Managing and Leading Change in Organizations

A review of the sustainability of organizational development and change initiated by the management.

‘Change is the only constant in life’ or so, said an ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, ages ago in the fifth century B.C.

That maxim holds good even today and will probably continue to hold good in the future as well. When we consider a business and its sustainability, change is the predominant feature that is evident. Much like an individual, an organization is also born, goes through a difficult process of survival during the initial years and then goes on to fulfill its potential and in many cases, exceed it. What makes that possible is the organizational leadership’s willingness and ability to accept change and act accordingly among others.

Every organization works within a broad niche and acquires a certain percentage of the market it operates in. Over a period of time, it either becomes the market leader or one of the top players in its niche. There is no way this can happen without a lot of effort and sense of purpose which are virtues that only the leaders of the organization can visualize and implement. In a competitive market, there is a constant pressure on the competitors to not just hold on to their respective market shares but also to grab additional market share, which is possible only when they appreciate the rules of adaptation and change in such a competitive environment.

Backward integration

One common feature in most growing companies is the prevalence of a strategy called backward integration. It’s nothing but increasing the footprint of the organization within the larger niche. For instance, when FedEx, the logistics major, decided to purchase RPS, it had the fast turnaround local shipping business in mind. This was nothing but integration backwards to enlarge organizational footprint as the FedEx management felt the need to change their approach toward small local shipments in the age of ecommerce which will control a substantial part of global logistics business in future. They knew they had to do it to sustain their business.

Backward integration is the first major decision for any successful business that has managed to come out of a difficult initial period. It is also the first major change in the approach of the said business as it begins to see the growth opportunities more positively and optimistically. However, an aggressive company could use backward integration as a tool to gain monopoly in the niche, which is not an ideal situation according to most people. These situations lead to hostile takeovers that in turn, cause uncalled for turbulence in the stock markets.

Use of green energy

We are in the era of ‘carbon credits’ which certify companies adopting different strategies aimed at environment protection and use of renewable sources of energy. This transition is not easy for a huge establishment to perform but willingness and ability of the organizational leadership often makes it possible. For massive organizations used to cheaper and more easily available energy from hydrocarbons and smokestacks, such radical shifts to green energy can earn them massive carbon credits in the form of subsidies and easier bankrolling.

To observers watching the organization from the outside, this might appear to be an easy decision, given the strong logic behind going green. However, for those running the business, it is a decision that can only be taken after going into painstaking details about how to replace the conventional sources of energy with green energy resources. Such decisions can make or break their organizations as well as their careers but if the leadership has the willingness and ability as well as the reasons to go green, nothing can stop them from making the change.

Ethical sourcing of products

In the fast evolving global economy, product sourcing is becoming increasingly localized. Many fast growing third world economies are building up huge export surpluses in their trade with western countries but there is also an intriguing side to their trading practices. In many of these third world economies there is rampant use of child labor to produce goods that are eventually exported to the West. Exposure of such dubious trade practices by volunteer organizations has caused the necessary outrage but for the sourcing company it is a new challenge and ideal to live with.

For a retailing company making huge profits through the sale of products it imports from a third world supplier that uses child labor, it’s difficult to put a stop to all such supplies overnight; more so, if the law hasn’t yet caught up with what’s going on. In such a situation, if the management can rise above petty commercial considerations and proactively decide to stop sourcing products from suppliers who use child labor, it would not just be a welcome change but will indicate high ethical standards and win the business a lot of market goodwill.

Change for the sake of change most often doesn’t make business sense. For instance, if an airline company decides to hire only former models as its in-flight crew just to make news and win headlines, and eventually price their tickets way above the prevailing market rates, it will prove to be a loss-making proposition before long. In course of time the business might end up in unacceptable losses and shut down. To begin with, the former models would only be available at much higher wages than the average flight steward, thereby pushing up the cost unnecessarily.

A look into the histories of most successful business conglomerates would show that their leaderships made the right decisions to bring in the right changes at the right time in most cases. The standard that we get to see most often is that a growing organization marches ahead on a few niches simultaneously; the company’s flagship business which operates on one of the niches, might not remain so after a couple of decades when another business in a sub-niche might take over. Far sighted leaders begin work on this kind of long term change years in advance as they are able to see the opportunities in the horizon better. 

Nathaniel Gage and his Paradigm Shift in Educational Research

Educational research had a different orientation till a little over two decades ago when the emphasis was on an objective and scientific approach. The critics of this approach were active much before and were relentless in their pursuit to get educational research out of the close-ended absolutes that a scientific approach implied. Nathaniel L. Gage, who is considered to be the ‘father of modern research on teaching,’ (Sullivan, K., 2008) had been closely associated with educational research and thinking for the last half a century or more. Essentially a modernist, who stood for a scientific approach toward teaching, Gage appreciated the scale of opposition to a complete scientific approach but cautioned that science and objectivity cannot be ignored altogether.

