examiner I need to look at the university programme through the eyes of the student, to make sure the work is of the right standard, to understand the teaching and to assure myself that marks are compared and moderated. In short to get under the skin of the programme and its culture. However, in the course that I am an examiner for student work is in one system and the marks, feedback and evidence of moderation is in another. And then I have to log into a separate system to get to the learning and teaching materials. There are quite a few modules, each one with several cohorts. As I plough through the work with lists and notes of what I have looked at there is a problem.  Despite being impressed by the work I cannot quiet get a sense of how it all holistically connects together. The samples of work do not yet amount to the wider landscape that would assure me. The systems take me down clear tracks without offering me the opportunity to explore the terrain.

Both examples question the interfaces that funnel our attention in pre-set directions yet miss the bigger picture.  I am advocating for a subtle change of emphasis that pays more attention to person to person interactions and how these might unfold in new and exciting ways. I am suggesting is that these interfaces be used lightly. By this I mean that those that design them should be cautious about how they funnel our attention as users. For us as users to be more curious about how systems are shaping our world and to take active steps to take our own path and to challenge what is happening.

Backdrops, Zoom and Culture – a year on

Working in my study …

In the UK it has been a year since the first lockdown as a result of covid-19 and I have been working mostly from my study, a situation common to many people. A few days ago I met someone for the first time on a Zoom call. They were slightly late and flustered and reeled off various things they had to do before joining including ‘to sort out my background’.

What is it about a Zoom background that now has to be managed like one’s appearance? What to show, what do we conceal, what is it to appear professional, what glimpse of the family person do we offer? These are questions that our Zoom world now forces us to answer. Also, how much choice do we have: are we forced to use the corporate backdrop and are we constrained by our personal circumstances. And then there are the random guests: lockdown dogs, stroppy cats, children keen for attention.

Like many I have been influenced by the work of Edgar Schein (Schein, 2004, p25-37) particularly his thoughts around levels of culture. Here he draws attention to the interconnections between the artefacts we see in an organisation, the espoused beliefs and values we talk about and finally how these are rooted in the underlying assumptions and taken for granted perceptions and feelings.

In the absence of offices, staff restaurants, corridors, lifts, reception areas, workshops etc how do we sense our new world – the artefacts we see in an organisation. Coming back to my new friend, I become fascinated by her neatly curated backdrop; the small plant in its glass box, the white shelves the books (some lying flat, others vertical). In this sense when we are joined by a few people in ‘gallery’ mode we are creating a shared work environment. It will be fascinating to see how this comes to affect an organisations culture over the longer term. I was talking to someone at work about my experience when she said ‘I’ve always loved your study Rob, the books, the things around you, it looks so interesting … but I couldn’t live like it.’ Even if we don’t make a conscious choice about our backdrop it creates an impact, or at least a ripple.

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (Third). Jossey-Bass.

Zoompartheid: Brave New World 2.0

It is 2022, the 90^th anniversary of the publication of Aldous Huxley’s dystopian book Brave New World. Comparisons are being made to what working life has sadly become. People now talk about Alphas, Betas and Gammas to describe how they have slotted into the new reality.

Alphas occupy the physical world of actual offices and face to face meetings. At the top end, the Alpha Double Plus are citizens of world jetting between one major world city and another – these people are hyper-connected, they have done well. Aspiring Alphas (ie children of Alphas) go to the best universities and develop their contacts and social capital just like people did in the Old World (as people now call it).

Betas occupy the digital world where people communicate through plastic windows between one bed/spare room and another. Taking their orders from the Alphas there is little chance to shape ideas. Betas have become frustrated; there is no career progression. Opportunities to work with more senior people on projects, to experience the organic nature of organisational life, to take responsibility and shine have dried up. Generic e-courses offered free by the mega tech giants have replaced dedicated learning and development.

Gammas occupy the world we do not see. They wear HiVis jackets, badges with their first name, ties and uniforms and give us our own personalised coffee. They have experience, qualifications and degrees that have yet to catch the slipstream of neatly defined job descriptions. This is the most diverse group, they see the world differently, opportunities and problems that other don’t get. Here lies creative potential.

Company CSR reports and micro-sites show different faces starring back at us, inclusion metrics are looking up. However, there is no mobility of thought, each group is stuck and caught up in their own world without the imagination to see worlds as others do.

Back to today. You might agree with all of this, or see the possibility in just some of it. You might even see evidence of this today. For those of us who work in organisation development there are choices about relevance and responsibility about what we do now. Here are three ideas:

• In a world that is increasingly digital how do we create an accessible learning environment that is both equitable and engaging. Equitable in terms of making sure that people have a fair opportunity to take part. Engaging in terms of reflecting the new developing real world and how they can develop their choice and agency.
• How we break barriers between the Alphas, Betas and Gammas to enable people to see the world as other do, to be creative and see new possibilities, to create happenstance and chance that is important in development. Afterall, each of us has a story or two about a chance conversation that made us see the world differently and set us off on a new path.
• The chances are that people will increasingly work for more than one organisation at any one time. For the Alphas their networks already exist. How then do we support others to achieve this? This calls for outward focused organisation development to accept that people develop on a wider stage of ideas and experiences.