Basis of rejection of the scientific method

The criticism of and the eventual rejection of the research on the scientific method of teaching was based on a number of factors which collectively came to be known as the Antinaturalist Critique. So severe was the criticism of the research on scientific method of teaching that it was said to be “at best, inconclusive, and at worst, barren” (Gage, N. American Educational Research Association) Other criticism have been no less harsh, even going to the extent of saying that teaching based on such methods would encourage thinking that “can only be implemented in an authoritarian, manipulative, bureaucratic system” (Gage, N. American Educational Research Association).

The Antinaturalist Critique argued that objectives related to human development especially teaching and training cannot be implemented merely on the basis of scientific facts and figures that could be inadequate. A scientific approach is not appropriate for regulating teachers’ relationships with their students as there is a lot more in such relationships that are way beyond the boundaries of what science can possibly cover. The art of teaching and learning must not come under the influence of prediction and control that a scientific method implies; rather, it should rely on insights and observations to regulate the teacher-student relationship.

There were other schools of criticism of the scientific method of teaching led by a group known as the Interpretivists. Their argument is that individual actions are based on their interpretation of a given situation or reality because an individual is perfectly capable of constructing his own reality and act accordingly. This is because individuals differ in their responses to identical scenarios and any scientific approach is likely to overlook such subtle differences.

The other major criticism came from a group known as the Critical Theorists who argued from the social reconstruction point of view. In their opinion, an individual’s social background considerably impacts his ability to impart teaching or absorb learning; all other factors are secondary at best or not worth deliberating upon. They suggest drastic changes in the whole structure of society which they say is grossly unequal for education to be imparted fairly (Hammersley, M. Educational Research and Evidence-based Practice.)

As a result of such multi-pronged attacks on the educational research of the 60s and 70s that focused on a methodical, scientific and objective approach, there has been considerable churning of ideas and approaches such as those that were covered in this review. In the end, the scientific approach lost out against the relentless criticism from different groups of researchers that had turned a new corner since 1989. Research on the scientific approach came to a standstill as scholars lost interest in what increasingly began appearing as a dead end with grants and funding drying up completely. Even journals, that used to publish literature on the subject, stopped doing so and before long this entire area of study became history.

 Natheniel Gage, an educational researcher who worked on the scientific approach, also knew its limitations and advocated respect for a rational approach that also took the best of what the scientific approach had to offer. There is no doubt that the scientific approach had its drawbacks, but as Gage had cautioned, research on teaching methodology would remain poorer if the best of what the scientific approach achieved, continue to be ignored. There are no absolutes in this field and it would be an irony if the very forces that struggled against the absolutism of the scientific approach were themselves to conclude that they are untouchable.

References

1. Sullivan, K., 2008. Stanford Report. [online] Available at: <http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/september10/gage-091008.html>

2. Gage, N. American Educational Research Association [online] Available at: <http://www.bamaed.ua.edu/elpts/644/readings/Xeroxes/Gage.pdf >

3. Hammersley, M. Educational Research and Evidence-based Practice. [online] Available at: <http://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OwWlv3MPnL8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA151&dq=the+paradigm+wars+and+their+aftermath&ots=ff_PKpcIqP&sig=-2LG1RSgJdjfdLfDYD4n7nlyssU#v=onepage&q=the%20paradigm%20wars%20and%20their%20aftermath&f=false>

Pioneer of Modern GREEN Movement - Aldo Leopold and his Land Ethic

Aldo Leopold’s thoughts and ideas were a long way ahead of the times he lived in – the first half of the 20th century. As probably the first acclaimed and acknowledged environmentalist and ecologist, Leopold had stated way back in 1949 that, humans needed to adopt a new approach toward the land that sustains them and learn to love and respect all the elements that constitute land in its entirety. Right from microbes to flora and fauna, humans, right on top of the food chain, have a responsibility to preserve and sustain land in as pristine a condition as they can.

“Land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.” This famous statement by Aldo Leopold, (“Leopold’s Land Ethic.” AldoLeopold.org.) the father of modern environmental and ecological movements, is like gospel to conservationists, the world over. A born environmentalist, Leopold grew up under the careful guidance of his father who taught him to value the land and everything that it sustains. He is the first contemporary conservationist who advocated a course correction in land use from the traditional economic standpoint to one that encompassed ethical issues related to sustaining the land and the eco-system that it supports.

The traditional economic approach toward land was and continues to be indiscriminate exploitation of its resources without any concern about its sustainability. In purely economic terms, there is no scope for feeling, understanding or loving a resource base like land or any other resource because it only studies the productive capacity of the said resource and doesn’t consider any other virtue that it may have. Leopold urged a change in this approach and explained that humans should consider themselves as just a part of land like the flora and fauna and all the other elements that it supports. They should not think of themselves as the central element with exclusive rights.

Leopold’s land pyramid 

A simple stratification of Leopold’s land pyramid indicates four broad categories of elements that are a part of the ecosystem of the land – at the bottom are the tens of billions of microbes; above this is the mind boggling flora spread all over the land; the next strata on top includes fauna of all varieties; and finally, right on top of the pyramid are humans. However, humans should not take their position at the top for granted and recklessly exploit the land for all its resources but feel for the land and utilize it judiciously to minimize the impact of human habitation (“Leopold: Biotic Drama.” 04 Oct. 2012. Earth’sEye.wordpress.com.) This would only be possible by introducing ethics in any and every interaction with land that humans are involved in. 

Ethics are essentially a set of principles, that guide us in our conduct and instills in us a sense of what we should do or not do based on what we believe to be right or wrong. Therefore, we need to be aware of what is wrong in our conduct in relation to land especially when it involves indiscriminate exploitation of land for our economic needs. The fundamental plank in this thought process is that humans should consider themselves a part of the land’s biotic community and not as an exclusive entity. If the human body is taken as an example, no part can be compromised or frittered away unless it becomes a medical necessity to save the individual’s life.

Carrying capacity of land 

Humans are also a part of land and its biotic environment and cannot act against this mother element that sustains all other entities. The ‘conqueror of land’ mentality has contributed in a major way to large areas of land being exploited to an extent where nothing can grow. Many such areas have been turned into deserts as they have been shorn off all their assets. Such adverse effects of human intervention on land have severely limited the capacity of land in these areas to sustain life in any form. Therefore, human encroachment on pristine land should carefully look at what is it is uprooting, what it should avoid doing altogether and how it intends to make good for all the things it has displaced or destroyed.

Land ethic as propounded by Leopold, is a highly advanced concept which is the precursor to the modern conservation movement and all that it has managed to achieve despite spiraling growth in population and pressure on land and its resources like never before. There is no doubt that a great deal more needs to be done because the effects of shrinking green cover over vast stretches of land has had a devastating effect in the form of global warming, weather changes and rising instances of natural disasters. Land ethic teaches us to respect the eco-system of the land we live in and take as little from it as we can.

References 

1. “Leopold’s Land Ethic.” AldoLeopold.org. 12 Dec 2012 <http://www.aldoleopold.org/AldoLeopold/LandEthic.pdf>

2. “Leopold: Biotic Drama.” 04 Oct. 2012. Earth’sEye.wordpress.com. 12 Dec. 2012 <http://earthseye.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/leopold-biotic-drama/>

A Democratic Media System of the Future

The proverbial fourth pillar of democracy after legislature, executive and judiciary, is a free and flourishing media, also known as the fourth estate. So much so, that no country today can claim to be democratic if it doesn’t include a free media. Interestingly, in free market capitalist economies most of which are democracies, there are oligarchies that control certain sectors of the economy that often includes the media. Could it then be said that such systems are truly democratic? Barring those who are connected to the oligarchies controlling the media in such economies both as employers and as employees, most people would conclude that there is a serious drawback in the democratic system in such countries.

For media to function optimally, it is important that there are no vested interests either in the form of the government of the day or big business oligarchies or monopolies controlling it in any way. As a vital pillar of democracy, media itself has to be free from all forms of control wherein every media outlet has enough internal democracy within its own organization to uphold its integrity and interface its audience without fear or favor (Hind, Dan. 12 Jul. 2011. OpenDemocracy.net.) While it is true that media outlets have to survive harsh economic realities to stay in business they can successfully resist pressure or interference by big businesses and powerful elements within the government on the strength of their revenue model. The media outlets themselves have a responsibility in this respect.

Why democracy in media is critical

The basic objective of the media is to engage the general population through the 2 streams of mass media – news and entertainment as well as a contemporary innovation that has come to be known as infotainment. The entire process is highly creative, research oriented, and intellectually demanding in many instances. It is in fact, a very sensitive pillar of democracy and the enormity of its place in the system of democracy should be understood well by the people running the media outlets. One of the main challenges for people running a media outlet is a well-defined approach to profit-making. An overt and indiscriminate profit motive is bound to lead the media outlet into the waiting embrace of big business oligarchies.

Therefore, a media outlet would do well to focus on producing content that serves the consuming public at large, use the power of technology to reach out to the maximum number of people as well as promote citizen journalism and alternate journalism to enrich and consolidate democratic functioning within the organization. The media should also act as a watchdog against misdemeanors by those in power including both political as well as business leaders, since powerful people tend to misuse their positions and the power they hold. There is no other way for the people at large, to know what the government and big businesses are doing or not doing in their country (Murphy, Patrick. “Media and Democracy in the Age of Globalization.” SunnyPress.edu.)