We must prevent ourselves sleepwalking into organisational life with less social mobility and fairness. Instead we need to take brave steps to enable people to make the most of their potential in a changing new world that we are just starting to see.

Presence with Rothko

I’m by myself in a large room wearing a mask. In front of me is Black on Maroon 1958 by Mark Rothko and around me six other Rothkos. It is Saturday 6^th September and I am at Tate Britain Turner Rothko’s exhibition with Linda who is in another room. We are emerging from the pandemic, death rates are still falling, but winter is ahead. London is quiet.

I have been looking at Black on Maroon for about five minutes and my awareness of myself and what is happening around me is changing. I’m drawn to the top right hand corner where Linda casually asked me if I had noticed some red before going to look at the Turners: a brief comment and my experience is different.

As I breathe out my glasses mist slightly, inhale and they clear. I’m aware of the pressure on the bridge of my nose and the warmth on my face. My experience of Rothko is different today, my mind travels back to last year at Tate Modern, the last time I saw his work. Normally I’d be tumbling into the painting (that is the only way that I can explain it); the clatter, talking and bustle of those around me in a busy gallery both annoying and intensifying my experience. A few rooms away I can hear someone walking with rubber soles on polished floor and I sense the squeakiness in my own feet, ankles and shins.

For several years in my twenties I used to go to yoga classes with Linda, it was the focusing and meditation that became important. Sitting in front of Black on Maroon 1958 I was aware of myself, my state of mind, the reaction and rhythm of my body. I was able to travel back in time and relive experience and together the present and past felt jarring and created something new, a further twist of presence.  Hearing those footsteps took me to another place in my imagination that I felt bodily connected to. Organisational life to me is about being and noticing, particularly those moments that come and go in a blink yet seem to change the mood and how people are with each other. These moments can impact on the choices made and the direction of an organisation so are important to pay attention to. For Rothko is a form of workout and enjoyment.

Artful ways – practice-based learning.

In our latest project James Traeger and I have returned to the traditions of smudgy ink and thin paper of the pamphlet. At its heart is a reminder that we are people and change happens through relationships, in all their forms. Here we make the case that development comes from getting close the grain. By this we mean that we can find rich learning in the fine detail of our day to day work and the relationships that sustain or diminish our efforts.

Tight knit arguments and focused data sit under the influence of the scientific method. This has led to all manor of good things (and a few problems), but it is not the whole story. In fact it suppresses other ways of knowing, particularly when it comes to being creative and artful and it is this that we explore.

To read our smudgy pamphlet here it is: Artful Ways Pamphlet

Academic publishing – peer review and rejection

To my friends in the business and management academic community, a few of us have become fascinated by the peer review process and rejection in publishing and research, particularly when it comes to motivation. In many conversations it quickly becomes clear that this is a taboo subject and one that people feel very strongly about. Like all taboos, we feel that this is a stone that needs to be turned over. We would be very much like to hear your experience. Here is a link to our questionnaire. Please feel free to pass this onto others who might be interested. We will post our research finding later.

 

Obvious, it’s obvious really

A few days ago Douglas Board, a friend and writing partner or mine, and I ran a Zoom workshop for organisation development professionals. The topic being:

Working with changes in the obvious: why do meritocracies produce glass ceilings

The aim of our session was to ask the question, why is the obvious not obvious to us and what might the consequences be – in this case unintentional effects of creating better and fairer places that sadly can result in the opposite. At least they can do without careful attention to the unintended, and how difficult this can be. For an exploration of some of the ideas we explored at the workshop click here.

However, in this blog posting I want to make some broader observations notably that the obvious is anything but! In a reflective conversation with Douglas after the session we focus on this and the experience of running a workshop for thirty people on Zoom, click here.

At the University of Chichester, I run an MBA for experienced managers as well as an MA in Leadership and Management. I know lots of things about the subject. There was a striking moment in my early thirties when I was presenting a strategy to a group of directors.  In an hour my paradigm that management was all about rational clear-headed argument and evidence was turned on its head. I had realised the importance of power, anxiety, conflict, influence and politics during the course of a very mundane side conversation about catering arrangements for the meeting – what were they doing and why? I can look back to see that this helped spark my long-held interest in management and leadership.

When I work with participants on our programmes a part of my work is knowledge sharing, but this is second order, it is not where I believe that I add the most amount of value. After all, when it comes to knowledge in management there are no ‘proofs’ like you will find in mathematics but ideas, fads and rules of thumbs that tend to work backed up with empirical studies, philosophy, sociology or psychology.

Instead I shake people up so they perceive their ‘obvious’ in new ways: they see it, feel it, hear it etc in a way that they can make sense of and act. And from that action further noticing of the obvious occurs and the ripples continue. I could be running a workshop on decision making and strategy, facilitating an action learning set or having a one-to one coaching conversation – they all shake up the obvious, albeit in different ways.

Perhaps those conversations with Douglas, writing this blog, reflecting on my own work has made obvious to me that little bit more is obvious. And so our work goes on.

Picture credit: Multi Color Abstract 2, 2018 (photo) / © Susan Vizvary / Bridgeman Images