How the “Imperial Presidency” of Nixon fell

One of the enduring stories of how relentless media exposure brought down a powerful group of men running America under the leadership of President Nixon, is that of Daniel Ellsberg in 1971. As a Pentagon insider, Ellsberg knew all that was going on in the name of fighting a just war in Vietnam where millions had already died including tens of thousands of American servicemen. He was convinced that the Vietnam War had to end, and decided to expose the lies, deception and misuse and abuse of power by at least 7 presidents including the then president, Nixon to justify their actions in Vietnam.

Ellsberg’s revelation shook the whole country’s conscience and led to the disgraceful exit of President Nixon but it also underlined firmly and forever, the critical role that media can play in checking those in power from going too far beyond their mandate. It led the then secretary of state, Henry Kissinger to dub Ellsberg as “the most dangerous man in America.” Years later, a feature film titled, ‘The Most Dangerous Man in America’ vividly told us the story and reminded us to honor the role of media as a vital pillar of democracy.

Objective of a democratic media system

One of the main objectives of a democratic system in the media is that media outlets should be more oriented toward public service and less toward a profit motive. However, the profit motive should not be lost altogether, for they have to survive in an increasingly competitive market with the threat of being taken over by big businesses, always looming. The media outlets need to evolve more as institutions than as businesses; the business end of their organizations ought to be more in the nature of social enterprises where profit motive is not the over-riding objective. The strangle hold of a few oligarchies in media ownership has to be ended for the greater good of society and the media itself.

It is not always just the big businesses that hijack the media outlets to drive their own selfish and greedy agenda as there are many media professionals who indulge in disgraceful practices that dilute the media’s credibility and make them easy prey for takeover by the big businesses. Media outlets have to guard against sensationalizing events by going on overkill and ‘doing a story to death’ so to say. Many profit driven media outlets resort to such tricks and gimmicks to leverage the higher ratings resulting from such make believe coverage and reap unfair and unethical gains in their advertising revenues (McChesney, Robert. “Making Media Democratic.” 1998. BostonReview.net.) The discipline among media professionals have to be impeccable if media has to sustain its credibility.

3 Decades after exposing Nixon, media is misled by Bush & Co.

After 9/11 a vengeful President George W. Bush was looking for an opportunity to make a point about how America intended to respond to the ghastly crime. For reasons best known to him and his advisers Bush decided to attack Iraq, then under the repressive rule of the dictator, Saddam Hussein. What followed was a sustained propaganda campaign linking the 9/11 outrage to Hussein and his regime and gradually covering it with a convenient caveat – WMDs or weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly hidden by Hussein. Later events would prove that these were lies and concoctions meant to fool the media at a sensitive time in the nation’s history.

In the highly popular TV documentary, “Buying the War”, host Bill Moyers, analyzed how easily mainstream American media bought the Bush administration’s WMD excuse to wage war in Iraq before taking in the baseless allegations of that country’s role in helping the 9/11 perpetrators, hook, line and sinker. As the war in Iraq keeps draining the US treasury when the country’s overall debt is said to exceed its GDP, the same media is introspecting how it literally partnered Bush and his team in going to war against Iraq. It shows that 3 decades after Vietnam, the media forgot what those in power can do if they are allowed overreach themselves.

How journalism and flow of information should evolve

As a vital pillar of democracy, media has to be closer to the people it interacts with, more than those that try to control and use it to serve their own selfish interests. Advances in technology have made it possible to involve the consumer more closely and intensively than ever before. Today, citizen journalism is an integral part of all media outlets of any value and if the trend continues as it is expected to, it won’t be long before the consuming audience realizes its stake in media. Just as the citizens are serious about their stake in the legislature, executive and judiciary, they would take their stake in the media with equal if not more seriousness. The media is truly a primary institution of democracy and is probably the most interactive of all other institutions that support democracy.

Prevent corporate ownership of media outlets

There is no way, the oligarchies and monopolies should be allowed to continue to take advantage of an evolving media and make money to meet their selfish goals. The interactivity, that citizen journalism offers, has the potential of making media a truly representative striking arm of democracy. Questions have been raised in the past and are being raised now about the role of big business conglomerates in manipulating media to present distorted, untrue and misleading content to pursue their selfish aims. Citizen journalism, by its very reach and empowerment of the ordinary citizen, offers the best hope toward establishment of a truly democratic media system.

Strict enforcement regulations by the government

The government should have no ownership of media outlets in any manner just as big businesses should be prevented from owning media of any kind. The role of the government should be confined to legislating laws forbidding ownership of media outlets by the government or any arm of the government as well as by big business conglomerates directly or indirectly. This should be followed by strict enforcement of the regulations with heavy penalties for those who dare to violate such regulations. At the same time, the government should enlist the support of the smaller media outlets to spread the word around that media will be best sustained in the hands of smaller enterprises operating not merely for profit but also to fulfill a social responsibility within the democratic framework.

References

1. Hind, Dan. “A blueprint for a democratic media system.” 12 Jul. 2011. OpenDemocracy.net. 10 Dec. 2012 <http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/dan-hind/blueprint-for-democratic-media-system>

2. Murphy, Patrick. “Media and Democracy in the Age of Globalization.” P. 6. SunnyPress.edu. <http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/61516.pdf>

3. McChesney, Robert. “Making Media Democratic.” 1998. BostonReview.net. <http://www.bostonreview.net/BR23.3/mcchesney.html>

Strong Leadership is a Balance of Task and Maintenance

A strong leader is normally imbued with a number of qualities. Of these, his ability to mobilize and motivate his team to complete the task at hand and maintain consistency in operations is a critical one. Good leaders are able to identify the KRA (Key Responsibility Areas) of the different individuals in their teams and designate the right resources to the right assignments. One of the biggest challenges for a leader is when he has to deal with overlapping priorities, especially while he dealing with his teams assigned with the completion of tasks on the one hand and those that are assigned with maintenance functions on the other. Tasks imply comprehension and execution of plans and meeting benchmarks while maintenance involves regulation, surveillance, and troubleshooting among others. No good leader can afford to allow these functions to get mixed up between his teams entrusted with either of the respective functions (Leading is Learning. 2012.)

The qualities of a strong leader normally leave a distinctive mark across different facets of his team. A certain line of reasoning does suggest that a leader is only as good as his team, yet there are numerous instances when leadership change has been able to galvanize teams that have had no prior track record of excellence. Apparently, it was the effort of the leaders in these cases that brought the best out of teams that were not known to be achievers in their line of work. Efficient leadership qualities are an inseparable part of great team performance and it is borne out by scores of turnaround and comeback stories. Among the different factors found in corporate governance theories, many have focused on the balance that successful leaders achieved in streamlining the task and maintenance functions in their organizations (Scoll, R.W. 2003.)

It is necessary to understand the fundamental nature of tasks and maintenance in an organizational framework in order to analyze the role of successful leaders who have been able to strike the right balance between the two. Tasks essentially pertain to execution of assignments – in other words, getting the job done, while maintenance relates to a regulatory function interspersed with an emotional dimension. Across different industries, high efficiency levels are not merely the result of jobs that get executed with ruthless accuracy because a significantly large part of such functions are handled by humans under different levels of stress that require proper management (Sound Options Group. 2012.)

Certain fundamental aspects of organizational policy should be in place for the leadership to be able to work out the right balance between tasks and maintenance. Organizational policy should be based on the premise of equal opportunity and unbiased appraisal of personnel, irrespective of hierarchy. This means that the leadership should adopt a policy of functional and total transparency in the structure and implementation of the processes of the organization. For any kind of balance between task and maintenance the workers must demonstrate mutual respect for each other’s roles and responsibilities. Respect follows understanding and appreciation and hence, the leadership must ensure that workers are adequately briefed about the importance of the roles and responsibilities of their co-workers (Team Climate Survey).

Characteristic features of tasks

Tasks normally follow a sequence of activities that revolve around execution. The stage of execution is reached after several other processes have been completed or are set in motion. Here is a standard sequence of tasks that are performed by an organization (Akins, L.M. 2001, August.)

Initiation – Normally, it is the leader who initiates the execution of the task or project after it has gone through all necessary processes to reach the stage of execution. The leader charts out the road map, identifies the resources for specific roles and responsibilities and spells out the guidelines as well as the deadline.

Clarification – The resources in this capacity requests updates from team members on the level of understanding of the task at hand as well as seek and disseminate information on any development worthy of note.

Knowledge sharing – The resources here, share suggestions, and substantiate emerging implications, as well as visualize the impact of an idea if it is implemented.

Synthesizing and summarizing – The resources in this case define the links between several proposals, coordinates these proposals and integrates them to the functions of different sections of the task group.

Viability and quality review – The resources here recommend suggestions based on analysis of the situation, explore viability of new suggestions and rationalize decisions. They also evaluate team achievements in accordance with task group benchmarks and goals.

Troubleshooting – While specific resources are assigned the role of troubleshooters, a good leadership would normally involve the entire task group in a back up plan in the event of things going wrong.

Typical maintenance functions

Maintenance functions range from regulatory to synergistic and provide a vital support framework to the task group among others. Good leaders are quick to realize that for the task groups to perform optimally, the support of a robust maintenance team is crucial. Some of the typical maintenance functions are:

Build confidence – Being appreciative and giving credit where it is due, empathizing with team members and maintaining an open door policy with respect to ideas and suggestions not only leads to a warm and friendly environment but also makes team members more responsive and proactive.

Listening with patience – Most problems, not just within organizations but anywhere else, are solved when counterparts listen to each other. For one, it cools down a charged atmosphere and second, it improves understanding of the other side’s views. More often than not, this leads to an increase in the knowledge absorbing ability of the team members which positively impact their overall performance.

Fairness in appraisal and troubleshooting – One of the main causes of friction in an organizational setup is the victim mentality in sections of the rank and file. This is normally connected to a team member’s performance evaluation or while handling a crisis when errors have to be identified. Such situations require sensitive handling and any kind of bias can be disastrous for the organization. Therefore, the leadership must ensure proper balance of opinion while handling such situations. (Group Dynamics.)

The response to a particular situation can differ as much among teams as it can among individual members. Depending on what the response is, entire teams or parts of it or even a single individual could display unruly behavior, become domineering and stubborn, try to gain control over certain other team members or become combative and show other undesirable traits. It is necessary for leaders to appreciate that a team could have individuals of different natures and credentials as well as belong to different age groups and genders. Such diversity is bound to impact the disposition of the team and its functions. For leaders aiming to achieve optimum levels of performance from their teams, the importance of balancing tasks and maintenance can’t be underscored more. They are two distinct areas of operation requiring different situations and skill sets to perform. It could even be said that they require specific levels of specialization and can’t be performed on a hunch or on a non-essential basis. The consistency level or clash of opinion within the framework of a team is generally caused by the different operational backgrounds of specific team members and their obligation to team objectives. It is critical for leaders to keep an eye on the inner dynamics of their teams and tackle any discontent before it is too late.

References

1. Leading is Learning. 2012. Group Maintenance as Creative Leadership. Retrieved from http://leadingislearning.org/2012/08/21/group-maintenance-as-creative-leadership/

2. Scoll, R.W. 2003. Leadership Overview. Schmidt Labor Research Center, University of Rhode Island. Retrieved from http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/webnotes/Leadership.htm

3. Sound Options Group. 2012, August 24. Balancing Task with Maintenance: Part 3. Retrieved from http://soundoptionsgroup.com/2012/08/balancing-task-with-maintenance-part-3/

4. Team Climate Survey. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/TeamSur.html

5. Akins, L.M. 2001, August. Functional Group Roles. [PDF Document] Retrieved from http://www8.sunydutchess.edu/faculty/akins/documents/Vocabulary.pdf

6. Group Dynamics. [PDF Document] Retrieved from http://www.ibrd.gov.nl.ca/regionaldev/gd.pdf

Rhetoric is Like Rocket Fuel – If Not Channeled Well, It Could Spiral out of Control

‘Gorgias’ by Plato tries to show where to draw the line 

Socrates had a straightforward and often blunt approach toward contentious matters that failed to meet the high ethical standards from which he judged them. His line of reasoning is rather confrontational and persistent, which shook established notions and perceptions out of their comfort zones. As a philosopher who was concerned only with the quest of truth in whatever form, Socrates was not ready to compromise on principles to accommodate a line of thought that he felt could pollute philosophy. In the real though, such principles become hurdles for most people especially those who enjoyed positions of power in society.

The play, “Gorgias” written by Plato, the most distinguished of the disciples of Aristotle, is a tragicomedy which accounts for the death of the Socratic principles that the Athenian high society of that time considered to be dangerous and harmful for the city state. The play is essentially a discourse between Aristotle on one side and Gorgias, along with his two accomplices, Polus and Callicles. Although the theme of the play seems to be an analysis of rhetoric as an art form or vocation, certain other themes also make their way into the play.

With Socrates, widely considered to be the ‘Father of ethics,’ as the main protagonist, the good and evil question couldn’t be far away and eventually does become a part of the discourse in the play. The plot is based on the wish of Socrates to know about rhetoric from the master rhetorician of the time, Gorgias. They meet in the house of Callicles where Socrates begins probing Gorgias about his vocation, which was public speaking, and included the use of rhetoric to achieve the intended effect on the audience. After much probing, Socrates concludes that rhetoric is nothing short of flattery and persuasion and doesn’t really generate any kind of creative output or original thinking.

However, he realizes the disproportionate stranglehold of rhetoric over any idea of power which was an end in itself and was all that mattered in a world where men were ready to go to any extent to gain power and exercise it for his own ends. Socrates knew that power was exercised by ruthless men who couldn’t care less about principles especially those that tend to question their actions. In the play, the inability of Socrates to get Callicles to agree with his point of view on the rhetoric proves that the real world doesn’t approach challenges in the way Socrates does. It triggers the climax with Socrates abandoning his persistent quest for truth and breaking into a monologue, which was contrary to his nature (Blog: Philosophy of Language, 2014).

Callicles was convinced till the very end that Socrates was not a realist and couldn’t get by without antagonizing those around him with his persistent and dialectical method of inquiry. Socrates saw injustice in rhetoric because it often used untruths to mislead the masses to believe what the rhetorician wanted them to believe. This was manipulation of the weaker knowledge levels of the masses which is not what philosophy aims to teach. For people like Callicles who was engaged in statecraft, if someone like Socrates had his way, the world would become a minefield of prohibitions that would not merely stifle government functioning but even adversely affect trade and commerce as all these activities require people to make compromises.

It’s a lofty ideal that Socrates preaches which is understandable when we consider that he is acknowledged to be the leading light of ethics. But his attempts to push his ideas of ethical conduct into public space aren’t appropriate because the world at large doesn’t function under those strict guidelines. The world of politics and business operates on the plank of power which most men believe, flows from might and superiority. And in order to garner might and enjoy superiority, a few sharp men must control the vast masses of ordinary men. Callicles knows that to be the only truth and therefore he looks down on the ideas of Socrates with disdain. For the world of ethics of which, Socrates is the fountainhead, this harsh reality is tragic.

Adolf Hitler’s overuse of rhetoric saddled him atop a rocket that went out of control 

One of the most dangerous of men in human history is undoubtedly, Adolf Hitler who ruled Germany with an iron fist between 1933 and 1945. He has been described variously by many observers and later day historians all of whom were intrigued by this man who, in the words of Joachim Fest as quoted by Bruce Loebs in his paper on the German dictator, “produced such incredible acceleration in the pace of history” (Loebs, 2010) that has no parallel. There have been many other marauders throughout history but none perhaps created the kind of impact on a scale that Hitler did in the space of a mere decade. It devastated much of the world and left a terrible imprint for future generations to look back and learn from.

By his own admission, Hitler rose to power and remained at the helm on the strength of his oratory which reflected the most brazen extrapolation of rhetoric applied by any leader at that time. True, he combined that with maddening zeal for hard work, discipline and daring but what essentially drove the Nazi juggernaut was Hitler’s spoken word. At his peak, he almost had the entire German population dutifully ready to go the distance with him on whatever he did. Many observers believe that he was a genius while many others believed he was a megalomaniac but there was general agreement when it came to seeing him as evil incarnate.

Hitler rose to power at a time when Germany was going through a harsh period with the economy in severe depression, external debt spiraling out of control and the entire country in utter chaos. It was also during this time that the communists were steadily gaining power as the chaotic situation suited their approach perfectly. Large sections of German working classes were coming under the sphere of communism and for a young and sulking Adolf Hitler this was unacceptable. By some quirk xenophobic logic a section of Germans considered Jews responsible for the growth of communism in Germany.

Hitler belonged to this group of Germans and was not just forthright about it but went a few steps ahead to find a Jewish connection in any and every event that he suspected to be a conspiracy against the German nation. While it is true that Karl Marx, who is usually credited with propounding the theory of communism, was Jewish, it would be irrational to assume that he came up with his theory of socialistic ideas as part of a larger plot by the global community of Jews in order to collectively take control of the world. Far from that, he was an intellectual who preached a hard economic doctrine which in his opinion would end socio-economic inequality in industrialized societies. Unfortunately, Hitler and his kind thought otherwise.

This hatred for the Jew is commonly known as anti-Semitism and for the ordinary hater of Jews it was one of those unpleasant things in his imagination that he wished was not there. In most cases it hardly ever exacerbated into anything perennially vicious. Not so for Hitler though. His vivid description of why he found the Jew detestable, in his infamous book, Mein Kampf, was nothing short of pathologic hatred of the Jew. He literally hated everything about them, from the way they appeared to the way they spoke or spelled their names among others. In the backdrop of harsh economic conditions where the Jew seemed relatively well off, it almost worked to add fuel to the fire that caused this mental conditioning.

This was fertile ground for a rabid form of rhetoric to gain ground in the mind of the man who could hardly stand up and speak for himself barely a decade ago when he was just known as Corporal Adolf Hitler. As long as he brooded over his hatred for the Jew and kept it to himself, it was fine but when he began documenting his feelings in what was to become his infamous book, Mein Kampf, it became a serious issue because these very feelings could become public policy if the author of the book managed to get into a public office. Long before he completed writing the book, his hatred of Jews and thoughts on the ‘final solution’ must have taken a concrete shape in his mind and became his conviction.

It can be argued that Hitler was not a natural rhetorician in the sense that he didn’t come across as a cunning and scheming individual who wanted to cheat others. On the contrary, all records of his past indicate that he was not just a brave soldier who fought for his country and won a medallion for gallantry but was also a caring son who wept for his ailing mother. His rustic simplicity was stark enough for his commanding officer to observe that he was a quiet soldier who kept to himself and obeyed orders. It’s quite unlikely that Hitler wanted to use rhetoric for personal gain as was the case with most politicians. His personal attributes were impeccable and his frugality was known to all.

Hitler became a rhetorician through his conviction that he was destined to guide Germany to the pinnacle of greatness that no other nation on earth has achieved. As he reviewed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that crisscrossed the road ahead, he realized that his biggest chance lay in the general feeling of animosity against the Jews in Germany especially in those troubled times. As he began devising his strategy he grew in confidence about his ability to harness the feeling of animosity against the Jews among a section of the Germans and turn it into a wave. He knew that for a race that prided its physical valor he would have to appeal to the physical might of the German race against what he considered Jewish squeamishness.

Hitler was equally scathing in his tirades against the communists as he was against the Jews. On their part, the communists too offered Hitler and his Nazi Party the whip on a platter. The very nature of a communist operation is anarchic and contrary to all forms of liberal democratic functioning. The prevailing depression in post World War I Germany were ideal conditions for the communists too, and they were going about their typical methods of civil disorder along with militant trade unionism that was affecting free enterprise and institutions equally. They were bringing the economy to a grinding halt just to create the right conditions for a violent revolution and take advantage of that to seize power. Hitler was sworn to prevent it.

Hitler went on to hyphenate communism with the Jews and set out to tell his countrymen about how he thought these two faces of the same enemy intended to take over Germany and enslave her people. Alongside, he played up the race theory by telling the German people that they were the torchbearers of the Aryan race and was destined to rule the world (Holocaust Encyclopedia, 2014). He organized his Nazi Party on quasi-military style symbolism complete with uniformed members moving around in parade-ground marches brandishing clubs and attacking communist gatherings and public meetings. It wasn’t long before they began to be noticed by large segments of the German population. Hitler developed the reputation of a leader who delivered what he promised.

By the time Hitler was gaining in reputation as a master public speaker and orator, he was quite clear in his mind about what he had to say. It was going to be monologue most of the time as he would generally address a large crowd of hassled and frustrated working class men who had hungry families to take care. He had methodically put together all his thoughts in his book Mein Kampf and just focused on what he preached in it. The quiet and obedient corporal of the German army that was defeated in World War I, had broken out of his shell and was fluttering his wings in anticipation of the steep flight to scary heights. Adolf Hitler’s rhetoric did not reflect the typical cunning and mendacity of the career rhetorician but was a mixture of brute and blunt xenophobia laced with extreme national pride. 

At the height of his power, almost nine out of every ten Germans supported Hitler. This speaks volumes about the kind of influence he had over the German people and it was unusual for a political leader to have that kind of following even when the craftiest rhetoric is applied. It proves that Hitler didn’t merely rely on rhetoric to win over his countrymen to his side; he delivered what he promised. In just a few years after gaining power, Germany was out of depression and there were jobs for everybody. All the debts were paid up and there was all round prosperity. The German people had good reason to support Hitler and his policies after seeing him at work. Most of them probably didn’t expect him to deliver on what he said about the Jews.

Germans generally thought here was a leader who didn’t just used rhetoric and hyperbole but also delivered what he promised. Delivery by a political leader mostly amounts to economic development and legislating good laws. For Germans of that generation, the disgrace of not just losing World War I but also accepting what Hitler called unacceptable demands of the victorious allies amounted to treachery by the post World War I political leaders of Germany. They just didn’t have an answer to the mounting problems of a great nation that was humbled in war (Degrelle, 1992). Hitler showed the way by regaining for Germany the power and prestige in Europe and elsewhere that she enjoyed before World War I.

As far as Adolf Hitler was concerned, it wasn’t just rhetoric that won over nine out of ten Germans to his side. Mere rhetoric can’t achieve that much. He had restored Germany her rightful place in the comity of nations and he did it through sheer effort and hard work. He instilled confidence in every German that they had it in them to overcome the desperate condition in which they found themselves. Unfortunately, for Germany, their leader was bent on delivering every promise he made including the one about wiping out communism and the Jewish race from the face of the earth. 

Resources 

1. Blog (Posted 2014, Jan. 21) Gorgias: A Philosophical Tragedy. Philosophy of Language. Retrieved from https://abearperspective.wordpress.com/tag/philosophy-of-language/

2. Loebs, B. (2010). Hitler’s Rhetorical theory. Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 1. Retreived from http://relevantrhetoric.com/CharismaTheKeytoHitlersRhetoric.pdf

3. Holocaust Encyclopedia (2014). Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007457

4. Degrelle, L. (1992). How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched a Social Revolutoin. Institute of Historical Review. Retrieved from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p299_Degrelle.html